AntiVir vs Avast

[Gi®on]

(previously posted in software & services)
Hello all...i recently got both of those programs and outta reviews they score pretty well now i know that you cant run both programs at the same time so i have to make a choice..now i wanna know what do you all think which of the two is the better1 and help me choose

[bigc73542]

In my opinion Avast is far the superior AV between Antivir and Avast.

[rdsu]

You can see some tests in this site AV-Comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org/) ;)

I think that both are a good AV, but if you want a global protection I would suggest avast! Home Edition...

[Pigman]

Currently, Avast is the best (full) free AV out there, at least as far as I know.

AntiVir seems to be getting better, and has heuristics, but I doubt it's currently that great. Avast, according to RejZor, has generic detection, though I've never seen anything about that on the Avast website. It does have heuristics for email scanning, a big collection of virus signatures, and frequent updates.

Just a few other things about Avast:
1. It's not bloatware, but it still looks pretty piggish compared to AntiVir (and probably AVG). It may slow you down if you're using an older computer; if you have a newer one, it probably won't be a problem.
2. I suggest that you don't install the skin support - it takes up HD space and is completely useless.

[MikeBCda]

I'm a devoted avast (home) user myself, and should vouch for another of its advantages that I didn't see mentioned.

Support is primarily through top-notch forums similar to the ones here, at http://forum.avast.com/?lang=ENG . Similarly to Wilders and particularly the Javacool forums here, active participation ranges from the avast team themselves down to folks who got their first-ever computer last Christmas, and just about every level of experience and expertise in between. So helpful replies are typically quite quick -- and the avast team responds quite quickly (with appropriate upgrades) to glitches etc. reported there by users.

Best to all,
Mike

[Joerg]

We have done a test at rokop security (german); you can get an overview here (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=757)
And here are the full test reports:
Antivir (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=765)
Avast (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=753)
You can use an online translation utility like Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) to get the english version ;)

regards, Joerg

[Paul Wilders]

Joerg,

Nice test as ever ;). Give my regards to Roman and the Rokop clan ;)

regards.

paul

[Arin]

dear Giron, why don't you use both, using one as OD and the other as OA scanner?

[Joerg]

-{ Quote: "Nice test as ever ;). Give my regards to Roman and the Rokop clan ;)" }-

Thanks! :) Regards submitted ;)

regards, Joerg

[rdsu]

In my opinion, the only problem of AntiVir PE is not having an email scanning and size of updates...

[Arin]

i agree with you though i'm not missing the email scanner much. the OA part will take care of the virus. the update size and the speed of the update server sticks out like a sore thumb.

[RejZoR]

Nope On-Access module won't take care for that. Do you think OA module can unpack mail packers? Maybe outlooks,but what about Thunderbird or Opera? Not exotic,but its storage database is different then OE's. And when virus/worm is already down,is usually too late. Mail protection intercepts malware before its actually stored on disk,so this is not the same thing.
Mail protection is currently one of most important components since mass mail worms are the most popular malware in these days.

[Arin]

dear RejZor, what makes you think the OA should have ALL of the mailbox unpackers? its just like saying the OA component is insufficient if it doesn't support a particular case of archive. i'd like to point out the case when your beloved AV missed the VB award. everyone said it missed a virus in a HTML file but it detected it when it was extracted from the HTML file. i just applied the same logic and defended AntiVir. if you don't like it then please go on and use AVAST :)

it is too late when the code has the CONTROL of your system. this stands true for any kind of malware. the presence of mail encoded virus won't mess up you system just like that. its a benign state as some poeple would like to say.

[RejZoR]

I'd say better safe then sorry :P

[minacross]

it's always nice to have 2nd defence line ;)

[BlueMoon]

Did you guys in fact used the info as provided by Joerg in his first post over here (using a translator if you need one)? Not taking sides here, but Avast users might be in for a surprise....

Blue

[Chuck57]

I tried both AVAST! and AntiVir PE, or tried to. AntiVir gave me nothing but trouble. Finally, after uninstalling and reinstalling it twice, I gave up.

AVAST! loaded and worked flawlessly from the beginning. Regardless of what tests show, if an antivirus or any program won't download and work without a struggle, how can anyone trust it to do the job?

I'm sure AntiVir is a good program. On my machine, though, it just wouldn't work.

[RejZoR]

Who's deleting my posts again ::)

[Technical]

-{ Quote: "dear Giron, why don't you use both, using one as OD and the other as OA scanner?" }-

Can AntiVir be an OD (bakcup) scanner with avast as the OA?
How do we configure them?
Which is installed first?
In what conditions must the second be installed?

