AVG v/s NOD32

But the discussion does not involve AVG Free. AVG's paid products are actually worth the money you pay them.

Yes, NOD32 is configured well-enough by default, but in my experience I had to fine tune NOD a bit more than I had to with AVG. Of course, this doesn't affect my opinion of the programs, and I still think NOD32 is better than AVG, but I will repeat, AVG is not a bad product at all.

 

i was stating that on the whole avg gives a false sence of security because of its lower detection rate.
i thought the paid versions of avg just gave you automated updates and not much else.
what does the paid versions of avg give you that the free version doesnt?
i have seen alot of computers with avg on it and tons and tons of malware on them. the same with symantec client for that matter.
nod32 is such a simple set and forget av that can be major tweeaked if you want to.
lodore

 

Potentially Unwanted Programs detection, for one. And the ewido engine.....

 

Sure, if you are satisfied to that this page opening time doesn't bother you when reading daily news. For me it took about 30 seconds to open with IMON enabled. Lucky me that I've found these settings to NOD when I trialed the newest version yesterday.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Graphics intensive page, but still loads in under 7 seconds here. Don't think your problem is with IMON.

 

6 seconds here , IE7 , IMON set on HE for IE ,full load

It depends on the i-net speed , though .Check this

 

That page also open completely here in about 6 seconds here with IMON set to HE.

 

2 seconds here, with IMON.

only using nod till my doctor goes vista

oh, and IE7.

 

30 secs That page took 10 secs to fully load here with 900 kb/s of internet connection and KAV WebScan enabled..

 

It took 7.58 seconds on my machine using NOD with default settings. I must admit that when I got there I didn't have a clue where I was, but I got there pretty fast.

Best,
Jerry

 

i don't think avg has that bad detection-rates....i think in the august av-comaparatives test it scored around 90%+.....yes its heuristics are not great...
but its good enough for a safe home user who does not visit those pirated websites.....

 

Noone has said it has bad detection rates. its free and pro versions have average detection rates. And to 90% of the world average is not good as they have no clue what they are doing and infect themselves with ease. Most are infected within 20 minutes iof first using their computer according to some site I cannot remember where i got it off of. Although it stil doesnt help that it used to have bad detection rates. Dr. Web may score standard but not that long ago they had good detection rates and malware from those times could very well stil be circulating which might be why Dr.Web users insist that Dr.Webs real world protection is better. I also am guessing that they are also taking the time to add samples from the past and that is why they keep gettign standrad as they are increasing detection for older malware though I am just guessing and I could be totally wrong. While AVG most likely has missed loads and loads in the past and if those malware are stil circulating, its not a good thing.

 

With regards to your "90% of the world", all I know is that there are millions of people who've been using AVG Free for years with no problems whatsoever.

It makes you look smart if you invent ficticious statistics and outrageous claims to "back up" your arguments, but it makes you look smarter if you can pose your arguments in a valid and reasonable manner consistent with common knowledge. Also, it makes you look even smarter to do the latter when you are discussing such issues with people knowledgeable enough to call your bluff if you try the former.

I will not comment on what Dr. Web may or may not be doing with their signature databases, since I'm not really used to pulling "facts" out of thin air, but the recent AV-C test shows that Grisoft has come a long way. I am not even convinced that the Ewido engine contributed greatly to this recent success, seeing as how AVG had always had good trojan detection rates all along, and the AV-C test samples don't include ad/spyware.

 

yeah your right I will stop posting factless opinions.

i wonder how accurate thsi site is
http://www.internetworldstats.com/articles/art053.htm it does state the 90% of computers are infected by malware but i dont know if this source is any good.

 

I skimmed through the page, but couldn't really find whose statistics he was quoting for the 90% part, or how those statistics arrived at. Not to mention that "malware" is a very general term nowadays; for all we know, the page could've been using them to refer to tracking cookies...

Not to mention, also, that I don't see how the page shows that people who use AVG will get infected with ease within xx minutes or so...

 

I meant in general people wil get infected in 20 minutes not AVG users. Do tracking cookies even count as malware? And when you say there are millions of people with AVG that are not infected, how can you be sure? seeing as how most computers are infected no matter what antivirus is running. I recall herbalist sayign around 64-91% or somewhere along that line of computers are infected or that those percentages show how people are not protected properly I cannot remember which it was.

 

I'm only asking that you provide better clarification that AVG's "average" detection rates let people down than by simply quoting alarmist statistics from obscure sources that, even by your own admission, seem to have little to do with the matter at hand. That's all.

 

average detection?

yet avgs detection was basically the same as nod32's this time around, but nod got more polymorphic viruses, pretty similar though for on-demand.

 

Lol I must have been asleep these past few days I was talking about AVG free or pro version which is clearly not what i should be discussing. I will stop after this post hopefully. solcroft - avg pro would have only gotten standard according to IBK. the average user has no idea what they are doing. They click on email attachments without hesitation, they clcik stupid advertisements and pop-ups, download from untrustworthy soruces, and among other things. I would consider that to be high risk surfing and why AVG pro or free is not suitable for the job with their average detection rate as high risk surfers should get something with a very strong detection rate. Many users not specifying AVG can have infections even though they do not see any obvious problems. I see many content users although the percentage of computers that are infected is very high, shows that you do not have to see problems to be infected. Maybe if all malware infections were extrmely extrmely obvious more users would actually try to learn how to protect themselves because I really don't see many in real lfie that actually do or try to.

 

Hi,

Should I recommend Kaspersky Internet Security Suite ?

(because he doesn't like NOD32 interface, but I like very much )

waiting for your comments ......

 

NOD32

 

Better detection against new samples in Av-Comparatives 02-2007 test added AFTER the 08-2006 test?

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Even with Anti-Spyware (ewido), AVG is worst in all the areas, so...

 

But many AVG A-M users don't care that if it is finding newly added nasties almost the same level as KAV.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

A good AV should detect both existing and newly added nasties.

Not a very good plan to just put all their effort in new stuff while at the same time disregarding existing nasties.