Avast 5 RELEASED

i didnt see a whole lot on the suite is what im asking about not just the av, have to admit since many of the previous issue i had were fixed i am liking ess at the moment

edit installed it to play with. will see how it works though i already see it installs everything as separate procc's and adds a number of services. though its VERY light on even a old celeron m system dare i say this but chrome and ff start up faster than with ess or nis2010 and pages load faster as well. impressive. not a fan of the gui so far but it is livable. i did see a bit of slowdown on startup but not to bad with as old as this notebook is. i tend to like to test on a older system first to see what the real impact is. but the internet is FAST with the suite so far. though i have yet to see a firewall pop up or a pop up for anything at all besides a update for that matter

full scan of the c: drive (only 80gb on this test system) is VERY VERY SLOW.

edit yet again:

i am seeing almost no impact on the cpu with the suite. all three other suites i have tested on this system used almost 80-90% cpu during scan (remember celeron m 140 single core) with avast i see less than 40% at any time during the scan!!! WOW

 

btw the reason for the slow full scan is because the full scan populates the persistent cache as its scanning, so its doing a lot more work, but quick scans and realtime shields benefit from this longer full scan

 

noticing VERY slow download speeds compared to when i had nis2010 or just trialed ess v4. i have to say ess had by far the fastest download speeds from my testing today. i was surprised when it simply smoked nis2010. avast is5 is SO SLOW though. one file i was able to download at over 2mb ps... is coming down at under 100k with avast. i uninstalled it and tried the same file and was back up to the normal speeds. reinstalled avast and download speeds were terrible again.. im not sure why but this is what im seeing.

im still shocked at how little impact i am seeing though. it is using a decent amount more ram than a few others but somehow it so light

 

That's quite interesting, Because NIS2010 does not have a web scanner. So there should be no slow down unless you tried to launch it. Also how much ram a program uses will not show how light the program it self is. Just that its coded more into the ram then pagefile.

 

well... downloaded a rouge and tried tol use the sandbox feature. it opened in the red box and i choose to run it, and now its ACTUALLY INSTALLED.. what is the point of a sandbox then it did nothing

so far missed a lot of stuff for me on malware domain. other av picked up the stuff no problem. 5 samples so far blocked by another av. downloaded and ran with avast got three rouges running now lol.. i dont care since ill just do a quick restore.

 

Rogues are tough to detect.

 

im not supposed to compare here but i upped it to virus total and all but 4 picked it up and avast was one of the ones who didnt fyi. i had to do a boot time scan and will prob have to restore soon avast keeps telling me i have a virus in memory each time i boot now even after a boot time scan

 

a few other av's i have tested do the same as well. i dont think its a issue as long as it kills it upon execution

im testing my collection now. ill report back.

avast missed freddy81.exe in the windows directory. it let it call out also. reinstalled nis2010 cleaned it instantly...

okay also downloaded the previously mentioned 6000 virus file. after scanning with nis2010, ess, and avast is5 since those are what i have here. and wow am i surprised. the 6000.rar file upon extracting avast left 347 files. ess left 692 files and nis2010 left 1747 files!!! i mean wow wth though i then scanned the folder with the files avast left with nis2010 and ess. nis2010 found 197 of the 347 left by avast. ess found 49 of the files left by avast. but i am overly shocked by the amount of files left by nis2010 granted they are in fact actual virus'. also ran hitman and it found nothing past what nis2010 found..??

 

from ssupdater?
it has many old, dead virus.
if you download from ssupdater, forget it, it is not useful

 

it was from mediafire the one previously mentioned in this thread. im testing my own samples also tonight i did not get it from ssupdater. im not sure if it originally came from there though

 

to add it imo looks like the sandbox feature needs work i AGAIN was able to run a rouge in the sandbox and it actually installed the program running procc and all. so the sandbox did 100% nothing. even after a reboot and scan it was still loaded with windows upon restart... not cool imo. also didnt stop freddy from running either using the sandbox the is again installed in the windows folder and running. and this time i choose to run sandboxed..

am i missing something as to how this sandbox works??

 

A decent review at PC mag sorry if the link has already been posted in this thread but I didn't see it. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358288,00.asp

 

well this is one im actually considering buying now. the firewall works pretty well with a small bit of configuration and is easy enough for even the non computer savy wife and mom to use. i have seen literally 0 impact from avast scans did get much faster after the first one and i have yet to have any issues with it. startup times are actually faster than what i was using which was very surprising.

we actually have 2 year lic still going for nortons but i dont know why i buy them for 2 years as i an never wait that long to play with another av lol.

in the last week i have trialed near every one i could think i may want and this new avast is simply so far my fav out of them all. wish dr web would have got the new gui out by now for people like the wife and my mom etc they would be clueless with all the things from dr web without a nice gui and ive always liked dr web.

one question i have is does avast run backround scans like norton 2010 does on its own or does it require you to schedule them. with nis2010 it runs them in the backround all the time all on its own?

 

I believe you have to schedule them, or run them manually. That is one thing I really like about Norton, is it watches for when your system is idle and run scans. You really never need to do them manually. I think Prevx may be similar. It is a feature I wish all AVs had. Same with Comodo automatically checking for an update prior to scanning. I wish all AVs did that also.

 

yeah that is one of my fav things with nortons the backround scans.

 

Avast 5 pre-release program update [5.0.393]

link :
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54451.0

 

Dr.Web does that too with its SpIDerGuard. I'm hoping the new GUI will be out soon as the current one seems to put people off.

I tried AVAST 5 free and it looks pretty cool. Didn't have any specific problems on my XP SP3 machine alongside OPF Pro and it seemed to be light. I ran a quick scan after installation which seemed to take quite some time compared to what I'm used to. It showed up one infection but it was a false positive. Overall looks very good for a free product and it will be interesting to see how it fares in future tests.

Quite a few people complaining about stability on XP but the new release in beta will hopefully solve the random BSOD problems that have been reported.

All in all, it's an improvement on 4.8 and will keep Alwil in the list of top AV vendors.

 

I've noticed that in Screen Savers, there is an Avast one there now. I believe this one will scan your system when the screen saver kicks in. At least that's what I'm assuming. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Further updated to 5.0.594

 

thats nice for the people who use a screen saver but i just have my system turn the display off after 5 min. then any mouse move or key press turn it back on. i like that windows 7 defaults without screen saver.

 

Well, it is a way to do it, so it's there.

 

agreed at least its there

 

Screen savers were saving the screens back in the CRT era (to prevent image burn in). But with LCD panels, screensaver is actually hurting the display, because it has to constantly change pixels. Sure it looks nice, but it's better to just set display to be turned off after specified time. More power efficient and better for the monitor itself.

 

You mean 5.0.394?

http://files.avast.com/files/beta/5.0.394/setup_av_free.exe

http://files.avast.com/files/beta/5.0.394/setup_av_pro.exe