Thanks.
Anyway, you know, I'm an avast! lover ;D

[Pigman]

Owwee. According to the Rokop statistics, it looks like AntiVir is getting better... It's already beating Avast in a few departments, though not by very much.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "We have done a test at rokop security (german); you can get an overview here (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=757)
And here are the full test reports:
Antivir (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=765)
Avast (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=753)
You can use an online translation utility like Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) to get the english version ;)regards, Joerg" }-

Tests referred to by Joerg show AntiVir outscored Avast by a mile.

Another factor- on older computers {such as mine} AntiVir runs just fine. On the other hand, Avast brought my computer to its knees. Also Avast sometimes locked-up my system {it's WinME, so it's admittedly crash prone} whereas AntiVir never does.

[Joerg]

-{ Quote: "Can AntiVir be an OD (bakcup) scanner with avast as the OA?
How do we configure them?
Which is installed first?
In what conditions must the second be installed?" }-

Antivir can be installed as an OD scanner, just uncheck the box which belongs to the guard during the installation process. I have KAV 4.5 as OA scanner and Antivir (among others) as backup scanners installed with no problems.
Antivir installs a service called "Antivir Update" which can safely be disabled (you won't have automatic updates then, but the manual update process works perfectly even with disabled service).

regards, Joerg

[Staind]

I've used both anti virus programs but I prefer Avast! because of its fairly complete program and features. Using AntiVir as a back up scanner may not be a bad idea! Also, I don't get how Avast! could slow down your system unless you're using a very old computer...

[Former avast user]

This is just my personal opinion about avast.

I think the avast developer should improve the following things.

1. Sluggish & Useless skin+graphics, these make avast looks like joke, unprofessional and untrustworthy. Why Norton is the most popular AV? I think one reason is that all Norton's stuff look so professional and trustworthy. Don't tell me avast must make the differece, you have so many ways to make your product different.

2. Simple user interface is so sluggish and unprofessional while advanced interface so difficult to manage and understand in some department.

3. I don't know why avast developer neglects to give us a specific name of malware. I hate to see avast tells me it found " Win32:Trojan-gen bla bla bla... " with almost every trojan, spyware, malware. What about Generic detection? Is avast developer want thier customers utilize other AV's resources to know the specific name of malware such as KAV & RAV single file scanner?

4. Improve detection rate, yes this is what every AV should do.

Sorry if these make someone hurts, this is just my personal opinion.

[tazdevl]

Direct comparison of Antivir and Avast.

http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=757

[Pigman]

Wow. AntiVir beats Avast in almost every department. (Btw, why does it say that Avast has heuristics? Does Rokop count generic detection as heuristics?)

"Former Avast User", I agree with you about the stupid skins, though you technically don't have to install them. (Of course, the presence of skins doesn't mean that Avast is not trustworthy. Though I still prefer my AV not to look like a game...) Though AFAIK every single AV out there describes malware using similar terminology.

[Joerg]

-{ Quote: "Btw, why does it say that Avast has heuristics?" }-

Avast has some kind of heuristics in its mail scanner module as you can see in attached screenshot. A heuristic approach (integrated in its scanning engine) to detect unknown viruses (like Antivir) is not available.

[RejZoR]

Btw this screen seems to be extremely old since Version 4.1 doesn't have nearly similar heuristics to these ones. It was also improved much till now.
But i agree that On-Access lacks heuristics right now. Nothing wrong actually,because it can provide very good detection even without so-everywhere-needed heuristics. There was many tests with AVs with very advanced heuristics,but samples missed difference was only what,like 5 samples max maybe?

Also i don't see whats wrong with skins. If you don't like the main one or ones made by S.Z.Craftec you can mek one by yourself that fits your needs/wishes. I needed one Pro designed with MacOS X design and i made one. No fuzz no duzz two days of work and skin is there.
If you wan't you can make skin that looks exactly like Norton Antivirus if you like that one,or like Panda Antivirus. You're limited to your own creativity. Pre-made skins are just a bouns.

[Joerg]

-{ Quote: "Btw this screen seems to be extremely old since Version 4.1 doesn't have nearly similar heuristics to these ones. It was also improved much till now." }-

Nope, just downloaded Avast and took that screenshot. Move the slider to "Custom" and then click on "Customize" ;)

regards, Joerg

[Technical]

-{ Quote: "Antivir can be installed as an OD scanner, just uncheck the box which belongs to the guard during the installation process. I have KAV 4.5 as OA scanner and Antivir (among others) as backup scanners installed with no problems.
Antivir installs a service called "Antivir Update" which can safely be disabled (you won't have automatic updates then, but the manual update process works perfectly even with disabled service).

regards, Joerg" }-

Thanks Joerg. I'll try that.

I'm reading the rest of comparisons between AntiVir and avast and cannot share the others opinions. For me, avast do not 'crash' or even slowdonw the system. Features can't be compared: avast! is fast superior for me. 8)

[gerardwil]

-{ Quote: "This is just my personal opinion about avast.

