AntiVir vs Avast

I'm sticking like i can. Were talking about avast! and AntiVir right. Well i can tell much about avast! and not so much about AntiVir. I haven't seen any(or little) comments about AntiVir. No one describes their own experience and so on.
I won't attack anyone if he describes his own experience,but throwing stupid tests in every corner,its just stupid.
And i don't wan't to see they are bashing something because they CAN'T set or understand it (this stands for all AVs,yeah even NAv ). And i describe everything as it gets not just: "Norton sux". This is no argument to me and i'm always trying to avoid them.

 

i admit AntiVir looks ugly when you compare it with AVAST. but when it comes to performance i'll pick the former. i don't give much about skinnable interface. it looks nice on Winamp but an AV is a serious piece of software. i don't think it needs a skinnable interface. the configurability should be nice though. yes RejZor you're right about it when you say some users can't manage some softwares. i usually find posts which says this AV is very bad and it took the whole system with it when it went down. AntiVir never caused any crash in my system. the memory usage is very nice. remember that not all users are blessed with a fast computer or a deep pocket. so its pointless to be rude to someone who says AVAST is too heavy for his system.

 

No,i didn't say avast! is the lightest on resources. Its not,there is still room for improvements,but its also not a resource hog. Something average.

Like 60% of all AV failurs is due to crappy Norton Installer which leaves half of program behind (i think every user starts with Norton). Other 20-30% is by not reading/searching documentation or at least try to search for some feature in menus/settings or asking support and 10% are technical problems or glitches/bugs.

 

dear RejZor, i hope you know that Windows ME is not as good as XP when it comes to uninstallation and stability. even in ME i've installed and uninstalled NAV atleast 5 times and still i don't get any problem. so don't try to hide AV bugs behind NAV.

AntiVir has some problem with its update server and the size of updates. when those are fixed i think it'll be a wonderful AV. as i said earlier i don't need the email scanner. i'll never need it. i don't know about others but i think with a little CS you can avoid additional system overhead by not using the email scanner. BTW AntiVir lacks the VRDB feature in AVAST. when will be the v4.5 out? i just downloaded the Lite-ON and RejZor sharp. do i need anymore? i think they are they best that there is. no i don't like the MacLover skin.

 

Hehe i understand. Not everyone like MacOS X style
avast! v4.5 is half officially scheduled for the end of july. I talked with Vlk,but nothing actually confirmed,he just said it will be most probably ready till end of july or beginning of August.

 

Hi RejZoR, tell me how avast (or any mailscanner) does this ?
In memory ? or even yet in the Modem/network cable ?

With Safe Mailclients you don't NEED mailscanners at all

 

dear WhoCares, welcome to the forum. lol...... i don't think RejZor will have any valid answers for this one. are you talking about MessageLabs service. i wonder why people use those buggy email clients at all. now a days webmail providers are using heavyweights like Norton, F-Secure, Trend Micro to scan your attachments.

 

I currently use Avast as backup,no infections yet,i like the pirate skin,but i 'd like to say that at least for me Antivir has proved battle worthy.once i got infected by Byteverify java exploit,the great KAV saw 1 infected file,Antivir saw 4.I sent the other 3 to Kaspersky ,they replied that they were indeed malicious and added them to their signatures.

As AMRX said,too bad for Antivir that uses that update scheme,it gets really boring with time,specially if you don't use it as primary AV ,so you don't really want to spend much time in downloading new scanning engine every week.

I also like the option in Antivir to scan for dialers,jokes,ecc.

 

dear Hyperion, AntiVir has a good database for malwares. even comparable with TMIS. if only they could fix this update issue. but the plus point is that they update their scanning engine more frequently then any other AVs......lol. AVAST skins makes it look good but they are near 2MB when deflated. also to get configurability you have to switch into enhanced mode where there is no fancy skins. the configurability is still confusing. no wonder those VB guys failed to configure it if that information is true regarding the failure in VB tests.

 

To everyone from Firefighter!

Against my new 1494 infected archived samples.

