>Look Joe, the info I posted was as I recieved it, I was>hoping to bring out the fact that AVG is a POOR virus program,>as I have personally found out, and many others also.>>Whether people choose to accept the info, or rip it to shreads>thats up to them.>>I was only trying to highlight the fact that the many people>using AVG because its FREE, may be putting themselves at>risk.>>I wont bother in the future.>>Dan.Dan,No need for that tone really. If you read my posts above, I was not defending AVG, I removed it from my system long ago. I use Avast and provided links to that.You stated in your first post and bragged, IMHO, that only four received 100%. Then you post the email you got from the competitor, which was done on a Win NT System.Are you running Windows NT? If not, why bother even posting this, since most use Windows XP.WHO ARE THE FOUR that passed?I don't think you know, and I don't think you should have stated that in your first post, IMHO. You used their marketing HYPE, without even verifying the integrity of the data, and that makes it even more suspect, IMHO. I was interested in the Raw data, and quite frankly, if it can't be produced, it is suspect, IMHO.My interest was in the Four programs that did pass 100% which you never listed. I was also interested in how Alwil's Avast program did and what platform these were done on.Should you have posted it?Sure, but you also have to take some responsibility for what you posted and not expect people to just believe it because you say so, or especially a competitor that you use says so in a Marketing blast. (which is what I suspect it was)You say AVG is a poor program and you have the right to that opinion. But it may also still be a very good program depending on what version you are running and what operating system it is on. Do you agree with that statement?You are attempting IMHO, to compare apples with oranges, and unless the raw data can be produced to show where this info came from, what versions, operating systems, it is suspect and should be discounted, IMHO.I humbly suggest you contact whomever sent you this, and point them to this thread, provide the underlying data used in this comparison, and let the chips fall where they may.So, in conclusion, it is not about bothering in the future, it is taking responsibility for your own actions, right now, IMHO.Please read ALL MY POSTS AGAIN, please don't assume I have an agenda, because I do not.I truly want to see the data, because that type of stuff interests me, and if you can't provide the source or the data, be prepared for others to take you to task like they did here.Take Care,Regards,JoeJOIN The AVSIM RTW RACE FLIGHT TEAM****************Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

I was one of these satisfied folks with AVG also, but tonight I decided, after receiving some returned emails I never sent, that i'd better scan with a different online scanner from Panda. 7 viri showed up, and were cleaned by Panda, all while I had AVG running and updated daily. Not so good apparently.

Glad that you are now clean, and I hope that you will now install a decent AV program to keep your system clean.Dan.

"(...) Who are the four that passed? (...)"Well, two out of these four are actually mentioned in one of Dan's follow-ups:"(...) A record breaking 28 antivirus products were tested on Windows NT and NOD32 was one of only 4 that achieved a clean sweep detecting all the viruses in all the test sets in both on-demand and on-access tests without any false alarms. NOD32's scanning rate of zipped executable files was more than 2.8 times faster than the second best product and over 9.3 times faster than the last of the products with 100% detection rate. With the exception of Symantec, none of the big "brand names" made the grade with 100% detection in all test sets this time around (...)"So among the "passed" are NOD32 and Norton (= Symantec). As for the remaining two: I don't have the faintest idea.What struck me initially in this discussion, is that people can't read. The saw the word "Norman" which in their virus-infected peanut brains apparently registered as "Norton". That's how idiotic rumors enter this world (grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

Noone mentioned McAfee here. I use it for years and I'm very satisfied. I just switch it off when going to run the FS. I use their firewall as well.