I think the avast developer should improve the following things.

1. Sluggish & Useless skin+graphics, these make avast looks like joke, unprofessional and untrustworthy. Why Norton is the most popular AV? I think one reason is that all Norton's stuff look so professional and trustworthy. Don't tell me avast must make the differece, you have so many ways to make your product different.

2. Simple user interface is so sluggish and unprofessional while advanced interface so difficult to manage and understand in some department.

3. I don't know why avast developer neglects to give us a specific name of malware. I hate to see avast tells me it found " Win32:Trojan-gen bla bla bla... " with almost every trojan, spyware, malware. What about Generic detection? Is avast developer want thier customers utilize other AV's resources to know the specific name of malware such as KAV & RAV single file scanner?

4. Improve detection rate, yes this is what every AV should do.

Sorry if these make someone hurts, this is just my personal opinion." }-


So your answer in relation to the topic (AntiVir vs Avast) is (in brief): AntiVir is better?
Or am I interpreting wrong?

[Technical]

-{ Quote: "So your answer in relation to the topic (AntiVir vs Avast) is (in brief): AntiVir is better?
Or am I interpreting wrong?" }-

I'm not Former avast user. I'm Technical. Are you referring to me?

[RejZoR]

Slugish? Norton is the one which is slugish geez. Takes 15 seconds just to open Options menu. avast! does this in 0,05 sec. Also RejZoR-Sharp skin is as professional as it can get. My upcoming MacLoverOS X skin will also fall into this group (professionally designed MacOS X themed skin). If this one will go ok,i'll release one even more classic AV skin with some fancy designed menus.
Can you do this with so professional Norton? Hm no. And how can i trust a product that its interface is a Pro looking and detection rate is a joke? But most of users don't realize this. They just want to see name Norton on their screen. Norton time is over. It was good ten years ago,but today its nothing compared to AVG,avast! or AntiVir. AntiVir Free is ugly,but its at least useful compared to Norton ::)

Also don't see the complication of naming Win32.Trojan-gen.
This is generically detected malware. Don't really know how to name each different if they are picked by the same signature pattern?
Also you need to know about spyware/trojans at least a little otherwise even full name wont help you much.

[gerardwil]

-{ Quote: "I'm not Former avast user. I'm Technical. Are you referring to me?" }-

I was quoting: Former Avast user (guest)

;)

[Technical]

Is anybody else experiencing trouble to access http://www.free-av.com/

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Is anybody else experiencing trouble to access http://www.free-av.com/" }-


The site must be down.

[Technical]

-{ Quote: "The site must be down." }-

Thanks, I thought I was crazy...
But it is a long time anyway... :-\

[Joerg]

Meanwhile you can get a copy of Antivir PE (english) at Computercops (http://www.computercops.org/) (Download -> AntiVirus Tools)

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: "So your answer in relation to the topic (AntiVir vs Avast) is (in brief): AntiVir is better?
Or am I interpreting wrong?" }-

Well, you have been pointed to one very recent test in this thread. Since not all systems are the same, I suggest giving the both of them a whirl for a time and pick the one that feels best.

Ladies and gents,

Let's not turn this thread into a bickering one. No need to bash any software/AV.

regards.

paul

[RejZoR]

No need to bash,i agree,except Norton :P
If they'd add mail scanner to AntiVir and a bit nicer interface (just a few more colors for images,nothing more hehe,16 colors look ugly) i'd even consider using it. Also update system is a bit weird.

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: "No need to bash,i agree,except Norton :P" }-

Nope - Norton included ;).

Solid non offensive remarks and well founded critisism is OK - in regard to all software.

regards.

paul

[Pigman]

Norton, in VB tests, has performed every bit as well as NOD32. Non-stop 100%s for everything.

Of course, that's only with viruses... But still, despite redefining the term "bloatware", it's a good AV.

[RejZoR]

Today one ppl from my local forum throw down Norton because he had many problems with it and installed avast! (yeah i made a good "commercial" there :) ) and he made a Boot-Time scan. There was so many malware that detected list never ended (almost). Dude was so surprised he was thanking me for whole day :) Oh i'm going offtopic again... Try both and you'll se which one fits you best. I can tell you from my personal usage,but since everyone think different you cannot have the same opinion for the same peace of software.

[Paul Wilders]

All,

No offense intended - but let's return to the subject from this thread, OK? ;)

regards,

paul

[xrxca]

-{ Quote: "
1. Sluggish & Useless skin+graphics" }-

I second that opinion, these idiotic programmers who figure cutsey is the only way to go and don't give the user the option of dumping the developers (usually misguided) idea of a 'cute' interface for a "standard" interface should be shot.

