Making Avast the lowest overhead AV available

WOW it must be good. Because I've never heard you say anything like that before!

 

well sober this morning and it is still true. I really do like this suite.

 

I've considered trying it myself. Would you mind giving a little more detail about what specifically you like about it? Also, anything you don't like?

Thanks!

 

the firewall is silent which I like and for the most part is as good as the rest. I like the ability to decide which shields to install on which computers based on needs. So far, the sandbox has worked great. Maybe adds a second for the browser to open. The entire suite is very light and I know the protection is good.

Antispam for Windows mail is my sore spot. I created a rule to move spam to my deleted folder. But for the life of me, I have yet figured out how to msrk good email that has been labeled spam.

It is a very good suite and the 2 year price for 1 year is a steal.

 

I am running both you mention maxed out in sensitivity on a 64-bit Vista notebook and I cannot tell the difference when they are running or when they are not. Incredible lightness.

 

I seriously contemplated buying Avast 5 AV Pro, but went with NOD32 instead based on a variety of factors. I tried the Avast 5 Pro demo and was overwhelmingly pleased it's performance and low memory footprint.

Without comparing the two, can some of the pro users shed light on the features they love most, and their experience with detection rates? I'm only interested in the AV, not the security suite. What about customer support?

 

I own both and both are great, so no head to head comparision. I am using Avast Pro on one laptop. It is extemely light and so far it hasnt let anything through. The network shield has actually done more then the rest. On 3 occasions going to web pages, it blocked redirects.

The best would be having a Sandbox, that works, and also being able to virtualize applications. Bottom line, you need to try them both out and decide.

 

with the network shield enabled is it still needed to enable the web shield?

 

Both have very different protection mechanisms. Web shield scans all traffic coming via HTTP on port 80. It's similar to File Shield but it acts before the code hits your HDD, i.e. in-transit. Network shield watches some commonly exploited ports for malicious activity and also acts like a malicious-URL blocker.

 

I have about 8 different "suites". I have to admit at this point based on about 5 different factors, Avast rules them all.

 

Let me add, having said that, the new Norton is coming very, very close. But no sandbox.

 

I seem to recall a few posting their concerns as to how effective Avast's sandbox is currently. That it was letting programs "escape". How is the sandbox working for you?

 

works fine for me. Come on, lets not go down this road again because I have used 64 bit Sandboxie, and Kaspersky trying to get it to work with 64 bit and application may be limited messages. Ugh!!!

For 64 bit, Avast wipes them all off the map.

And Malcontent, I wasnt venting at you because it is a good question.

 

with 5.1, they will have the last piece of the puzzle in place - boot time scan. It is a very under appreciated feature. I wonder why more and more vendors do not implement this. QuickHeal is the only other AV I am aware of that can do boot time scans.

 

avast! 5 keeps "upgrading" the performance of old CPU PCs for me (of course, having no AV at all is even faster). Seriously extreme example, 4 months ago a friend with an old Intel 440BX / 333mhz PII w/512MB RAM was looking or a new computer. Uninstalled the AV he had, installed avast! 5.0, now says he's satisfied with what he's got!

2 years ago I bought a 2.2ghz Celeron Vista laptop w/2 GB RAM, Norton trial came off straight away due to poor performance.
Last week, another new Celeron T3100 W7 laptop came across my desk. NIS 2010 trial is still on there. I don't think the owner will end up paying for it but to say it's not causing any bother would be an understatement.

 

Similar experience here. This is perhaps the only traditional AV that has been in the market for so long and still has not lost focus from impact on system performance.

 

Do any of you guys KNOW which version(s) of Avast will be tested in the next AV Comparatives reports?

My main interest is real time performance in detecting/blocking malware that has not yet got a signature.

I hope this post is not OT.

 

Rising AV also has a boot time scan, they just seem to call it start up scan.

 

For those of you running the free version, are the ads that noticeable? I've never seen them in the screenshots. ATM, I'm demo'ing the Internet Security suite (w/o the firewall) along side Outpost Pro Firewall 7.02, and was wondering if there's a big enough difference over the free version to justify the purchase. The only reason I'm considering the IS suite is because of the 1yr free deal. Also, what about the "delayed" updates?

I demoed KAV 2011 too, and a full system scan took 3 hours, and 40 minutes on my machine. Avast! 5 IS took 50 minutes. (MODS: I'm not comparing)

 

I think so. Script shield, sandbox. No update issues here. To me, it is a suite deal.

 

you also might want to read this

 

Since you already have a firewall, Avast has the 2 for 1 deal with Avast Pro for $39.95. Two years for the price of one. The license covers only one computer.

http://www.avast.com/pro-antivirus

 

I needed the 3-PC license. I even tried begging Avast! via email. No luck

 

Avast listens. Check your PM. They are very good people.

 

While having sbxie already I installed Avast free together with Outpost fw (already had a lifetime license) + regged Prevx. I 'm very satisfied. Avast is great, no questions about it.

BTW, this topic seems to have been turned to a general avast topic.