Wesley Crawford
Writing at Shield Shelf
About
I'm 44, I work as an IT systems administrator, and my home office in Matthews is where most of the testing on this site actually happens. Three machines on a standing-adjustable desk: a tower workstation, a Mac mini, and a Windows 11 gaming rig. The rig lives on the floor because there's no graceful way to fit it up top. A third monitor on a shelf runs log output while the other two handle whatever I'm actually working on. A wall-mounted whiteboard tracks which suite is installed where, when it went in, and when the renewal date hits.
I've been running this testing regimen for about four years. Eleven suites, six months minimum each, every subscription paid out of pocket. The methodology became more systematic after working alongside my IT coworker Aaron Stiles, who is reflexively methodical about documentation and change logs in a way I'm not naturally wired to be. His habit of writing things down pushed me from casual impressions to actual records. Now I log scan duration trends, CPU load patterns, and definition update sizes the way some people keep a vehicle maintenance log.
My neighbor Jodi Carver, who lives a few streets away and runs a Proxmox cluster in her garage for weekend projects, convinced me to isolate my test machines on a separate VLAN after we started crossing paths at local ISSA Charlotte chapter meetups. The testing setup has gotten more deliberate over time, and I didn't get there on my own.
I cross-reference my results with independent lab data from AV-TEST, AV-Comparatives, and SE Labs. When the lab numbers and my experience point in different directions, I try to explain the gap. The labs measure detection rates on standardized sample sets. My interest is what a suite does to a machine you're trying to work on: background scan scheduling, RAM at idle, how often it throws a notification you have to dismiss in the middle of something. That's a different question, and the answers don't always match.
Not a security researcher. Not a SOC analyst. No certifications to list. Four years, eleven suites, three machines, and a whiteboard that's never quite up to date.
Posts by Wesley Crawford
- How to Speed Up Windows 11 Performance for Gaming and Remote Work
- Is the Norton 360 Subscription Cost Worth It for Home IT Admins?
- Antivirus Glossary: What Heuristics, Sandboxing, EDR and Each Term Mean
- Training Employees to Spot Phishing Links After Our Company Ransomware
- Protecting Personal Files From Ransomware After a Real Network Attack
- How I Use Fortect to Fix Slow Windows 11 Performance Issues
- Why I Use McAfee Total Protection for Family Identity Security
- How to Remove Malware from Windows 11 After a Phishing Attack
- Avast Premium Security Features Worth Paying for on Home Computers
- Best Norton 360 Deluxe Features for Protecting a Windows 11 Gaming PC
- ESET Home Security Review After Months of Testing for Malware
- Is Fortect Safe to Use for Fixing Windows Registry Issues?
- How to Fix Windows System Files and Errors Using Fortect
- Kaspersky Plus Review: Protecting My Gaming PC After the Breach
- How to Choose the Best Antivirus With VPN for Remote Work
- Do I Need Antivirus for Mac Mini Media Centers and Home Servers?
- ESET HOME Security Review: Impact on PC Performance and Gaming Speed
- Norton 360 for Gamers: Real World Performance Impact Benchmarks
- How to Configure Ransomware Protection Settings on a Home PC
- Is McAfee Total Protection Worth It for Identity Theft Prevention? 2026 Update
- Avast Premium Security Review: Protecting Multiple Home Devices After a Real-World Breach
- How to Stop Phishing Attacks After a Corporate Security Breach: 2026 Update
- Best Malware Removal and System Repair Tool for Slow Windows PCs: 2026 Update
- Norton 360 vs McAfee: Why I Chose the $10 Premium After My 2022 Ransomware Nightmare
Disclosure
Some outbound links on this site are affiliate links. If you buy a subscription through one, I earn a commission at no extra cost to you. I only recommend suites I have paid for and tested myself on real hardware. If something performed poorly in testing, the review says so.