There are standards, I know even M$ ignores them at times but please use them or at the VERY least alow the end user to disable your annoying graphics.

[xrxca]

OK, so back on track, the interface caused me to remove avast from my system once I'd done some of my own testing.

I've switched to antivir, and so far have been happy with it, in my own tests (I've thrown a few nasty items at an isolated machine) norton missed two, avast missed two and antivir missed one but had one false alarm (all updated to the same date) As for not having Email checking, I prefer it, I never use outlook or it's dim witted relative so VB scripts haven't been an issue, and all the email items I threw at the machine got caught when an attempt was made to open an infected attachment under antivir. NAV missed one of them completely (even let the damned thing run) avast caught some of them on download, and the rest on opening so what's the diff.
(Of course I also have clamav running on my email server and it catches most before any of my live machines see them)

So it basically came down to the interface for my usage, and avasts is horrid.

One I didn't try was mcafee, it used to be horrible for screwing up a systems settings so got black balled back around '97 in my eyes. I have no idea what it's like now.

[Former avast user]

avast is one of the best AV and has a greatest support forum-support users who never hesitate to help other like you guys RejZoR and Technical. But avast has downgraded by its sluggish-useless-stupid-unprofessional skins and graphics.The AV business is pretty similar to the insurance business we sale the professional-trustworthy solutions to our users, not funny with stupid skins and no matter how effectiveness of avast but if this product looks like a joke I'd say that the ability of competition of avast has alreadly lost.

I didn't say that avast should not offer a skins (users' choice) but avast should base on the plain-simple-trustworthy-professional standard skins and graphics. No sluggish appearance, no ugly skull.

[Former avast user]

> Today one ppl from my local forum throw down Norton because he had many problems with it and installed avast! (yeah i made a good "commercial" there ) and he made a Boot-Time scan. There was so many malware that detected list never ended (almost). Dude was so surprised he was thanking me for whole day

Please be professional, without a clue I can say avast has missed 2k+ malware that AVG 6 Free Edition has caught after I got rid of avast.

> Also i don't see whats wrong with skins

Yes, I agree with you but only with plain-simple-trustworthy-professional standard skins and graphics. No sluggish appearance, no ugly skull.

> If you wan't you can make skin that looks exactly like Norton Antivirus if you like that one,or like Panda Antivirus.

No, I don't want to see avast looks like Norton, Panda but I want to see avast has it own standard skin with plain-simple-trustworthy-professional standard skins and graphics. No sluggish appearance, no ugly skull.

> And how can i trust a product that its interface is a Pro looking and detection rate is a joke?

We have to be honestly, I don't agree with your statemant. Norton is one of the best AV like avast when it comes to detection rates. Norton's problem is that it getting bloated and resource hog with every new release.

> They just want to see name Norton on their screen. Norton time is over.

If this true, I want to see people around the world want to see name avast on their screen. But don't you think why Symantec can do this, not because of its effectiveness, marketing strategy and its professional looking?

> It was good ten years ago,but today its nothing compared to AVG,avast! or AntiVir. AntiVir Free is ugly,but its at least useful compared to Norton

I agree with you in term of Norton's bloated ware and resource hog but not in term of effectiveness.

[RejZoR]

Don't have a clue? This is the most real test you can get EVER. Those samples carried in ZIPs on net to throw them at AVs are no real test to me. Dude had a Norton. Scanned system several times,nothing. Throw it down,installed avast! and almost got heart attack when he saw how many **** he has in there. He's also not a total PC n00b that he couldn't set something right in NAV. Do i need to say anything else? Its obvious. And buy a pair of glasses to be sure. I really,i mean really don't see where the hell did you see avast! skins are sluggish. I mean WTF,sluggish stands for something that takes 3 hours to move to next animation and stutters between transitions,takes 1 hour to load GUI and so on (like describing Norton interface lol). Try any skin,i mean any skin and each and every animates/opens everything in a blink of an eye.
Other problem is if you have ancient graphic card and you have enabled Alpha blending for skins. Then its your problem not avast!'s skins.

And don't see whats so "more" professional in Norton or any other GUI?
Have you ever seen RejZoR-Sharp Skin or maybe my yet not released MacLoverOS X skin? Or Lite-On? They all have the same interface design as those "super professional" AVs. Boy i really don't understand ppls.
Is this bashing just because avast! can change its look and others can't?
Btw BitDefender also offers skin changing. Is it less professional because of this? It think its not.

Otherwise don't hesitate and buy a Pro version. Its interface is professional and plain. Oh yeah there will be also comments about complicated interface and so on. If you have ever used MS Outlook then you won't have any problems (toolbar on the left,controls on the top and main display in center). Otherwise it will take you like um 10 minutes to learn all features in this interface mode.

