Avast 2014 Released

The definition of bloat does not only pertain to file size. It can also be characteristic of add-ons that have little, if anything, to do with a program's primary function.

 

Absolutely - but I still find no reason to believe that a temp file cleaner function will add bloat to Avast. It's not like they added a free defragger that defrags while trying to scan for malware. I think everyone complaining about this is making a mountain out of a molehill. But again that's JMHO. There's plenty of free AV alternatives that do not include a built-in cookie cleaner.

 

As I've said before, this is not just an opt-out component. It is a tool barely if at all related to security that Avast is spending their time and resources on instead of improving the necessities. Plus, bloat is any unnecessary use of resources by definition, and that includes the installer you download.

 

There are also stand-alone software wich will do the same thing

An example, if a vendor would add something like...
defragger,
system optimizer,
backup
password manager
etc etc etc....anything like that will be seen as bloat in an AV by me anyway.

It wouldn't matter if the system optimizer would add a small 3mb to the product, it's the feature itself that is the bloat not the size.

Bloat=unnecessary product features.

If I want any of those functions then I know where to find stand-alone software that will do this fine.

But each to their own of course.

 

IMO, *anything* unnecessary added to a product is bloat.... A lot of this crap is simply unnecessary in an AV. But then again, Avast has always been prone to having various "features" added to it constantly as the years progress.. I've watched it from way back in 2005/6 to now... there is quite a difference. I think I'd prefer it returned to the old ways...

 

Never seen any effect activating the PUP-s detection except a little more heaviness.
MSE detects that simple test file out of the box ,BD free as well.
Avast has stopped evolving in my opinion ,at least as free and the ugly interface is really ugly.

 

Well guys,its not that they are not improving...Since the time I returned I have been noticing dyna detections being added in every couple of alternate updates.

I just hope to see dyna engine in action soon in Q1 2014.

 

Hi

avast! Free Antivirus 9.0.2010 RC

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=142550.0

 

Question: would Avast score higher if, instead of Avast free antivirus, Avast internet security was tested with maximum protection on AV comparatives?

 

I think not...

 

why is it soo hard to believe that avast is not the perfect av ?

 

AV comparatives uses the default settings for all antivirus programs, avast by default does not scan for PUPs or suspicious files, if you enable these two options it's detection rate dramatically increases. So to me it's not a valid test, all programs should be set to their maximum settings, that is the way I set it up for myself and all my clients.

 

No AV can claim to be perfect.....And Avast is no exception

 

Ah the invalid test, because it doesn't use your settings logic. What do you propose as fair settings for all anti-viruses and all users other than default?

 

Can i run avast 2014 with Webroot?

 

Yes, done so with more than that without issues for months. Webroot won't interfere with Avast blocking files, and catches what it misses.

 

That statement is arguable since it has been acknowledged from numerous sources that many novice/inexperience users tend to install their AVs and leave them at their default settings. And my understanding is it is quite a sizable number of those type of users.

 

It's people like you that make forums miserable, you don't read what people actually post you simply try and start arguments over nothing. As I already stated "all programs should be set to their maximum settings". It doesn't have to be "my" settings but programs have settings for the user to optimize for a reason. Personally I think all control tests are invalid, simply because they are controlled, real users real world results are not controlled.

Case in point, I just received a pc from a client with Norton 360 installed and up to date running in real time with a scan done 2 days ago. It was obvious the pc was infected by the amount of pop ups and programs that were running at startup, Norton detected nothing. Installed Avast with "my" settings and did a full scan and it found 78 infected files. This is not about Norton vs Avast, it's simply shows that Norton always has a better detection rate in controlled tests, so why did it not detect the 78 files? This can be said about most any program, some detect things others miss, so as I posted previously in this thread.... controlled tests only use a max of about 10% of known malware, that's not a drop in the bucket.

 

Only people being miserable are ones who can't face reality. As if everyone uses maximum settings, if you can even define that for all programs. So why "maximum settings" in the first place when all control tests are invalid? Yet you supposedly favour real world results, so what kind of settings do you think is the most realistic?

For all that combative attitude, this is what you back it up with. A specific case that's like an atom in the bucket being compared to a drop in the bucket. Didn't even test Avast in the same scenario to see what it missed that Norton catches.

 

Combative attitude really?

Do you know who reads these tests? Experts and/or experienced users, the average user has never heard of av-comparatives and for that matter doesn't care what their tests say. So why not use settings that an expert would use if they are the ones reading and using these tests?

You are the one with the condescending attitude, I didn't make any comments aimed at an individual until you singled me out.

 

Without wishing to "take sides" I would say that it makes sense for the testing agencies to test security software with default settings because (as mentioned) most people will use the software with those settings. If a program is capable of performing better with settings other than the defaults the vendor should to be asked why they releasing the software that way. Unfortunately vendors may have their own priorities, such as possible liability concerns (regarding PUP detection) and using less aggressive "defaults" to reduce false positives. I'm not referring to any specific vendor, and don't presume to know how Avast arrived at the defaults they use. It certainly makes sense for those of us with more knowledge to ratchet up the settings as we can deal with the results. It's perfectly valid to talk about how a program performs both with default settings and more advanced/aggressive settings as long as the methodology is clear. JMHO.

 

I really never cared for max settings in any AV. They should be set at max settings all the time. If the product gives a false positive, then add it to the exclusion list. Most people just install the product and never touch the other settings. This is why I think these should be set to max or don't have any settings that change the protection level. Like the tests you guy's mention, they just take the default setup which really isn't the best protection in most of these AV's. I like Avast and I do like the fact they removed all the shields and consolidated them. I only wish they would be set to max on install.

just my .02 cents
Ice

 

Do note that av-c points out on one of its reports that some scanners switch to maximum settings once a malware is detected, Avast included.

 

I agree. I also think that nowadays, given the fact that most AVs rely more and more on cloud analyses there isn't really a big difference between default and maxed up settings

 

Lacking reading comprehension? Quite dangerous when you can't understand what you posted.

Oh now you're lumping all experts and experienced users into using max settings. And dodging the question.

Now you have quite the imagination; not combative, making false accusations (where did I even imply condescension?), and playing the "victim". You get what you deserve by making claims you can't back up and attacking others.