Trojan like malware [449];
334 Backdoor & Trojan, 21 Exploit, 16 Script, 15 TrojanDownloader and 63 TrojanDropper

331/449 Avast 4.1 Home

305/449 AntiVir 6.26.0.20


Viruses [908];
77 BAT, 65 Macro, 5 WinHLP, 296 Win32, 418 Worm and 47 Other Viruses

786/908 Avast 4.1 Home

782/908 AntiVir 6.26.0.20


Riskware [137];
27 Constructor, 6 Joke, 6 Keylogger, 63 PolymorphicEngine and 35 VirTool

49/137 AntiVir 6.26.0.20

42/137 Avast 4.1 Home

I basicly don't have rebased and/or repacked malware. According to Nautilus, AntiVir 6.26 has better unpackers. Avast is able to use heuristics only in their email scan.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

hmm.... looks like AVAST outdid AntiVir in your tests. it'll be a good idea to send the undetected samples to the respective firms.

 

i tested avast! using Antivirus Tester 3.0 and it failed all the tests. I then tested AntiVir and it passed the EICAR tester worm which EVERY AV has to respond to to provide proper protection. And yes i did enable the heuristics in Avast! and set its sensitivity level as high as it would go. And also, I like AntiVir's simple and plain interface because its easy to configure the settings and responds quickly.

 

Just don't try to ever use such tools. They are misleading and they don't prove anything. Good old samples (like Firefighter does) are still the best comparison.

 

To RejZor from Firefighter!

And my samples are actually not so old, most of them less than 2 years, intended to infect WinXP.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Hehe,i meant as: "this is still a good old way to test antiviruses"

 

To RejZor from Firefighter!

And how good Avast is when someone will check it's ability in email scanning, when it is using their heuristics? I'll bet that Panda Platinum 7.0 has troubles to beat Avast!

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Well i have done a GFI mail check (you can found it on my page under Online tests). I think that all were detected heuristically except EICAR samples (normal and archived) which were detected by signatures.
This part seems to be very strong. I also recommend to use Custom Heuristics and enable Mail Structure check too. Its a bit more thorough.

 

My logs show that I installed AntiVir-PE on 10/08/03. I used it as real-time monitor (RTM) until 11/25/03, when I purchased DrWeb. Since then, AVPE has been my #1 on-demand & second opinion scanner.

From day 1, AVPE has been rock steady on my ancient computer (233Mhz cpu, WinME os) for over 1 year now.

AVPE updates signatures daily, & has been a VERY frequent updater of it's scan engine, repair dll, & main program. This is good-news/bad-news. It's bad news because downloads can sometimes be rather large. It's good news because it has brought about constant improvements to AVPE as a frontline antivirus program.

Three months ago I trialed Avast for a couple of weeks. I really liked it. However, it was just a bit too heavy of a load for my old box.

From what I have read here at Wilders (especially FF's test data) & from what I've seen at test sites like virusP & Rokop, I get the SUBJECTIVE impression that Avast is a hair stronger on regular malware, & AVPE is a hair better on runtime unpacking -- which makes the choice pretty much a toss-up right now, I guess.

By the way ---- The current beta for Avast offers some features that work on XP, but not on Win9x, right? So I would say that Avast is kinda half-vast for older computers - sayo de gozaimasu ka?

 

Well i'd say why support 7 years old OS (Win9x) if the current new is nearly 4 years old (WinXP) and offers easier way to impliment stuff?
Its just a waste of resources IMO.

 

My computer is vintage 1995, & cannot run WinXP. Arrogance is not appreciated.

 

antivir has passed vb100 while avast failed.
you may use antivir with etrust ,both of them are free now!

 

No arrogance at all. Just facts.

 

In other words you are saying that if my computer cannot run WinXP & use all features of Avast, then I am making poor use of resources?

I have noted that in every thread where you post you insert a plug for Avast, even when doing so is off-thread. I also find that, as you have done here, you turn to personal insults when someone makes even the slightest critique of Avast.

The fact that someone cannot afford to buy a better computer does not deserve your insult that they are a poor user of resources. I am very offended by your tactics in promoting Avast by casting slurs upon my judgment.

 

No i said its waste of resources for developer.
And why all people everywhere take everything so personal!?

Remember! If anything sounds like i'm insulting anyone directly it just looks that way,but i don't mean it. If i have anything personal i do through PM (Personal Messages)
Sorry if my posts looked that way

EDIT:
I also take critics about avast!. Its just a software and as any other its not perfect. It has its cons and pros.

 

Well, eTrust is free for just 12 months... Who knows the future? I just don't like 'freewares' that, after some time, become 'shareware'