[Paul Wilders]

I've asked nicely to stick to the subject from this thread. From this moment on, all posts discussing other AVs will be removed (sigh...).

regards.

paul

[RejZoR]

I'm sticking like i can. Were talking about avast! and AntiVir right. Well i can tell much about avast! and not so much about AntiVir. I haven't seen any(or little) comments about AntiVir. No one describes their own experience and so on.
I won't attack anyone if he describes his own experience,but throwing stupid tests in every corner,its just stupid.
And i don't wan't to see they are bashing something because they CAN'T set or understand it (this stands for all AVs,yeah even NAv :) ). And i describe everything as it gets not just: "Norton sux". This is no argument to me and i'm always trying to avoid them.

[Arin]

i admit AntiVir looks ugly when you compare it with AVAST. but when it comes to performance i'll pick the former. i don't give much about skinnable interface. it looks nice on Winamp but an AV is a serious piece of software. i don't think it needs a skinnable interface. the configurability should be nice though. yes RejZor you're right about it when you say some users can't manage some softwares. i usually find posts which says this AV is very bad and it took the whole system with it when it went down. AntiVir never caused any crash in my system. the memory usage is very nice. remember that not all users are blessed with a fast computer or a deep pocket. so its pointless to be rude to someone who says AVAST is too heavy for his system.

[RejZoR]

No,i didn't say avast! is the lightest on resources. Its not,there is still room for improvements,but its also not a resource hog. Something average.

Like 60% of all AV failurs is due to crappy Norton Installer which leaves half of program behind (i think every user starts with Norton). Other 20-30% is by not reading/searching documentation or at least try to search for some feature in menus/settings or asking support and 10% are technical problems or glitches/bugs.

[Arin]

dear RejZor, i hope you know that Windows ME is not as good as XP when it comes to uninstallation and stability. even in ME i've installed and uninstalled NAV atleast 5 times and still i don't get any problem. so don't try to hide AV bugs behind NAV.

AntiVir has some problem with its update server and the size of updates. when those are fixed i think it'll be a wonderful AV. as i said earlier i don't need the email scanner. i'll never need it. i don't know about others but i think with a little CS you can avoid additional system overhead by not using the email scanner. BTW AntiVir lacks the VRDB feature in AVAST. when will be the v4.5 out? i just downloaded the Lite-ON and RejZor sharp. do i need anymore? i think they are they best that there is. no i don't like the MacLover skin.

[RejZoR]

Hehe i understand. Not everyone like MacOS X style :)
avast! v4.5 is half officially scheduled for the end of july. I talked with Vlk,but nothing actually confirmed,he just said it will be most probably ready till end of july or beginning of August.

[WhoCares]

-{ Quote: "

Mail protection intercepts malware before its actually stored on disk,so this is not the same thing.
" }-

Hi RejZoR, tell me how avast (or any mailscanner) does this ?
In memory ? or even yet in the Modem/network cable ?

With Safe Mailclients you don't NEED mailscanners at all

[Arin]

dear WhoCares, welcome to the forum. lol...... i don't think RejZor will have any valid answers for this one. are you talking about MessageLabs service. i wonder why people use those buggy email clients at all. now a days webmail providers are using heavyweights like Norton, F-Secure, Trend Micro to scan your attachments.

[Hyperion]

I currently use Avast as backup,no infections yet,i like the pirate skin,but i 'd like to say that at least for me Antivir has proved battle worthy.once i got infected by Byteverify java exploit,the great KAV saw 1 infected file,Antivir saw 4.I sent the other 3 to Kaspersky ,they replied that they were indeed malicious and added them to their signatures.

As AMRX said,too bad for Antivir that uses that update scheme,it gets really boring with time,specially if you don't use it as primary AV ,so you don't really want to spend much time in downloading new scanning engine every week.

I also like the option in Antivir to scan for dialers,jokes,ecc.

[Arin]

dear Hyperion, AntiVir has a good database for malwares. even comparable with TMIS. if only they could fix this update issue. but the plus point is that they update their scanning engine more frequently then any other AVs......lol. AVAST skins makes it look good but they are near 2MB when deflated. also to get configurability you have to switch into enhanced mode where there is no fancy skins. the configurability is still confusing. no wonder those VB guys failed to configure it if that information is true regarding the failure in VB tests.

[Firefighter]

To everyone from Firefighter!

Against my new 1494 infected archived samples.

