Mobile Application Testing – 01 Synergy

April 4th, 2012 by Rahul No comments »

01 Synergy offers a complete and comprehensive range of Mobile Application testing services from Unit Testing to User Acceptance Testing. Complexities across handset makers, carriers, locations and operating systems has made building bug-free mobile apps really difficult.

Our areas of expertise include:

  • Requirements Capture and Analysis
  • Test Planning
  • Test case Design
  • Test Execution
  • Defect Tracking & Management
  • Reporting
  • Test Metrics

01 Synergy offers a wide range of Mobile Application testing services, including:

  • Functional Testing
  • Security Testing
  • Load & Performance Testing
  • Localization Testing
  • Usability Testing

Our QA professionals can help you with all your Mobile App testing projects,  including:

  • iOS Application Testing (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch)
  • Android Application Testing
  • BlackBerry Application Testing
  • Windows Phone 7 Application Testing

01 Synergy is here to help, if you have a need to discuss Mobile application testing, agile testing, do count on us to help. Visit us online at or send us a mail here:

BitDefender, Kaspersky top list of best Windows 8.1 antivirus software

March 27th, 2015 by Amrinder No comments »

In sales, they say that you’re only as good as your last month’s figures. Ditto for antivirus software. And right now, BitDefender, Kaspersky, and Qihoo 360 are the best in the business.

AV-Test, one of the two leading antivirus testing houses, released its February antivirus ratings for Windows 8.1 PCs early Wednesday, assessing the 27 or so available antimalware packages on protection, performance, and usability. The results shouldn’t surprise you: The bigger names in the industry rose to the top, while at the bottom–as usual–sat Microsoft.

The bottom line: The message is pretty simple: If you’re just using Microsoft’s built-in antivirus tools to protect your PC, you’re fooling yourself. Either invest in a paid solution or else download a free version from the top vendors. No antivirus solution is perfect, but you need to give yourself a fighting chance.

Antivirus software ease of use matters, too

The tests didn’t just measure how effective each was in protecting your PC from malware of all types; two-thirds of the score assessed how the software performed, and how usable it was. In the latter category, Microsoft scored a perfect six out of six–but so did eleven other vendors, showing how simple most antivirus software is to use. (If you own a Windows 7 PC, there’s a separate list on the site.)

By now, virtually all of the antivirus vendors offer their solutions on a subscription basis; Avira, for example, charges $49 to protect one PC for a year. Avira’s protection includes link-checking to avoid downloading malware in the first place; other suites throw in a firewall as well. But some anti-virus vendors, like Avira and Panda, offer free versions of their software that provide less comprehensive protection without charging you for it, allowing you to build your own custom security solutions as you see fit.

As for Microsoft, some test houses, such as AV-test, use Microsoft as a baseline for comparison’s sake. But Microsoft’s System Center caught only 76 percent of the known malware samples that AV-test threw at it, and 76 percent of the so-called “zero-day” antimalware as well. That’s far worse than the industry average of 95 percent or so that its competitors detected.


Special ops troops using flawed intel software

March 27th, 2015 by Amrinder No comments »

Special operations troops heading to war zones are asking for commercial intelligence analysis software they say will help their missions. But their requests are languishing, and they are being ordered to use a flawed, in-house system preferred by the Pentagon, according to government records and interviews.

Over the last four months, six Army special operations units about to be deployed into Afghanistan, Iraq and other hostile environments have requested intelligence software made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that has synthesized data for the CIA, the Navy SEALs and the country’s largest banks, among other government and private entities.

But just two of the requests have been approved, in both cases by the Army after members of Congress intervened with senior military leaders. Four other requests made through U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina have not been granted. The Army says its policy is to grant all requests for Palantir, while special operations officials say they are working through the requests on a case-by-case basis.

Email messages and other military records obtained by The Associated Press show that Army and special operations command officials have been pressing troops to use an in-house system built and maintained by traditional defense contractors. The Distributed Common Ground System, or DCGS, has consistently failed independent tests and earned the ire of soldiers in the field for its poor performance.

“You literally have these old tired (bureaucrats) stopping the war fighter from getting what they know works,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, a combat veteran and armed services committee member who wants to cut off funding for DCGS. “This is mind-boggling.”

Another armed services committee member, Democrat Jackie Speier of California, said in a statement that DCGS systems built for both the Army and for special operations troops have “failed the warfighter and the taxpayer. … It’s a shame that the Army won’t give the troops technology that works and is less expensive when lives hang in the balance.”

Special operations units have used Palantir since 2009 to store and analyze intelligence on information ranging from cultural trends to roadside bomb data, but has always been seen by top Pentagon officials as an interim solution until their in-house system is fielded. There is an Army version of DCGS and a separate system for special operations, although Army troops can use both. Those who have used the systems say neither one has delivered on its promise of seamlessly integrating intelligence.


Our View: Court-management software failure needs answers

March 27th, 2015 by Amrinder No comments »

A growing Rutherford County has lots of uses for its tax revenue to provide basic services to its residents and to invest in its future.

The waste of $1 million at the Circuit Court clerk’s office does nothing to help provide those basic services or to invest in the future of the county.

Rutherford County taxpayers have invested that million dollars on implementation of a software system for court-management, and, so far, these taxpayers are seeing no return on their investment.

Efforts to develop such a court-management system show a desire to improve the quality of services in the community, but the personnel at the Circuit Court clerk’s office and the contractor for the project failed to develop and implement a workable system.

Efforts to develop and implement the new court-management system apparently were a factor in the defeat of Laura Bohling as Circuit Court clerk and the election of Melissa Harrell to the post.

Harrell, however, also has failed to bring the new software to the point of being a working system.

Currently the Circuit Court clerk’s office is using software from it previous contractor, but that court-management system is antiquated.

Apparently an antiquated system is better than one that doesn’t work at all.

That the state is facing a similar situation with a information-management system for its TennCare program is no consolation. While a million dollars is a large amount for most county residents, the state has lost $38 million on its efforts to implement its new system.

This software for the TennCare program could have expedited the ability of state residents to apply for insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Apparently county and state officials need to take adequate time for selection and testing of computers and related software. Failure to do this only will compound the cost of providing adequate services and bring more losses of $1 million or $38 million.

Taxpayers deserve more answers about why these problems happened and what is being doing done, so they don’t happen again.

The opinions in this space represent a consensus of discussion by The Daily News Journal Editorial Board.


Get Adobe Flash player