Avast 2014 Released

For you.

Not for me, not for the participating AV companies, Avast included......

 

mnosteele, Thanks for the info.

 

How do you explain that?

If any test is worthwhile (on its own merit), it would be the AVC real world test because it's also harder to exploit.

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2284198&postcount=695
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2284468&postcount=698
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=322765&page=28

 

But why would they admit to having cheated if they never had?

re:the exam analogy

My answer right below oliverja's post
A similar point brought up in a newer post

But I like this part. When a product starts to improve or slip, actually even the new bunch of youtube tests (*hides*) show it, as useless as one is on its own. IMO the problem is there are only few well-respected testing organizations using a huge sample size that are supposedly miles ahead of the rest, so it doesn't qualify that much as "often with different labs" when you only refer to them.

 

These tests mean nothing to 99.999% of end users. Us members here make up less than .0001% of end user users out there, these don't even affect the sales of antivirus products. The average end user uses whatever came preinstalled on their pc and the majority of them never renew the license when it expires.... that's just the simple truth. How many people here do IT work for end users? If you don't then you are the minority that is tech savvy and know what they are doing. But the average home user wants their pc to work properly when they want to use it, they don't understand or want to understand for that matter what updates are for or why they need them or how to do them. They want to go to facebook, youtube and check their email and surf the internet without being bothered with anything else.

As for avcomparatives, they are great and do the best job of testing out there, but even in their last file detection test they used roughly 100,000 samples.... sounds like a lot right? But when you consider are well over 1,000,000 viruses out there that is a drop in the bucket..... less than 10% of known malware. That is why I take these tests with a grain of salt. I have hundreds of clients, some basic end users, small businesses and some tech savvy IT people etc. So I can attest to "real world" tests using an "average" computer user.

 

Sampling...............
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-sampling

 

Anyone can make numbers support or not support their cause, I simply pointed out a fact (although I did use numbers LOL). If it makes you feel good to use the products that do well in controlled tests then that is your prerogative.

Something these tests never show is system compatibility and product reliability, it would be next to impossible to show this but it is a very important factor. For instance, I setup all of my clients the same way, same tweaks, same software etc. A few years back I was a Kaspersky reseller and 3 times within a 6-7 month period they had corrupt databases and program updates that crashed Windows. Their solution... uninstall and reinstall..... impossible with all the clients I had using Kaspersky.... that was the last time I used a Kaspersky product. Based simply on detection rate Kaspersky is second to none but when the program you use to protect you from malware does more damage than the malware itself it's time to move on. I lost a lot of money in man hours fixing Kaspersky's screw ups.

 

This new version really did a number on my browser settings/plug-ins.

 

No it's not a fact. It's your "fact".

One more "fact".

You wrote about the number of samples.
I replied with the sampling method (for tests, polls, etc) which is accepted and used worldwide.

From my side, end of story.

 

This is why I never post on forums about these topics.... an argument ensues about NOTHING.

FACT 1: There are well over 1,000,000 samples of malware in existence.

FACT 2: Only 10% of the 1,000,000 samples are used for testing.

If you feel like that is an acceptable and reliable test then use it to help guide you on what product to use then do so.

I choose to use my own "real world" experience with hundreds of clients with many different computer habits over a 15 year period, how many were infected, what were they infected with, what programs or security measures protected the most effectively.

You so tomato I say tomoto.....

 

There are people who set much store by these tests. I actually read a vigorous debate by a member who was able to dissect every flaw of a specific AV without having touched the program once; all based on written word and opinion. Tests are a helpful guide but they do not, nor cannot, tell the whole story in the context of real world experience.

 

Your right, many people on these forums get offended if you say something negative about the antivirus program they use. Others change the program they use every time a new test result is released. It's actually quite amusing but the majority of these people only have to worry about their pc and their pc only, not a large client database that depend on you to keep them secure. They don't see the "big picture".

 

Who said that?

fyi I'm an Avast (free & paid) user for more than a year.

 

I'm trying out the GrimeFighter feature on a laptop. I had to leave it running after waiting a for over a hour for it to complete. I hope it doesn't break my setup!

 

I did the same thing....it worked though!

 

What does it do?

 

A sort of CCleaner.

http://techdows.com/2013/12/avast-grimefighter.html

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2313259&postcount=204

 

i completely agree, avast is becoming more and more bloatware. kinda funny they added GrimeFighter to fight bloatware...
no offence for the avast fans here, i also used/liked avast once, but it's looking more and more like a christmas tree.

 

dansorin , What are you using at the moment?

 

it's in my signature. used on 1 desktop and 2 laptops.

PS: on a side note, i installed avast on some friends computers years ago, and i maintain them since.

 

So you disregard one set of testing because of a limited and incomplete sample set for your own testing with your own limited incomplete sample set.

 

The methodology is far from alike though. I tend to side with the experiences of comparable users instead of testing environments.

 

That may be true but isn't part of the beta period to see what works and what users really like and don't like? I wasn't impressed with GrimeFighter but it ran fine and I think it's going to be a paid option like VPN (neither of which I need). Some might like it if it helps them; hopefully the "cheesie" style will be upgraded a bit. Just my two bits worth. We are in an ice storm here tonight and I'm stuck on Wilders!