Hi Simon! In message mid:15341266296.20021027233602@;theycallmesimon.co.uk on Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:36:02 PM, you wrote:
S> I understand what you are saying, and of course why you logically question S> this, but I personally don't really want to go through a library of virii S> testing each scanner with each virus just to see how they compare. I can S> change the wording if you like.. here goes: S> If, under fair testing, Kapersky and AVG were found to compare equally when S> detecting virii, then there would of course be no real advantage having both S> plugins installed under TB!. However, as I have not tested either scanner S> with a significant number of virii I cannot state with authority that this S> is the case. *Although*, from my own experience in virus detection, Kapersky S> has always detected virii that AVG, AntVir, Norton, and McAfee have not, so S> my own confidence in the product is high, and therefore I personally see no S> reason to have the two plugins running successively. You might ne interested in these sites: http://www.virusbtn.com/ http://www.icsalabs.com/ -- --Scott. mailto:Wizard@;local.nu Using The Bat! 1.61 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 on an AMD Athlon XP 1900 (1.6G real, 1.9G effective) with 512MB. ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
