Oh, I see now some picture of it with those kind of happy people that probably have no idea what they are doing. :D

Another chart, much more important.

All those charts just prove that all the AV-discussion is in essence a religious discussion. There is a sect of Kaspersky, a sect of Avast, a sect of Norton, etc and every member of each sect is claiming that his AV is the best while the others are worthless at best and malicious at worst. Which means... that any person should not listen, but should look at the charts and make a decision himself.

One could only wish that religions had charts like this, but that would mean a basis in fact and reality, which most have a fringe or thread at best due to an unchanging canon.

Again, I strongly disagree.

If I understand the chart in your link correctly, I would call this test A FRAUD ON ITS own just by looking at it. PANDA and BitDefender 100% ? Eset 98,9 %? How the hell PANDA, the worst antivirus program in human history can have 100%? Unless of course they deliberately tested them against viruses that they are good at.

Just last month, I saved a 3 friends' computers. One of them had Panda on it and the other 2 had ESET (which is annoyingly popular here). Only thing I did was uninstall them and install AVG, do a full scan, chat with my friends while AVG deleted over 2 thousands viruses. All 3 computers now work perfectly (They would sure call otherwise).

Conclusion, from my own personal professional experience, any chart, test or whatever that shows ESET or Panda as good anti-virus programs is false at best or sponsored at worst.

You may want to read the factsheet to get a better understanding of how the test works. I wouldn't judge their honesty, maybe their competence, especially concerning how their test results are presented. The "real-world protection test" only covers malicious URLs, not viruses in downloaded files and such, it's just several hundred samples per month and the results only cover one month, not a scanner's whole history. It's perfectly plausible that several virus scanners would get a 100% block rate without any prejudice or manipulation of the data and even the bad ones would be very close.

I said that it's clean according to Avast, pointing out that software is clean according to other scanners is about as good as it gets when asking whether a file is infected. And you're wrong, whether the scanner you're using has a history of reporting many false positives is perfectly relevant and is an explanation WHY you got that report in the first place, which should be of interest to you. You're just choosing to be offended by people pointing out flaws in the software you decided to use which is kinda ridiculous. You seem to believe that that implies people questioning your competence which it does not. The way you respond to feedback on your choice, on the other hand...

Wrong. It is. It points out that Norton is bad for your computer.

You asked for advice and you got two replies:
1.) yes, your warning is a false positive (supported by other AV results on the same file)
2.) the possibility to avoid such false positives in the future: get rid of Norton.

Just try it. Uninstall Norton and clean it thoroughly from your computer (it is notoriously hard to get rid of). Then come back here later and thank for the advice. Because you will discover that you computer has actually much more performance than you used so far. Norton is a resource hog. As a bonus, you will have better virus protection and less false positives.

What I don't understand is, why you react so allergically to the statement that Norton is bad. What is it? Did you spend a lot of money on Norton and now you don't want to feel stupid that you did? Or why do you cling to Norton like that, so that you even see the statement that it is bad as offensive?

That's good. :D
Really, I mean it.
I love how to said that; it's a perfect analogy. I'm going to keep that to use myself.

FTFY

we agree on so much, yet remain worlds apart. :P

The sad story of our lives! ;-)

And it was pointed out that Norton itself doesn't flag Galaxy during scanning, This in turn may as well raise a question whether it is a false positive or not. It is up to a user to answer this question. The file may be infected if it was copied from another computer. The file may be injected if it was downloaded through non-secure network. The user should analyse how this file was obtained and only then it is more or less safe to say: false or true.