Trojan like malware [449];
334 Backdoor & Trojan, 21 Exploit, 16 Script, 15 TrojanDownloader and 63 TrojanDropper

331/449 Avast 4.1 Home

305/449 AntiVir 6.26.0.20


Viruses [908];
77 BAT, 65 Macro, 5 WinHLP, 296 Win32, 418 Worm and 47 Other Viruses

786/908 Avast 4.1 Home

782/908 AntiVir 6.26.0.20


Riskware [137];
27 Constructor, 6 Joke, 6 Keylogger, 63 PolymorphicEngine and 35 VirTool

49/137 AntiVir 6.26.0.20

42/137 Avast 4.1 Home

I basicly don't have rebased and/or repacked malware. According to Nautilus, AntiVir 6.26 has better unpackers. Avast is able to use heuristics only in their email scan.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Arin]

hmm.... looks like AVAST outdid AntiVir in your tests. it'll be a good idea to send the undetected samples to the respective firms.

[anon]

i tested avast! using Antivirus Tester 3.0 and it failed all the tests. I then tested AntiVir and it passed the EICAR tester worm which EVERY AV has to respond to to provide proper protection. And yes i did enable the heuristics in Avast! and set its sensitivity level as high as it would go. And also, I like AntiVir's simple and plain interface because its easy to configure the settings and responds quickly.

[RejZoR]

Just don't try to ever use such tools. They are misleading and they don't prove anything. Good old samples (like Firefighter does) are still the best comparison.

[Firefighter]

To RejZor from Firefighter!

And my samples are actually not so old, most of them less than 2 years, intended to infect WinXP.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[RejZoR]

Hehe,i meant as: "this is still a good old way to test antiviruses" :)

[Firefighter]

To RejZor from Firefighter!

And how good Avast is when someone will check it's ability in email scanning, when it is using their heuristics? I'll bet that Panda Platinum 7.0 has troubles to beat Avast!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[RejZoR]

Well i have done a GFI mail check (you can found it on my page under Online tests). I think that all were detected heuristically except EICAR samples (normal and archived) which were detected by signatures.
This part seems to be very strong. I also recommend to use Custom Heuristics and enable Mail Structure check too. Its a bit more thorough.

[bellgamin]

My logs show that I installed AntiVir-PE on 10/08/03. I used it as real-time monitor (RTM) until 11/25/03, when I purchased DrWeb. Since then, AVPE has been my #1 on-demand & second opinion scanner.

From day 1, AVPE has been rock steady on my ancient computer (233Mhz cpu, WinME os) for over 1 year now.

AVPE updates signatures daily, & has been a VERY frequent updater of it's scan engine, repair dll, & main program. This is good-news/bad-news. It's bad news because downloads can sometimes be rather large. It's good news because it has brought about constant improvements to AVPE as a frontline antivirus program.

Three months ago I trialed Avast for a couple of weeks. I really liked it. However, it was just a bit too heavy of a load for my old box.

From what I have read here at Wilders (especially FF's test data) & from what I've seen at test sites like virusP & Rokop, I get the SUBJECTIVE impression that Avast is a hair stronger on regular malware, & AVPE is a hair better on runtime unpacking -- which makes the choice pretty much a toss-up right now, I guess.

By the way ---- The current beta for Avast offers some features that work on XP, but not on Win9x, right? So I would say that Avast is kinda half-vast for older computers - sayo de gozaimasu ka? 8)

[RejZoR]

Well i'd say why support 7 years old OS (Win9x) if the current new is nearly 4 years old (WinXP) and offers easier way to impliment stuff?
Its just a waste of resources IMO.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Well i'd say why support 7 years old OS (Win9x) if the current new is nearly 4 years old (WinXP) and offers easier way to impliment stuff?
Its just a waste of resources IMO." }-
My computer is vintage 1995, & cannot run WinXP. Arrogance is not appreciated.

[westwind]

antivir has passed vb100 while avast failed.
you may use antivir with etrust ,both of them are free now!

[RejZoR]

-{ Quote: "My computer is vintage 1995, & cannot run WinXP. Arrogance is not appreciated." }-

No arrogance at all. Just facts.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "No arrogance at all. Just facts." }-
In other words you are saying that if my computer cannot run WinXP & use all features of Avast, then I am making poor use of resources?

I have noted that in every thread where you post you insert a plug for Avast, even when doing so is off-thread. I also find that, as you have done here, you turn to personal insults when someone makes even the slightest critique of Avast.

The fact that someone cannot afford to buy a better computer does not deserve your insult that they are a poor user of resources. I am very offended by your tactics in promoting Avast by casting slurs upon my judgment.

[RejZoR]

No i said its waste of resources for developer.
And why all people everywhere take everything so personal!?

Remember! If anything sounds like i'm insulting anyone directly it just looks that way,but i don't mean it. If i have anything personal i do through PM (Personal Messages)
Sorry if my posts looked that way :-[

EDIT:
I also take critics about avast!. Its just a software and as any other its not perfect. It has its cons and pros.

