Which of these is better?

I've a question: Has eTrust incremental updates as Avast?

Avast is surprisingly light when updating it on a 56k modem (after the first update). Is eTrust as light as avast when updating its signatures?

And then, if you have a 56k modem then Avast can automatically download updates every time you connect to Internet, as soon as modem connected to internet. This is wonderful. Can eTrust do it?

Thanks

 

Etrust updates seem to be small indicating incremental. And it will check for updates on bootup. and can be set for other times also. eTrustEZ is pretty good but I prefer the eTrust R7.1 enterprise which on newegg is cheaper the ezav and has two scan engines. You are going to have to do some looking to find a lighter AV. All I can do is tell you my experience with it which has been stellar.

 

Nod slows down my dual CPU machine and therefore will not go to the light AV list of mine yes, I have tried KAV with the default setting and am reporting from my personal experience, Dr. Web wasn't' a load but it did crash from time to time. As I said, to each his own, I see a big fan following of Nod here but to me, had nothing that would appeal me to make a switch, specially when there are other alternatives out there, paid of free.

As for hardening the OS, thats fine, but would also like to have the extra protection from network worms and Avast network shield does that, hardening won't protect me from worms. Same goes for webshield, prefer to see the malware get nipped in traffic rather than come inside the machine and then get detected.

 

I have used Avast home edition for years and never had any problems. It is so feature rich that I am amazed that it's offered as such for free. The web shield alone is worth paying for. I don't encounter viruses that often, but every time I have, Avast has caught it, and when it comes to browsing at dubious sites, which does happen occasionally, Avast always catches any nasties immediately before it ever even hits my HD, which to me is just great.

It is quite complex with all the various modules, however, ram usage is quite low considering, and there is no cpu load at all that I have ever seen.

So why pay for something when you get all this for free? If someone claims that another AV has a better detection rating (which is about the only way one could claim their AV might be better), then I would have to say that 99.9% of the time, who cares? It's one thing to test an AV by throwing 10 tons of crap at it, and quite another thing to just use your computer normally in everyday use.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth on Avast. IMO, it can't be beat..

 

For me avast! home is better than CA eTrust EZ (and also some other pay AVs) in many aspects but for some aspects CA eTrust EZ is better than avast! home.

There're my reasons- https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=582343&postcount=168

My word "better" means, it's all about what you expect from the product and the ability of your own selection/thinking/knowledge, it doesn't mean that CA eTrust and avast! home are always bad/good for every one. For me avast! home is what I want from the AV product, I'd tried CA eTrust EZ for many time but it can't beat avast! home in anyway.

Although, in my opinion, avast!'s overall detection rates of Zoo malware are not so hot as Kaspersky, McAfee, NOD32, BitDefender but avast! is always good at ITW malware and it can detect a large number of Zoo malware so that should be a good protections is the real world.

 

I think eTrust R7.1 enterprise is suitable to Windows 2003 Server not Windows XP Home, is it right? and its engine could not be upgraded, I think it is old.

 

No I dont know how true this is but I've read whilst Avast had very good detection rates etc when it comes to curing the virus its not very good. Is this true ?

 

Not sure exactly but VRDB should do fairly good against parasitic malware.
Havenn't seen any parasitic malware for ages, and even if i did i never had to cure any files...

 

It does update the engine and drivers quite often and it works perfectly on XP home as that is what I have it on. And it updates the defs for both engines at least once a day some times more if needed. It has started adding a lot of trojan and malware defs for a while now.

 

oh sorry bigc, I mean this one "eav7promo", which I learned from you and downloaded it

 

Personally, I think eTrust is better. I really like the ease of use, and how it automatically cleans if a virus is detected, where as avast you have to click a button. eTrust also doesn't have much of an impact on my system. When I had avast on my computer, it took quite a long time to load. I'm not quite sure how they compare detection-wise, but I'd say they're probably about the same.

 

the promo is the same as eTrust R7.1 enterprise it is just an older version that does not have as good trojan and malware detection. and doesn't get the engine updates where as R7.1 does.

 

You can't simply compare eTrust EZ and avast! home this way. I think that's because of avast! home has so-called multi-layer real-time protection (e.g. real-time network/HTTP scanner, real-time file scanner, etc.) so it's normal that avast! home should take a bit long time to load than eTrust EZ, because of eTrust EZ only has a basic real-time scanner (files,e-mail). If you want compare, you have to install avast! home with standard shield and internet mail only.

I think it may not in the real world.

Take a look at the latest Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-053 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-053.mspx so the Web Shield (real-time HTTP scanner) of avast! home is probably the only way to stop this kind of exploit malware when an unpatched Windows surfing malicious websites. While Microsoft doesn't allow an illegal Windows users to use an auto update so there're so many million users who still unpacted in the real world.

There're so many exploit malware that execute in memory only without writing anything to harddisk so a basic real-time file scanner of eTrust EZ probably can't protect you, Web Shield (real-time HTTP scanner) of avast! home is the right solution.

Yes, the automatically virus cleanning available only in avast! Pro, while in avast! home you can use so-called silent mode that will move an infected files/malware itself to the virus chest (quarantine) or automatically terminate your machine and servers that host malware.

But today there're a few file-infector virus/malware that are in the wild, but there're plentiful of worms, trojan, adware, spyware that can't be repaired so the only way to get rid of them is deleting or moving them to quarantine.

 

I think avast maybe have better detection rate than eTrust. eTrust is specially focus on anti-virus not trojan or spy. If I use avast I should also run another antispyware and anti trojan. For surfing safely we must have an antivirus, an antispy, anti trojan and a firewall. In the suit of eTrust it has an antivirus, PestPatrol can antispy and trojan and the strong firewall which also can protect host and trojan. They look like three men, every body does its speciall work effectively.
So I dont worry its low detection rate. I like three men cooperating smoothly.

I don't know which is better between avast and eTrust, I just feel eTrust is enough.

 

How do you enable the silent mode? Last time I had avast, it said silent mode is for pro only. That'd be great if I could enable silent mode.
I actually really liked avast, but it just seemed a little heavy on startup, and you have to click a button everytime something is detected. You pointed out some interesting things though, I may give avast another go.

 

I suppose instead of asking which is better, I should have asked which has known better detection rates, less false positives, and uses less resources in general. I didn't intend to start an argument between Avast lovers and etrust lovers.