So is it time to ditch AVG ?

MORPH3US

I used to be exactly the same as the Op using AVG and recommending it to plenty too.

I have now switched to Avast and find it very good - in the respects that I never know its there until it pops up to warn me about a problem.

JasX

I've recently looked beyond AVG too, Avira seems to have a problem with its update feature atm and after 2 weeks of needing to do it manually gave up...

Have loaded Avast late last week and no complaints so far

[Deleted User]

JasX wrote: »

Avira seems to have a problem with its update feature atm and after 2 weeks of needing to do it manually gave up...

There's been a fair amount of chat about this subject - for me there's only been one or two occassions when Windows has alerted me my definitions are out of date. For the average user getting definations maybe a day or two later than when they were released is no real problem.

I'd rather have definations with 99.4% detection rate two days after release than 94% detection rate straight away!

Eric_Pisch

Deleted_User wrote: »

Let's look at what's most important with an anti-virus - it's detection rates:

Avira 99.4%
Avast 98%
AVG 94%

Source - http://www.av-comparatives.org/



http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm

that's for the old avg 8.5

you need to be careful of such reports since month on month they change as different companies pick up and fix virus at varying speeds, 90% of the stuff they also scan for are not in the wild either, test methodology is also important as is publication bias. The reality is these results go out of date as fast as a virus scanner that's not updated.

I got avg9 on about 11 or 12 machines at the moment with no problems, the nag screen is there for a reason the old version will not be up to date after December

The biggest problem I have with 9 is the direct connect and download not always working, but you can get full copies at filehippo

Eric_Pisch

Deleted_User wrote: »

There's been a fair amount of chat about this subject - for me there's only been one or two occassions when Windows has alerted me my definitions are out of date. For the average user getting definations maybe a day or two later than when they were released is no real problem.

I'd rather have definitions with 99.4% detection rate two days after release than 94% detection rate straight away!

I wouldn't, especially as 90% of the test virus are not in the wild, having the ability to pick up the latest live threats is critical imo. I update our servers 6 times a day.

[Deleted User]

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

you need to be careful of such reports since month on month they change as different companies pick up and fix virus at varying speeds

May I suggest you read some of their reports from earlier this year, last year, the year before that? I think you'll find Avira has been topping the tables for quite some time...

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

90% of the stuff they also scan for are not in the wild either, test methodology is also important as is publication bias.

Proof please.

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

I wouldn't, especially as 90% of the test virus are not in the wild, having the ability to pick up the latest live threats is critical imo. I update our servers 6 times a day.

I didn't mean to thank you.

I think what is telling is that you use AVG on servers! Not exactly professional in my opinion! But hey, what do I know - I'm only 1 of a team of 17 who support ~600 servers...

John_Gray

Deleted_User wrote: »

I think what is telling is that you use AVG on servers! Not exactly professional in my opinion! But hey, what do I know - I'm only 1 of a team of 17 who support ~600 servers...

And what do the other 16 people on your team think? I hope they don't exhibit the same degree of prejudice! (The argument that "I've got more servers than you have" is surely unprofessional...)

If it was 'unprofessional' to use AVG on servers, then why do AVG produce versions which include server support, and write technical information about how to install AVG on mail servers, terminal servers, and the like?

Please remember that there are also people who recommend McAfee! (No, not me...)

Eric_Pisch

Deleted_User wrote: »

May I suggest you read some of their reports from earlier this year, last year, the year before that? I think you'll find Avira has been topping the tables for quite some time...

Proof please.




I didn't mean to thank you.

I think what is telling is that you use AVG on servers! Not exactly professional in my opinion! But hey, what do I know - I'm only 1 of a team of 17 who support ~600 servers...

Should have clarified I do not use avg on my servers or any of my 600 clients being a comercial concern we license cooperate software, but rather on home PCs, laptops, net books, test machines, and in the last 3 years none have crashed or been infected

I am also not knocking the other leading free AVG products since i use them as well, rather pointing out AVG will work fine for 99% of its users

As for virus test methodology for these tests, there's plenty of articles on it, actual live virus's are a small part of what they test for.

Traditional virus's also only make up about 13% of all infections now as well.

bikerboi87

in the past i have had absolutely no problems with AVG. however, when i upgraded to AVG 9 a few weeks ago my computer slowed to a crawl, so i looked into it, and discovered that it was using up all free memory (i typically have over 3GB of memory free)

i've installed it on my mum's laptop and she's had no problems with it

so i'm not entirely sure

aardvaak

Am I right in saying that AVG9 is not free?