Hello Paul, Saturday, November 9, 2002, 9:06:20 AM, you wrote:
PC> On Saturday, November 9, 2002, 8:43 AM, you wrote: MDP>>> This is a major concern. I would accept their findings without MDP>>> hesitation if it was clearer just how they had been arrived at. PN>> While it might not provide sufficient technical detail to satisfy PN>> your curiosity, here is the link to the description of their PN>> procedure. PN>> http://toronto.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml PC> from their VB100 website: PC> We would urge any potential customer, when looking at the VB 100% record PC> of any software, not simply to consider passes and fails, but to read PC> the small print in the reviews. PC> http://toronto.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200211 PC> they tested version 398 of AVG, which was released the first week of PC> October, yet this says November results. AVG is now version 417. PC> still I can not find anywhere what it failed. PC> and I didn't find any "small print" to read! If you read the url I posted to thomas, http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/pdf/2002/200206.pdf on page 19 (pdf document) virus bulletin review explains clearly why they used a older version of grisoft for the tests. There appeared to be technical difficulties with grisoft. The AVG product caused blue screens, and failed to update properly. -- Best regards, rick mailto:zufandel@;adelphia.net ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
