Zbot authors just love Avira?

Yes, I'm currently sticking with AntiVir too.

 

In other words: You prefer to first be infected, then wait for a nice cure?

One of the problems with this approach is that the damage may already be done, and not everything can be "undone" with a cure. For instance malware stealing your personal data, or a virus that erases a bunch of files on your hard drive.

AVs with good cleaning abilities definately have their place, but in many cases it's more important with good proactive detection

 

I would rather that it finds it and blocks it than get infected and try and remove it.

 

1. I wouldn't like an antivirus that only blocks threat and can't often remove them.
2. But I wouldn't like either an antivirus that can remove threats but cannot often block them.
3. I'd like an antivirus which does both of the jobs well.

Avira enters in the first group.

 

100% correct. I only look at detection and Avira fits the bill better than any other in my view. If you never get infected (and I have not), the so-called cleaning ability is academic- you won't need it. The objective is to keep malware from invading in the first place. As you state, once malware gets in your box- the damage may already have been done.

 

As per the tests done, Avira does a fine job of removing them too.

 

Can you tell me which one does remove the viruses and detects them as well?

 

The one I use (see sig). I tested several antiviruses before chosing the one I would use.

 

The one in your signature doesn't come close to Avira's cleaning or detection, if it don't detect, it don't clean, plain and simple.

 

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/03_13a.xml

Gets a + in cleaning, would have rather seen a ++ but still far better than 0.

 

Not exactly, at least not from my tests and my personal experience.

 

Virus bulletin

Have you actually read the comments?

 

Comments don't mean nothing, the test is all that matters......it could be highly subjective in most cases as is apparent here. In that sense, KAV gets many bad reviews as well and in the past has been known to hose systems. Not to mention tests at http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php show a measly 21% for KAV and not even an advanced certification scan speed slow, its proactive scores were low as well in case you read. What does that mean, chances of getting infected with an unknown is far less in Avira as compared to KAV.

 

In that case what it comes down to is that your tests are better and more comprehensive than the ones that are done by av comparatives and VB, well for us dumb and retarded Avira users, we put our faith in those very tests.

As per my personal tests done, Avira comes out on top. Not to mention it has a fast scanner and way less resource use compared to the bloats. It also has the least destructive issues in its history as compared to some system hosing greats

 

I personally think that experience DOES matter. BTW: You forgot that Kaspersky 2009 did get 42% heuristic detection + 68% detection thanks to HIPS (which would have been improved after the test)

 

When I see KAV on top of the proactive chart and not at a lousy 21% then I will believe it.

 

Thats your prerogative and you have every right to it, doesn't negate the fact that Avira is top notch AV.

 

Not to get into A is better than B debate, but look at ShadowServer stats for zero day attacks. Kaspersky is in the bottom 1/3 in detection for virtually every time period offered. Regardless of the alleged flaws in the test (I don't think the methodology is flawed) KAV is not the best or even in the middle of the test group. I would rather take my chances with the top tier detection Avira offers in this test, and two others (AV-Comparative and Virus Bulletin).

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Stats.VirusWeeklyStats

 

Just like your sister I know many who got their system hosed with KAV, or it made their brand new PC crawl with its bloated slow engine. I and many other Avira users face no such problems, x32 or x64. Avira runs with minimal drama.

 

Fact:Kaspersky was one of the most hacked AVs last year.

Fact:Kaspersky is one of the best at cleaning

Fact:Aviras ability to detect is one of the best.

Fact:This thread will be closed. lol

The moral is, who cares. Choose what you want to use, what suits your needs best, and use the frigging product. I now understand why this site enacted the rule of A vs B. It is so lame to compare when every setup is different.

 

Really? On what basis other than promotional/emotional?

Latest AV-Comparatives Retrospective/ProActive:

F-Secure 6%
Kaspersky 21%

I think there are better proactive engines out there...in fact, the two you mention are two of the worst in terms of detection %.

 

But these tests are irrelevant compared to personal in depth tests

 

Cannot get away from that personal (i.e. subjective) AV evaluation that strangely on this site is prevalent but often not supported by empirical tests (AV-Comparatives, etc.)

 

Zbot authors just love Avira?

...
Cristal ball says thread closed. ClamAV ruelz!

 

Nah, not yet, I'm still reading the funny papers