AntiVir vs Avast

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

I was quoting: Former Avast user (guest)

 

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

 

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

 

Meanwhile you can get a copy of Antivir PE (english) at Computercops (Download -> AntiVirus Tools)

 

No need to bash,i agree,except Norton
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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

> 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.

 

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.