I disagree, it justs ping the update server, if there's a new update available it will get downloaded, if not then nothing more wil happen. A vendor like Avira should have no problems to handle that.
If I may add my 2 cents... Avira was always my favorite AV. Always the lightest, and I've never seen it conflict with anything... probably because it doesn't have a bunch of extra fluff/modules like some other AV's do. It just does what an AV should do without bells & whistles. I didn't even like the Web Guard. The free version back in the day with just the File Guard was the best. Not sure how/if things have changed over time... I know they did add the Web Guard (optional) to the free version, and to me that was unwanted even. I hope they've kept things basic. IMO an AV should be only resident file protection, and that's it. Everything else is a job that should be done by another means. This prevents conflict and keeps things light. But products are getting away from this now. There's barely a such thing as "stand alone" anymore when it comes to security apps. Results of course vary, but for me there was never a better real-time AV than Avira Free a few years back.
@luciddream That's the beauty of Avira, even their security suite isn't that bloated. Adding a BB won't hurt though.
Have to disagree with that, NOD32 AV is the lightest, I used both Avira and NOD recently and Avira free does have impact on system and some high cpu spikes, NOD32 is like torch in butter.
If we're talking Nod32 v2.7, then I agree. That was the lightest AV I've ever used. I mean there was just no footprint, and that was on a box with 512 MB of RAM. But ESET has yet to match that quality since in their products IMO. Plus the detection rates weren't very good, though the heuristics for 0-day's were excellent. Avira has kept their product light for years on the other hand... consistently. While maintaining top notch detection rates throughout, give or take of course the subpar score here or there. Avira has done it more consistently... lightness, effectiveness, and lack of conflict, the entire package better than anyone else IMO over time. But even they have caved and joined the Joneses over time and started adding some unneeded fluff, like a BB and the cloud. And I'm not sure what else? They were best when the free version was just a File Guard and nothing else. And you could disable the splash screen & nag screen on updates via tweaks. And set the scheduler so it'd update more than once a day. Those were it's "golden years"... about v6, I think?... memory is a bit fuzzy on that as it's been awhile. But those days, IMHO, Avira Free was the best AV ever, free or otherwise. I removed the splash & nag screens with tweaks, but didn't take advantage of the scheduler to get more updates than 1/day as you were supposed to be limited to with the free version. I don't go browsing around shady sites and rarely download anything anyhow. So didn't need it, or even want it interrupting me. So I'd just set it to update once a day, just before I'd wake up. If they'd go back to that again I may even use it. What an AV should be, IMO.
IMHO, up to v10 was perfect. Problems started later on (January 2011, on arrival of the present Chief Operating Officer). I have read that mantra too many times on the web, IMHO this is the biggest urban legend and I wonder how people still believe in that. Anyhow, it's off-topic and I will stop here.
avira took 4 hrs plus to try and scan my pc and it didn't even finish y could this be avast is working fine
If you've installed it on a fresh Windows image,that is really odd.But if you just uninstalled your last AV and installed Avira,maybe there are drivers or other remnants of it present and these interfere with Avira.
Thats strange. It would depend on how much data avira needs to scan plus cleaning the computer beforehand may help. I have a 640g hard drive and im only using 26gb of that and avira can do a full system scan in approximately 15-20mins. So there must be a hell of a lot of data on your drive for it to take 4hours.?? The first scan always does take the longest and scans afterwards are usually far quicker. I only do one full system scan when first installing and then perhaps do a quick scan weekly.
[Originally Posted by AMIGA500 Personal experience of a product is far more conclusive than a bunch of tests.] Not sure of that. If one is not on the computer often, is a very safe surfer, and keeps the AV up to date, then the fact he does not have any penetrations does not prove that the AV is a "strong" AV. It only proves that he did not get infected. However, a test by someone such as AV-C with multiple virus samples is a much more realistic test as to the effectiveness of the AV for the majority. It seems many here have disdain for tests, and claim that they are much better at determining the effectiveness of anti-malware applications. The fact that they have not been infected may be more coincidence that skill. But even if they are that good it is not true that the average user can choose the best without referring to good tests. I am in that group. Does the fact that I have never been infected indicate that the tests which I rely upon are at least as good as your skill? Regards, Jerry
Agree for 100 % with JerryM , except for 'The fact that they have not been infected may be more coincidence that skill.' (unless I misunderstood) The way a user handles whatever he/she does on the internet means a lot. I could get by without an AV easily. What does 'skill' mean when you're relying on an AV to do whatever you want on the internet ?
Not to get all "A vs. B", but in my recent experience Eset Smart Security is lighter than the Avira security suite. On a Windows XP box with 512 MB RAM anyway.
That would not apply to me. I am an intermediate user, no expert. So I use test results, to hopefully, make better decisions regarding the security measures I employ for protection.
Version 10 was broken to me. The last real trouble free version I've ever used was Avira 9. 2013 seems to be fine, except that missing setup.dll error I mentioned here.
How is it an urban legend? That if you have a very set regimen on the net and only browse a half dozen, known reputable sites. With NoScript on. And rarely ever download anything anymore, and what you do are 99% jpeg... that your need to have an AV updating several times per day is far less than the next person. Seems pretty logical to me. And when you throw in the fact that I haven't been infected since like 2005 while deploying this approach, those results speak for themselves. Now if you're downloading a ton of stuff, using P2P, and frequenting dodgy sites without any script blocking... then sure I say get updates as frequent as possible. But that's not me. I was only speaking about my personal wants/needs. To me more updates would've only served to irritate me, slowing my box down while I was trying to do something. And now I've gone 2 years with no real-time AV at all, let alone updates for it. And I still haven't been infected. So to me this is an urban fact. To each his/her own though. It depends on the individual. You can't paint with a broad brush when it comes to this stuff.
It seems like you don't understand how effective and important the web protection in AV's is these days. Personally I would never use an AV without the web protection ON, and I would also never use an AV that had a web protection module that slowed down the browsing, or the system performance over all. Some people say that AV's is working the same way today as they did in the 80's, when infact they're not. But you on the other hand want exactly that. I don't want the AV's of the 80's to come back, but I wouldn't mind if the Music did
Woukd it be alright to use k9 web protection aling with aviras web protection, or would there be conflicts?
IMHO, ii is. If you believe that you will face malware only if you browsing around shady sites. Nowadays there are more chances for someone to get infected when is visiting an innocent site than shady ones.
I don't use the k9 but I don't think that there be conflicts between them. I'm using and I confirm that there are no conflicts between: Avira free / Avira Premium & Avira Social Network Protection & Norton Family free
