This forum requires Javascript to be enabled for posting content
Now as a simple software user, I'm surprised that many of these ratings are so low. I expect to see nothing below 90%, since unless I'm very wrong, it means 10% got by undetected.
Another bit of concern when using percentages is it should also display the total number used in the scan. That way with 100, a 90% score means 10 got away.
With 1000, a 90% score means 100 got away. It's the same percentage, but 90 more got by undetected.
This is why 90% should be an industry standard, since I believe they test several thousand, and a 10% failure rate is too much to accept.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth on this topic, Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
I'm fairly certain MB's post was referring to a list of av test results I posted in this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=479
The pass percentages for av programs in this test are all quite low.
As I said in that topic MB, these tests can be very subjective; open to different interpretations (depending on what is tested and how).
Cheers...JIM
Sorry to disappoint, but my post was NOT directed at the findings you posted. Might say you inspired me to boldly post my feelings, since it's an issue that concerns us all. Am aware that new items are found almost by the second, but that's not the point I was (am) trying to make. Believe the data which is used, is known to all the parties, otherwise the test cannot be fair (does this make sense), Mindblower!
"For the needy, not the greedy"
Jim Hillier
Richard Pedersen
David Hartsock
Carol Bratt
dandl
Jason Shuffield
Jim Canfield
Terry Hollett
Stuart Berg
John Durso
1 Guest(s)