Avast Pro 4.1 Anygood?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by gate1975mlm, Jun 19, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gate1975mlm

    gate1975mlm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Posts:
    156
    What do you think of Avast 4.1 Pro?
     
  2. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Here is one review of avast 4.1 pro. there are many different reviews of avast this is just the first that came up in my search review Avast 4.1 pro
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    For me, the problem of the Avast! is the resources...

    But it is a AV in growing...
     
  4. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    It says to get the script blocker you have to get the pro version.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Sorry bigc73542 ;)

    I tried to correct fast, but...
     
  6. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    not a problem ;)
     
  7. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
  8. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Wrong,Kaspersky and many others use more resources (way more).
    I agree that its not the lightest AV,but its not a pig for resources either.
    Uses around 15MB of RAM (20MB at most) (Kaspersky 5.0 for example uses 20MB by default no matter which scan mode you use for On-Access protection). But it can go past this limit if you use real-time archive scanning for On-Access scanner not recommended and useless).
     
  9. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    With the amount of RAM on most computers, 5MB difference is inconsequential and doesn't qualify as "way more".

    I suggest you look @ the Rokop link above. I'd happily give up 5MB for better overall protection. Wouldn't you?

    Scan on my laptop uses 18MB BTW @ max settings.
     
  10. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I'm refering to the CPU resources, and takes a lot of disk space...

    I will try to follow the evolution of Avast! and they have a nice forum...
     
  11. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    CPU usage is equal to 0% (zero). Higher is only when using P2P Shield provider. But this is not avast!'s fault but the arhitecture of P2P programs (especially Bittorrent which uses very small chunk size for partfiles and very high download speeds). Use it without P2P Shield provider for minimal system overhead.
     
  12. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    It's necessary to have the P2P Shield activated to protect the computer if we use P2P programs?

    I know that you are a user from the Avast! forum, so can you tell me if the developers of Avast! have the priority to reduce the resources of Avast!?
     
  13. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    P2P Shield is a pre-download protection. It checks every and each downloaded P2P chunk(thats why it uses lots of CPU/MEM for Bittorrent since it has small chunks at high speeds). And if detects viral code in any of them,it will warn you. If you remove this provider,Standard Shield will replace its functionality in a bit different way (when file is completely downloaded,or at least its headers so its recognized as possibly infectable file). Don't worry,i'm not using P2P for a quiet long just because of this (i use Bittorrent quiet often).

    Yes they are trying to decrese resources requrements. avast! 4.5 is scheduled for july this summer. Its a major release so i assume they will check this part of the code too.
     
  14. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    And they will put the Script Blocker into the Home Edition?

    Thanks for the info...
     
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Script Blocker is avast! Professional only feature. Use Opera browser with Home Edition,because its almost immune to scripts and other nasty things.
     
  16. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
  17. Pigman

    Pigman Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    381
    There are also free script blockers out there, you know. I use Script Defender from AnalogX, and so far it has intercepted every script that it is supposed to. (You can also add new script types whenever you need to.) There are others as well - Script Sentry, for example.

    So RejZor, you say that Avast uses 15 megs? NOD32 (the AV I use now) seems to use about 5 on my computer, and the decrease in CPU resources is very small. F-Prot used only 2 megs, and seemed not to have no impact on CPU resources. I've heard that Dr. Web, when it doesn't have a conflict with something, uses about 4 megs of RAM. Avast is a good AV, but I would definitely not pay for a souped up version of it, unless it could compete with NOD.

    Oh, by the way, how good is Firefox in the script-ignoring department?
     
  18. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    This programs are very old... They really protects us?
     
  19. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Actually NOD32 uses 15MB too. (don't forget to sum all running NOD32 processes,not just one)
     
  20. Amerk_5

    Amerk_5 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Posts:
    78
    Location:
    Dansville, NY
    Script Defender can because as Pigman said you can add new file extensions for SD to intercept. That's also why I switched from Script Sentry to Script Defender.

    I've been using avast 4.1 Home Edition with SD on Win98SE for quite awhile now & I've been very pleased. No slowdowns & no virii.
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    What are the extensions that you have, or what are the extensions that have to protect with Script Defender?

    Thanks
     
  22. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    forget this reply...
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  23. Amerk_5

    Amerk_5 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Posts:
    78
    Location:
    Dansville, NY
    These are the the extensions that I have set.

    Code:
    .BAT,.COM,.CMD,.CPL,.CRT,.DLL,.HTA,.INF,.INS,.ISP,.JS,.JSE,.LNK,.MSC,.MSG,.MSI,.OCX,.PIF,.REG,.SCR,.SCT,.SHB,.SHS,.SYS,.VBS,.VBE,.WSC,.WSF,.WSH
     
  24. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Thanks
     
  25. GermanKid

    GermanKid Guest

    As far as I can tell avast already beats NOD. In features, options and detection levels. Last time I tried NOD it used 18mb of ram so im unsure why you say 5mb thats just not accurate. support is better at avast too
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.