OK, let's discuss your concerns one-by-one:
i just need some more confidence with it. users of other AV can say their product got "desgined for Windows" logo
The Designed for Windows logo is indeed a nice thing. To get it, a program has to meet certain criteria (user-friendliness, proper uninstaller etc etc.). But please keep in mind that it's not an AV certification. All software types (be it text editors, video grabbers, home furniture design or AV softwares) have the same criteria to meet. That is, no virus testing is done at all.
Furthermore, not all users really care if the program strictly follows the Designed for Windows logo requirements. All those little things like default install location, registry keys etc. etc.
Stability is also an issue -- but in this case, avast! is a superior product. All in all, we somewhat felt that it's probably unnecessary to give MS yet-extra money just to get a colorful GIF that we could stick on the website.
..., got level 2 Check-mark...
Checkmark is generally considered as an easier variant of ICSA. Both of these certifications cost a lot of money so we basically decided to go just with one of them. We picked the harder to achieve. That is ICSA.
...passed VB100, ...
Unlike most people on this forum I personally think that the VB tests in fact DO have a value. What doesn't really have a real meaning is the VB100 logo. I mean, to get a picture about the the real result of a test, you absolutely should read the magazine. It usually explains what went wrong if a product failed.
Since the VB subscription is quite pricey and 99.9% of people don't have access to the magazine, we always try to explain in detail what went wrong...(I mean, only if avast fails. Otherwise we're eagerly expecting ovations.
That's why I suggested searching for older contributions on the forum.
BTW it probably only makes sense to monitor the last few tests (e.g. last 1-2 years) - or you really DO care that much how a product performed in 1998?
Thanks
Vlk
