Eset Smart Security 4 ???

Hi I currently have a subscription for Avast Internet Security. It expires in Feb 2011 and have it on 3 computers. I currently uninstalled from my personal laptop and installed ESS 4. I seem to like it and maybe even boost the speed performance of my laptop. I wanted to know what you guys opinion was on ESS 4 vs Avast Internet Security. I've had avast for the past year and my malwarebytes free and superantispyware free always find things that my avast has missed. Thanks in advance for your input.

 

I don't think forum rules allow for pitting suite vs suite. If they do I'll gladly provide my opinions on both.

 

Hello security2011

And this is why: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180128
Otherwise I Agree with, ALookingInView.
Best Regards and bye the way, Welcome to the forum security2011

 

Well I guess someone can close this thread. Thanks!

 

I believe policy allows you to compare the two only in the context of what each has to offer. Stating facts like one has a sandbox, and the other does not. A comparison of services offered should be allowed. You just can't say A is better than B. Just state facts about each product.

 

Sounds about right to me, but I don't think I'll touch this one after all. For what it's worth, I have room in my Inbox.

 

alas, no security product catches each and every threat. Every product has its advantages and disadvantages.
As you have found out yourself, ESET's is (amongst others) a low impact on system performance

 

Note sure about SAS, but MB also finds redundant registry keys or even folders from which malware has already been removed. Detection capabilities of AVs cannot be measured by the number of detected/removed items but one should also consider the following:
1, detected object (files/registry keys/folder or file names, etc.) - most AVs do not detect registry keys or empty folders just because the name is used by certain malware. However, they should be able to neutralize the malware by removing referrences to it from the registry.
2, functionality - e.g. the downloading of malware may have been interrupted and thus the alleged malicious file would be non-functional,
3, type of detection (malware or potentially unwanted / unsafe applications - PUA) - detection of the latter is often optional and not enabled by default. Some companies refuse to add detection for certain PUAs intentionally.
4, type of file - programs like MB may also detect redundant data files that do not pose any risk at all. Other vendors do not detect them at all. A similar case is autorun.inf. The file itself does not pose a risk as it's a plain text file that contains information about the file the OS should trigger on removable media automatically when inserted. Autorun.inf may refer to a malicious file with the name likely to be used by other legit software. In such case vendors should not detect such autorun.ing at all or it might trigger FP with certain programs.

 

Thanks for all the info.