Avira Scan Speed........

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Arup, Oct 23, 2008.

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

    Arup Guest

    Attached Files:

  2. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
  3. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    Calling some help here, someone's suffering the deadly Palin fever... ;)


    Anyway, click here for the full article.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  4. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I see the irony with NOD32...
     
  5. chris_us

    chris_us Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Posts:
    4
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2008
  6. rogervernon

    rogervernon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Posts:
    289
    Oy - Sarah is my pin-up!
    :thumb:
     
  7. tmaertin

    tmaertin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Posts:
    32
    Location:
    North Tonawanda, NY
    I switched from NOD32 2.7 to Avira after my license expired and I tested Avira for a month. I also tested KAV 2009, Norton AV 2009, Bitdefender 2008, and NOD32 3.0.

    I have to say that Avira blew me away as far as scan speed even before the latest update. My system feels almost as light as it did on NOD. I would recommend anyone on the fence to give it shot for 30 days - you wont be disappointed.
     
  8. Espresso

    Espresso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Posts:
    975
    OT: What Opera skin are you using?
     
  9. Medank

    Medank Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Posts:
    102
    Well done Avira.
    With the latest Update the scan is so fast, very good improvements, i just hope they keep the god job up even in other improvements;)
     
  10. Arup

    Arup Guest

  11. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    They say: High memory consumption for Avira 8. I don't think so...
    And they're mixing detection rates for Avira free (no spyware\adware) with competition having these options.

    Regarding speed, that is indeed a fast AV.
     
  12. halcyon

    halcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Posts:
    373
    x 2.

    NOD32 hosed my Winsock and Outlook 2007 upon uninstall, but now with a bit of manual fiddling I'm running Avira and what a nice experience it is. More like NOD32 used to be back in the day. Highly recommended.
     
  13. bonedriven

    bonedriven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Posts:
    565
    Avira scans so fast that I really doubt if it scans thoroughly.I hope it doesn't cheat on me.:doubt:
     
  14. Arup

    Arup Guest

    It scans fast because of its efficient engine and if it didn't scan thoroughly, doubt it would consistently make it to the top of detection charts.
     
  15. MR X

    MR X Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Posts:
    15
  16. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Helps to investigate the reasons... :rolleyes: IOW, these test results (oh noes, big FAIL!111!) without context give uninformed people a totally wrong impression of the products. :thumbd:
     
  17. Arup

    Arup Guest

    LOL! Big fail for FPs, well tell you what, would rather live with FPs and best detection than take a so called AV with fewer detection.
     
  18. bonedriven

    bonedriven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Posts:
    565
    It seems to me Avira doesn't have FPs as many as reported,while avast has many in my experience.
     
  19. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    None of them are good.

    A FP can also be very dangerous.

    Hopefully AntiVir developers will reduce its FP's...
     
  20. WigglyTheGreat

    WigglyTheGreat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Posts:
    137
    Avira is indeed very fast at scanning. I trialed Avira premium av for a month on 3 different computers and liked it well enough to buy a year for 3 computers. On only one computer I had 2 false positives with heuristics on high, but that is far from making it a deal breaker as I have had false positives with other av's also. Yesterday Avira had an update problem with their servers being overwhelmed, but I have experienced this to with other av's so I won't worry too much.
     
  21. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
  22. Arup

    Arup Guest


    An FP is less dangerous than not detecting and getting infected.
     
  23. mevcit

    mevcit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    İstanbul, T?rkiye
    Hi!

    I agree with you, the engine of Avira is fast. But why is it fast? Because it doesn't scan files(particularly .exe files) entirely. Avira scans a few files(or 1 file) in an .exe file, but Avast(for instance) scans more more files than Avira does.

    Besides, Avira doesn't scan the whole parts of a file(especially MP3 and video files). It scans these very quickly. MP3 and video files generally don't contain malicious codes, but they may contain. :) So, it is important to be scanned the whole parts of the file. For example, Avast scans the whole parts(when the scan type is thorough scan).

    I gave you examples from Avast, because I'm an Avast user. But I will switch to GDATA soon. :)

    As a result I can say that Avira should put more options about the scan types. There should be an option such as thorough scan at least. Now it has no option about that, therefore I don't consider using Avira at all. It isn't a good thing that an AV engine is fast due to these reasons which I mentioned above.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  24. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    Scanning only infectable parts is much better than scanning a whole file, and doesn't produce any decrease in detection.
     
  25. mevcit

    mevcit Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    İstanbul, T?rkiye
    Yes, generally that's true. But there should be an option about that. So users can decide it.

    What about the other subject? Avira doesn't check the all files in .exe files. This a very big problem. Because of this problem, Avira may not detect a virus or viruses in an .exe file. There exist some examples of this situation on other security forums, and I also have some. Avira scans a few files or only one file(as I said before) in an .exe file, even the file includes lots of files in it.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.