people comes in forum like this with their ideas (right or wrong) and clichés, it is why we are here to educate those who are wrong and learn from those who are right.
Totally correct.
I'm not trying to twist your words, are you trying to twist mine? I said "for me it only works against the company when people actually check the facts, read opinions, etc, and see it's not like in the ad; at least that's how I react". I meant that's how I react when I go through the same process. In case you didn't realize, the process here was different; I'm the one who brought an opinion here in the first place, I didn't come here to check the facts, I read them already.
You say the user can achieve 100% "detection" of viruses with Windows' own defenses. Well, sorry but that's ridiculous, a UAC alert, for example, is not a virus alert. Of course people can defend themselves with UAC and other Windows settings, but that's not the same as 100% malware detection, and more importantly, they're not part of any antivirus!
I was specificity talking about Panda and its claim to 100% detection. I never talked about winblows UAC or any of that.
But while you are mentioning it let me say that a AV solution comes with general settings that within the right environment achieves 100% detection of the viruses in the wild. And this is what this topic was about.
And i also never said that winblows can achieve a 100% detection with its own defences. Because if thats the case then what are we talking about? It would effective put every AV Solution out of business.
But what i do say is that a AV solution has been tuned to fill the gaps within the Win OS. and Together they can achieve a 100% detection.
Which is obviously not to the credit of winblows because the AV does the trick and not winblows.
I'm the one who brought an opinion here in the first place, I didn't come here to check the facts, I read them already.
Right and that’s ok, fact is that people who read this forum will take things for granted afteral this is a malware forum.
I don't like this kind of advertisement, for me it only works against the company when people actually check the facts, read opinions, etc, and see it's not like in the ad; at least that's how I react. Why do they need to exaggerate the truth if they are really good? I think that question may pop into the mind of many people.
And even tho this is your opinion you are saying that they exaggerate the truth and that this might confuse people.
This really is not the case, because the reason they can claim it is because they have been tested precisely on that claim.
Obviously i see where you coming from, and maybe i was a bit harsh. But as one of the members here on the forum who does have years of EXP its important that people can read between the lines and that people get the right info.
Also you made a pretty big mistake in the initial post:
First I thought it was absurd already because of the fact they're advertising their technology has "100% detection", just like that, as a vague and bold statement that can lead users to believe it, users that don't know, as anyone browsing here does, that there simply is no such thing as 100% detection.
So I followed the link, to check again the AV-Comparatives results and see the 100% Panda must have got in the latest test (although I have seen the results before, and don't remember any 100%s... well, let's see).
Panda never claimed to have 100% protection but it does have 100% detection and AV-Comparatives is a protection test, while the VB-100 certification i posted is all about detection only.
So your whole topic itself is wrong.
And thats why i jumped on this to explain you how it works. Sure as i said i was a bot harsh.
Sorry about that.
But i hope you do now understand what i was trying to point out.
Now here CATCH: A cold bear and happy Christmas
And enjoy your time.
Cheers
