AOL Active Virus Shield VS

Since it has been out for awhile, what is the current thinking here as to AOL AVS versus other free AVs?
I realize that it does not have Web-AV, and Pro-active defense.

Thanks,
Jerry

 

-Avast Home: File-AV (Standard Shield), PUPS detection, Web-AV (Web Shield), Mail-AV, Network Shield (light IDS).
-AOL AVS: File-AV, PUPS detection, Mail-AV.
-AVG Free: File-AV, Mail-AV.
-Antivir PE Classic: File-AV.

 

basically for free av avast is best bang for your buck! aka zero bucks lol
lodore

 

I think Antivir PE Calssic also has PUPS detection, you have to click the SPR (security privacy risk) option to enable detection of them.

Londonbeat

 

I think that PUPS detection in Antivir Classic are a bit limited compared to Antivir Premiun. I could be wrong, though.

 

Thanks for the comments, All.
Best,
Jerry

 

I would choose avast! Home and than AOL Active Virus Shield...

According with AVIRA site, AntiVir PEC doesn't detect Adware/Spyware...

 

I personally did not like it, but I believe it is totally my own personally issues. I actually think it is good AV protection.

 

Do you guyz know if the kaspersky engine on AVS gets updated everytime KAV's engine is updated (eg. MPs) ...

Or does AVS only update the signatures KAV adds?? ...

The reason I'm asking this is because a friend of mine is not sure whether to install Antivir PE Classic or AOL AVS on his comp.

Hope you guyz can help us out.

Thanks in advance

 

It does get updates for the engine, but just not as often as KAV. AVS usually seems to be behind KAV in engine updates by several months or so. But it does get them eventually. Right now AVS is still on the engine version that ends with .308 but I can't remember the whole thing right now as I am not in Windows at the moment.

EDIT: Your friend is choosing between AntiVir PE Classic and AOL AVS. I should point out that AVS is an amazing "set and forget" antivirus. It is great for installing on people's PCs that have limited knowledge in security programs or don't have the time to be tweaking settings and so on. Updates are done hourly. The whole program just seems to take care of itself quite nicely and is very user friendly. I find that with AntiVir you need to tweak more things, like getting rid of that nag screen and disabling the splash screen on startup as well. Updates aren't as smooth with AntiVir out of the box. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Both are similar in virus detection rates. AVS does have a mail scanner which is a bonus. AVS also includes detection of spyware which AntiVir PE Classic does not. So overall detection is better with AVS.

 

It is NOT a bonus to have an email scanner if you use Outlook Express. Microsoft has warned many times that one should NEVER use an AV email scanner on Outlook Express. Avira is superior to AVS and is much easier to set up and use. I still can't get AVS activated on my older 98SE computer and AOL support has been ZERO help. With Avira you get an excellent support forum. As for the "nag" screen in Avira why in the world are you complaining? Avira is FREE...what is a little screen that popups up once a day at the end of the update? You just click it off. I've seen others complain here about it...I think you are all ungrateful and ungracious. As for updates, well I can't update AVS at all but Avira I have had no problems with updates. The only quarrel I have with Avira is that they choose to detect applications like Sysinternals PSTools as possible malware threats.

 

Of the free ones listed..........which ones are you able to schedule scans with?

 

Thanks for your detailed comparison between AVS and Antivir PE Classic.

I'll pass that info to my friend.

Thanks again

 

I think you can schedule scans with these 4 freebies, but I'm not sure about AOL AVS...

If you want to do that on avast! Home, take a look at this Topic: HOWTO- Scheduled Automatic Scans w- Free Version!

 

The one thing that I really like about the latest version of AntiVir PE Classic is that you can also schedule it to scan running processes now. I have mine setup to update everyday at 12:00 and scan running processes at 12:00. Several months ago it didn't have the option to scan processes as a scheduled event. This is good because if something slipped by the scanner and executed during a time when it didn't have a signature for the virus, this might assist in finding that virus when it does get the signature without the need for a full system scan.

 

Why on earth would you not use an AV email scanner with Outlook Express or any other email client??

 

Most of the time it's ok, but I've read before of people having problems with their antivirus corrupting it, Microsoft themselves mention it Here

Londonbeat

 

Other well done thing from Microsoft...

 

Because Outlook Express database files are extremely fragile and very prone to corruption. Microsoft says if you use an AV on OE you will inevitably end up with corruption of the data base. Most folks don't use something like OE FreebieBackup so when this happens they have a big mess and may or may not eventually be able to recover their OE mail. All Microsoft MVP's in OE constantly tell folks on their OE websites and in the Microsoft OE News Group to never use an AV on OE. If you compact properly (very few folks know how to do proper compaction or even bother with it at all yet it is essential to a stable OE database) you will lessen the chances of the data base corruption but it still will happen eventually if an AV is used to scan that database. Since any decent AV will catch an infected attachment upon the user's attempt to execute it there is no need for email scanning anyhow. Plus, a user who practices safe computing would never just try to execute an email attachment anyhow. They will first save it to disk and then scan it with their AV which will promptly catch it. This is the correct way to do it ...not let your AV scan all OE mail incoming, outgoing or when doing a full on demand scan. Someone practicing safe computing will also have reading mail set to plain text only.

If you happen to love having your AV scan your email all the time, then you will be happy with Vista where OE no longer exists and the Windows Mail store database has been greatly improved so it is no longer fragile and extremely prone to corruption. Thisis one of the few things I would like about Vista. Many XP users are very disappointed that Microsoft chose not to make this available also to us or to in some other way improve the OE database's lack of robustness. Some of us still hope that this will happen in SP3 for XP due early 2008.

There is also the consideration that many ISPs now scan both incoming and outgoing mail at the Mail Server Gateways so no need for you to do it also on your own computer. (Road Runner from Time Warner cable is one that does this as does dslreports.com mail).

 

I guess just one more reason not to use OE & to use Thunderbird

 

On the other side of the coin, in 9 years of OE use, I've never encountered any problems with AV scanning and ending up with corrupted databases. My emails are backed up though, and can be restored if need be although I've only done that three times in the same time span when I refreshed my system.

 

i have seen posts about the mail database disappear after av's have removed a threat. i think there was a few posts the same problem in both the kaspersky forum and nod32 forums.
why cant Microsoft make it less fragile?
most people will want to use a email scanner since it comes installed with default options which are meant to be the best for most users.
lodore

 

I was always under the impression that on-access file scanners could easily destroy your Inbox in Outlook Express and Thunderbird, but that POP3 scanners could not cause any harm because they scan it before it gets to the mailbox on your PC... isn't this correct?

 

Fortunately that is one problem I have not experienced, and I do use OE.
Jerry

 

The jury seems to have come out in favour of Avast.

Having moved from Avast to AVS because of the improved interface and scan times, I'm slightly surprised by the result.

Do the added components in Avast provide better real world protection than the better detection rates of AVS?

Does the fact that the AVS uses an older Kapersky scan engine than KAV significantly detract from its detection rates?

I quite like Avira, but I would use the paid version rather than the free one, because it offers significantly better functionality for a relatively small cost.

As for AVG, I like the interface but not the detection rates and await the next AV Comparitives report whether the detection has improved significantly with the latest release.