-=> My computer told me that Kurt Wismer said to Richard St. John
 KW> false... 400-500 is sufficient for an "in the wild" test only, the
 KW> viruses in the wild are not representative of the whole set or of the
 KW> actual protection a scanner can offer and virus bulletin's "in the
 KW> wild" test bed had only 97 viruses in it... and it tested only file
 KW> infectors... we all know boot infectors are more prevailent in the
 KW> wild than file infectors...
If that was the only testing they did on a scanner, then I would tend to
agree with you that their testing is not good. However they do test the
scanners with a bit more than 'in the wild' testing.
 KW> i don't expect to see a huge improvement...
If the scanners would improve, then you might see some better testing
results.
Virus Bulletin presents the numbers as they appear, they do not read into
the numbers or sway the results. All scanners are given the exact same
testing circumstances, same contamination, etc. Therefore the numbers can
be an indication of a scanners performance.
It does sound like you would prefer listening to an anti-virus
company such as McAfee say,"Our virus scanner is the best because we tested
it ourselves against other products."? Rather than a 3rd party company doing
comparison testing.
RS
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
---------------