To: Esteban who wrote (27323 ) 5/31/2002 12:28:32 PM From: mr.mark Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110655 i agree on all counts. it's a bit of a mystery and it's good for us to be aware. only answer i can come up with, that is besides the "pay off" accusation, is that the tests are so much more thorough and exhaustive, involving many more exotic viruses than the average user is routinely exposed to, and this is where AVG is falling down. to relate this to the automobile testing industry, think for a minute about all those test drivers speeding through obstacle courses, whipping the steering wheel back and forth, slamming on the brakes, accelerating to high speeds, trying to tip the vehicle over when cornering, etc, etc.... then think of the average driver and his or her normal, everyday use of a vehicle, and the fact that few of these events would ever be encountered on a regular basis. the testing just has to be more stringent than what is normally incurred. that's the best explanation i can find for what we're seeing. to put it another way, when pcmag says AVG missed 6 viruses and gave 7 false positives, i'm saying that it must have involved very uncommon infections. and the same goes for the 14 failures in 15 attempts. it occurs to me that it would be quite telling if we could see a number from each company.... the number would be simply how many viruses their program protects against. symantec uses such a number. as of 5/30/02, NAV protects against 61,155 viruses. i don't know the answer to this question... perhaps an AVG user can respond... how many viruses does AVG protect against? if it's a number less than NAV's number, have we then discovered a possible explanation for these poor results? maybe