I disagree with the writer.
scanning for viruses may not be as fool proof as one would like it to be, but the AV providers are always working 'after the fact', that is to say, a new virus needs to be introduced and reported before thay can come up with a remedy.
I am proud to say that I have not been infected since the Happy 99.exe virus in 1999.
I run AVG 7.0 now having moved to it from the free AVG 6.0.
During this period, I have been vigilant, kept definitions current etc.
that is common sense and for me to expect my AV provider to come up with a fix before a new infection is introduced is ludicrous to say the least.
to simply not scan at all borders on stupidity.
david williams
I have always thought the idea of scanning for viruses to be flawed, well certainly as a security measure. Yet nearly all of you reading this article will be relying on just that technology to protect your networks, PCs and laptops.
The last twelve months have provided enough evidence to convince the most sceptical of analysts that the defences are broken and anti-virus scanning is just not up to the job. Slammer, Sobig, Blaster, Swen et al have all managed to wreak havoc with not only the humble home user but corporate users alike. Research carried out by Hewlett-Packard's Matthew Williamson in its Bristol labs has confirmed my belief that the signature approach to virus detection is fundamentally flawed.
Williamson's research, first published in New Scientist in September, found that even if a signature is available from the moment a virus is released, it cannot stop the virus spreading if it propagates fast enough. 'These fast viruses are what we are getting at the moment', Williamson says, adding that they are getting better at being quicker.
http://www.biosmagazine.co.uk/op.php?id=67

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic