Wayne, Unfortunately, the "Guest" that started the original thread used some language that caused some of his/her thread to be censored. I don't like censoring as I'm a supporter of our 1st amendment here in America. However, I understand, and respect, the need to keep this forum clean of vulgarity. It is disappointing that the guest had to do resort to that because I felt he/she had a good point. I would like for you to comment on these statements I consider myself a reletively informed member and a proud supporter of Diamond CS software. I own the TDS-3 suite and am anxious to purchase the pieces of version 4 that will be coming out at an unspecified date in the near, or not so near, future (this matter is one of national security and cannot be discussed). However, I will admit that some of the decisions that I've seen in the recent past have raised some concern in my mind. For example: The withholding of even the slightest hint of a timeframe on the release of version 4 which has been being talked about since I originally purchased the defense suite around one year ago. When I purchased the package that promised the upgrade to version 4, I was under the impression that I'd be getting the whole upgrade. I realize that due to the secrecy surrounding the release that I don't have all the details (and all the details haven't been decided yet); however, through the information that I've gathered via this forum it seems that the product may be fragmented in such a way that in order to get the whole suite, or rather the "additional programs" that I will have to make additional purchases. Don't get me wrong, I like DiamondCS and all the hard work that goes into their products and I'm more than willing to support you by purchasing these products and you deserve the money, especially considering that you do not charge a subscription fee and that you keep your product more up to date with updates than Symantec does Norton. However, I see how people could perceive this decision as misleading. Finally, I know that you are likely to discount the guest's claim that there was a review that showed that KAV detected more trojans than TDS by saying that it wasn't supported with facts. Even if the guest provided you with a link to such a review it could be said that the study wasn't done using proper scientific methods or that it wasn't a "creditable" source. I have two things to say about this and I'll open up to responses. One, I think that defense is a little overused not by TDS, but in general. I would rather hear that DiamondCS detects every trojan detected by KAV and more. I would rather hear that KAV was reverse engineered to discover what was detected and everything was incorporated into TDS. Two, the guest mentioned that most of the reviews indicate that TDS-3 was the superior trojan defense software, but wanted to know why this particular review said what it said. Maybe he/she made it up, but I believe the review exists. When the defense to such a claim is to close the thread it doesn't lend much credibility to the defense. When the guest sites that many reviews seen indicate that your software is #1 but has a question regarding a rewiew that states otherwise, in my opinion that guest has a legitimate question.