[Technical]

-{ Quote: "antivir has passed vb100 while avast failed.
you may use antivir with etrust, both of them are free now!" }-


Well, eTrust is free for just 12 months... Who knows the future? I just don't like 'freewares' that, after some time, become 'shareware' :'(

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Sorry if my posts looked that way :-[" }-
If you are REALLY sorry, why not buy me a new computer? ;D

Just kidding. Actually, my grandchildren are having a new computer built for me, which I shall get as a birthday present. I'm not supposed to know about that, but the builder (a personal friend) inadvertently let the information slip. 8)

[mercurie]

Oh Bellgamin, how nice. I am real excited for you please share with us what you get. You are using older machines I think aren't you? I am looking forward to new built system after Longhorn comes out for a little while.

Grandchildren that would make it special. I have children. Not old enough for grandlittle ones yet. ;D ;D

[Digger]

-{ Quote: "We have done a test at rokop security (german); you can get an overview here (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=757)
And here are the full test reports:
Antivir (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=765)
Avast (http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=753)
You can use an online translation utility like Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) to get the english version ;)

regards, Joerg" }-

No need to use Babelfish, just go to the middle right of their web page and click on the "Other Languages" and the English version will come up.

[Joerg]

-{ Quote: "No need to use Babelfish, just go to the middle right of their web page and click on the "Other Languages" and the English version will come up." }-

Right, but we only have 4 english articles there and none of the "newer" tests are available in english.

regards, Joerg

[stalker]

Please, if anyone is interested, check this related thread I just opened here at "Wilders Security" forums: My thoughts about AntiVir vs. other anti-virus programs (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=107534)


stalker

[pcalvert]

-{ Quote: "In my opinion, the only problem of AntiVir PE is not having an email scanning and size of updates..." }-

Huge updates are not an issue anymore. A recent version fixed that problem (for the most part).

Phil

[pcalvert]

-{ Quote: "
Another factor- on older computers {such as mine} AntiVir runs just fine. On the other hand, Avast brought my computer to its knees. Also Avast sometimes locked-up my system {it's WinME, so it's admittedly crash prone} whereas AntiVir never does." }-

Same experience here on Win98SE. Avast must not play well with Win9x. I tried Avast for less than an hour. After installation it immediately locked up my PC and forced me to kill the power. After rebooting it was still acting screwy, so I immediately uninstalled it. I might try it again after I install Windows 2000 Pro.

Phil

[Arup]

I have installed Avast in three Win98 machines and they run fine till today, for anyone having issues with 98 stability, I thoroughly recommend the Unofficial 98 service pack from http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

Not only does this patch renew 98's life but it also makes it more compatible with some of the newer hardware plus this patch adds many new stuff as well.

[Kerodo]

I have also run Avast on a Win98 machine here for years with zero problems. Doesn't slow anything down either. Has always worked fine for me on both Win98 and Win2k.

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "Huge updates are not an issue anymore. A recent version fixed that problem (for the most part)." }-
Yep, but still lacks some nice features that avast already have...

AntiVir is very good for an older PC or for an AV backup...

[ellison64]

Antivir i definitly good for low spec machines , and i would say detection is easily on a par with avast.It does not have the bells and whistles that avast has though , and i guess its down to the user whether these are important.The antivir free lacks an email scanner , but detects upon writing to disk anyway.I now have the premium but dont really feel any safer for its inclusion.Avast (as well as mail scanner)has modules for p2p ,and chat programmes like messenger.But personally i didnt really feel any safer when i used avast and the activated modules ,because i knew that its resident shield would get the nasties anyway.Where i feel antivir free lacks, compared to avast, is not the bells and whistles, but in things like on demand scanning options ,ease of updating (at present) and user support which is second to none in avasts favour.Where antivir surpasses avast though is in its low impact on a system.If i could compare these two avs to two well known anitrojans (figurativly of course :) ), i would say antivir is like the boclean family (simple ,in the background,just gets on with it) wheras avast is like tds3 suite family (lots to play with,loads of options ,extra functions).Of course i hope avast literally doesnt go the way of tds3 though :)
ellison

[metallicakid15]

antivir does have a better detection rate than avast by 2% but if you take out script virus detection for avast( which the free edition dosent have) avast will rank even lower than antivir in detection rate.

[gigaman]

The detection capabilities of the free and paid edition of avast are exactly the same - they use identical engines and virus databases.

[RejZoR]

Exactly. Pay attentuion that scripts that are executed via WSH aren't the same thing as script malware. First one is covered only by Pro edition via Script Blocker, while second are covered by all avast! editions.

[Blackcat]

Some of the conclusions in this old thread may have to be changed with the imminent release of AntiVir 7.

However, even with incremental updating with the new version, I would still not recommend AntiVir Classic for dial-up users. Here on my machines in the UK, Classic on dial-up typically updates at 1 kB/s while the Premium updates at 4-5kB/s, irrespective of the time of day in updating.

