Can AVG improve?

I'm a beliver in a 'real world' kind of testing, although it also is important for a product to be certified by a reputable testing lab (eg av-comparatives). And if you pay attention to jotties scanner from time to time (that's one example i belive to be a 'real world testing'), it can be seen that AVG scores pretty fine lately, flagging submitted files more often than some others there. So, it actually MIGHT be improving. Does anyone know which version exactly are they using at Jottis (free/pro/antimalware..)?

 

Yes, AVG can and will improve. Whether is will have detections rates that are comparable to the top AVs is debatable. However, the AVG AM is a very decent AV according to the last AVC tests.

Even now AVG free is satisfactory for many users who do not visit risky sites.

Best,
Jerry

 

and no one can trully define where & when that maybe, so IMHO it's best to always be prepared. One time I was hitting through baseball history pages & a trojan was caught by the AV so as I say what's safe...?

 

The internet is not really a safe browsing environment that it once was,so it's best to use a good antivirus,AVG is not up to this task,plain and simple.

 

says who?

 

Says all the malware that slips trough avg's defenses, at least around here.

There's nothingh wrong with avg if your a safe surfer but if not then choose somethingh else or add a second layer of defense preferably a sandbox. Best to use avg's payed version too.

 

You've got more posts here then I do. You should have seen alot of the comparative tests by now.

Also,have had to clean many infected machines with AVG,and yes it was up to date at the time of infection.

 

describe safe surfing?, just opening to you home page could turn out to be the wrong place to surf. As I think a very educated forum member's motto is 'an only safe computer is one that is turned off' so IMO you need you guard up 24-7-365, else you just asking for someone that's going to ruin your machine which is actually a good thing compared to what I see at work (a bank) where I see people lives destroyed as people rip off their card #
s etc & assume that persons identity...I listen to countless stories of the impact of not being properly protected & these people use some of the same protection we're talking about not just AVG. However these people do not update there protection or in some cases even take advantage of what's available. It's not funny to see people's lives impacted by hackers. The net is not a safe place I don't care where you go. You machine has info on it, it's free to those that can get there....

 

My only argument is that of the people I personally know, those who are not using the OEM AV are using AVG Free. One or two use Avast Home that I have put on their systems.
Not one has been infected. That makes me wonder if we tend to be paranoid here.

I consider them to be safe surfers. Maybe there is not such a thing, but if one does not go to porn sites or sites known to be risky, then he is a safe surfer. The proof of the pudding in their own experiences is the lack of malware on their systems.

I cannot argue anyone else's experience, and I do not doubt that those of you who work at cleaning up infected machines find what you say.
But almost no one I know has even heard of NOD, Avira, or Kaspersky. They do know about AVG, Norton, and McAfee. Somehow they seem to remain free from infections, and just "keep on trucking."

Until I see evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that AVG is sufficient for the type of users I know.

Regards,
Jerry

 

a perfect post that i agree with fully

 

The sorts of people you know aren't dumb and thus not representing the average joe's that do visit porn sites, crack sites,use p2p, some even go flaming and bashing on forums or smacktalk in games, unfortunetly those are the type i have to clean up but not kill that's illegal! I agree good posting Jerry as always.

 

I Have used avg for about a year virus free dispite test reports I have had no conflics other then a update issue. they can improve with a higher detection rate and lower false positive. I have heard and use nod32 they have been around for a long time and is one of the best if not the best in very high detection rate and very low false positives but its not free. But worth every penny. On that note the best virus protection is safe habbits.

 

you guys only talk machine infection & clean up, I deal with the real life clean up, as in not a machine but a person's identity. I think you have your priorities all messed up. FWIW free can't replace your identity & all your credit cards a reformat will get your machine back, you can't put a price on your identity...

 

It's always amusing to see how people bash AVs they don't like when they fail these kinds of so-called "real-world" tests, but are always quick to jump to the defense of their favorite AVs and point out that safe surfing habits are important for security when their favorite AV also fails horribly at such an identical test.

What happened to common sense, Firefox and a good layered setup? Are these applicable only to people's favorite AVs, and to be conveniently forgotten when one is out to bash a less-popular AV?

 

I usually enjoy your posts but if you read back and think youll notice im taking precaution for the risky surfer and actually recommending avg's paid version since it has proven way better protection. Your bashing me thanks.

edit: i don't know if youve noticed but my fav av avira is top notch since i started using it and yes it got bashed alot because it did better then many others.

 

I've cleaned a ton of badly infected machines, which were using AVG free but also I've seen clean machines running AVG free with outdated definitions. Where's the truth? It depends on the user, his/her habits and some luck.
The same can be said for almost all AVs (yes, I saw a infected machine running Antivir free).

 

Yes but that single pc wasn't heavily infected now was it? Leave out the spyware.

 

Yup,no antivirus is perfect,but I'll bet AVG misses more then Antivir will

 

I'll also bet that AntiVir gives you more FPs and updating problems than AVG ever will. What's your point?

 

More fp's i think not. This again is what alot of people who never used antivir keep screaming so their favorite will not look so bad with their much lower detection rates.

More update problems. I say the majority will have maybe slightly more update problems then avg. @ my previous job they were running all their units with avg and boy updating at windows start wasn't a joy at all.

What's the point? Better security and lighter systemimpact.

 

Not true either. Antivir gets told about false postives just like any other good,supportive antivirus company,once these are reported,they resolve the false postives through their updating system. Your next point would be?

 

AntiVir gave me more FPs on my first two days of using it than five other products did over a period of 4 years. This is a simple truth, and if you'd rather engage in pointless mud-slinging and shady implications rather than discuss facts, then that's your business. AntiVir's heavily packer-reliant detection and ridiculous HTML heuristics speak for itself. On one occasion members of a forum I visit were unable to logon for almost a week unless they turned off AntiVir or used Firefox because AntiVir insisted on flagging one of the ad banners. On another occasion (only a few days ago) it flagged the official Chinese MSN Messenger site (hosted by Microsoft) as hosting a HTML exploit - I wonder if it's been fixed yet, because submitting the problem to the Avira analysts came back with the reply that the website was indeed infected, which was absolute BS. Not to mention that Avira is literally the KING of detecting dead and corrupted files as malware (why? because they do nothing but whack packers instead of real malicious code). If you've really used Avira, you'd know all this, but I guess some fans really do mindlessly just follow reviews and popular opinion without bothering to learn anything about their favorite product.

Yes, slightly. With megabyte-sized updates and blazing-fast speeds up to 7KB/s even on broadband, and that's if you're a lucky bastard. Yep, I guess the majority will have "maybe" "slightly" more problems than AVG.

PS: I suggest you search the forum regarding AntiVir update problems for your "maybe" "slightly" more problems. I'd like to hear how many people have problems with updating Avira vs AVG.

Better security, at what cost? Using a HIPS offers you better security. Turning off your PC offers you better security. Chaining it up and burying it underground offers you better security. The problem is what comes with it.

 

AVG gets told about new malware just like any other good,supportive antivirus company, once these are reported, they add detection for new malware through their updating system. Your next point would be?

 

i was gonna jump in this thread with my comments, but solcroft seems to be handling it by himself.

2 things though,

avg on my systems has always been lighter on the system than avira (or any other)

and, why does 'avira' jump into every thread with the same arguments and dare i say it, bashing of other products?

 

My point is Antivir has better detection rate over AVG,period. dont believe me?
check out http://www.av-comparatives.org/ do your research!