Further, connection to the Classic servers frequently timed out whereas the Premium servers were immediate and quick.

So, on dial-up, IMHO, AntiVir Premium is a much better choice and it is this version that should be used to compare with Avast.

[vlk]

In the case of avast, the updates will always be coming at the full speed of your Internet connection. This is because we have big redundancy built into our updating infrastructure.

Currently, we have 46 active updating servers (download0.avast.com - download45.avast.com) and each of them provides at least 100mbit steady connection to the Internet (backbone) - some of them even a gbit.

:)

[RejZoR]

Wow, thats wicked sick Vlk (really);D

[rdsu]

A good example of an useful redundancy! ;D

[vlk]

As a matter of fact, it's not as big redundancy as it may seem... Even though avast virus definition updates are typically small in size, they can sometimes grow up to a couple of hundred of KB's...


And you probably don't know how many users we've got;) ::)

[RejZoR]

These update servers probably include program updates aswell which aren't thats small (although they are among the smalles in AV category :P ).

[vlk]

Yeah, but program updates are distributed in time (over 7 days) and so do not pose any problem at all...

New program downloads are worse, at least bandwidth-wise...


But we have a lot of bandwidth reduncancy as well (tens of terabytes) ;D

[Sputnik]

@vlk
How can Awill effort all this server capicity? The home users only cost you money, and are there enough pro users to fill the costs? It's indeed a true thing that I never had/saw/heard about problems with avast!'s update servers ;)

[vlk]

Cost of the updating infrastructure is nothing compared to the cost of technical support (we provide support even for users of the free edition).

But yeah, it still pays off. :)

[Sputnik]

@vlk
Thanks for the fast reply. Sometimes I almost can't believe you still offer the free home edition. I really hope it'll pay off in the future as well!

Maybe there will be bigger differences in functionality between the home and pro when avast! 5 comes out? I mean, the difference now is almost nothing, the advanced interface (wich most pro users don't even use), and the scrip scanner (from what I remember igor said, it could even been better removed).

Maybe avast! will go the same way as AntiVir, so only the base scanner (the standard shield and on-demand scanning) for free, and the additional shields in the pro version? We'll see :)

[vlk]

-{ Quote: "Maybe avast! will go the same way as AntiVir, so only the base scanner (the standard shield and on-demand scanning) for free, and the additional shields in the pro version?" }-


I don't think so. We're pretty happy with the current situation.

Our philosophy is a bit different than AntiVir's. Avast Home Edition is our primary marketing tool, and as such, we want to make it as good as possible. It must be a full-blown product and provide maximum protection to the user - that's generally the only way to make the user happy.

You're right that we're not selling many single-user licenses of avast! Professional (as an upgrade of avast! Home) - but we are doing very well in the small business market as well as in the case of larger customers/networks (things are getting much better recently).

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "I don't think so. We're pretty happy with the current situation." }-
Me too ;) it's an amazing thing such a nice AV gets offered for free usage.

-{ Quote: "Our philosophy is a bit different than AntiVir's. Avast Home Edition is our primary marketing tool, and as such, we want to make it as good as possible. It must be a full-blown product and provide maximum protection to the user - that's generally the only way to make the user happy." }-
It's nice to read the "business model" from a security program. Both philisophy's have their pro's and cons. Like you said yourself, you don't sell to many single-user licenses, but the home version gives great adversising for the product though.

-{ Quote: "You're right that we're not selling many single-user licenses of avast! Professional (as an upgrade of avast! Home) - but we are doing very well in the small business market as well as in the case of larger customers/networks (things are getting much better recently)." }-
Glad to read this. Also you wrote on the avast! forums you are working hard (together with three new analysts) to improve avast!'s detection and respons time. Wishing you, and the whole team, good luck. And ofcource a big thanks for all the usefull reply's in the little in-saight view into the company :)

[Bubba]

Totally off-topic posts have been split off into a thread of their own and can be continued in the below link. Let's Please confine our discussion to the best we can concerning this thread topic....AntiVir vs Avast.

Thanks,
Bubba

this thread---> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=113175

[RejZoR]

Omg people are way too serious regarding offtopic while other garbage around the corner is frelly laying around::) So what if i said that 46 servers is wicked sick. Can you deny that? You don't exactly see that with every AV out there (if any at all?).

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: "Omg people are way too serious regarding offtopic" }-

Well, 'people' - that's our staff in this case I do presume ;) - do run a tight ship. Always has been and still is the policy over here.

-{ Quote: "while other garbage around the corner is frelly laying around::)" }-

You're welcome to drop one of our Global Moderators an IM coming with the specs and URLs. In case you have a point, we'll address them, deal?

As for this thread: as Bubba stated, please keep on topic - no more, no less.

regards,

paul