avg or avast for free antivirus ?

robmar0se

GunJack wrote: »

rob, this is why an advanced user should or will, on installation of avira, change the heuristics to High... one of the best behavioural engines about, and certainly best of the free ones It's just a shame the default is set in the middle..I still don't get why :question:

GJ, I don't use Avira, but am interested in what you say...I was just disappointed that on the two files I sent to Virustotal, it reported that Avira didn't pick them up whereas Norton, AVG etc did. Is what you're saying that even if the specific file isn't identified by Avira, the heuristics probably/possibly would? The files in question were variations on the SystemFix virus.

debitcardmayhem

robmar0se wrote: »

GJ, I don't use Avira, but am interested in what you say...I was just disappointed that on the two files I sent to Virustotal, it reported that Avira didn't pick them up whereas Norton, AVG etc did. Is what you're saying that even if the specific file isn't identified by Avira, the heuristics probably/possibly would? The files in question were variations on the SystemFix virus.

Because You are 900 years ahead :cool::eek:
Mind you me and GJ are years out of date

robmar0se wrote: »

AVG 2912 Free ...........snipped

pennymakespounds

RobmarOse ... thank you ! ... didn't know you could schedule .. now done .

GunJack

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

Mind you me and GJ are years out of date

Oy !!! speak for yourself you old duffer, I'm still under 45 (just!!) :rotfl: no offence, of course mate

Rob - yes, the heuristics are designed specifically to pick up on suspicious behaviour, and stop it as it trys to happen, IYSWIM. Avira's are good in Normal setting, but better in HIgh. This is an issue that av-comparatives do note in their testing, in that some companies specify what to set such things to in their product, or leave it "out-of-the-box". HTH

..and remember, of course, NO av is 100% for threats

GunJack

Oh, and BTW, I use avira on my desktop and workhorse lappy, with avast on the mini-Gun's and my main lappys. For average user I would normally recommend avast over avira, for the inclusion of the e-mail scanner and other bells & whistles which the less-techie person may well need more than a more advanced user who doesn't really need them as such...

debitcardmayhem

GunJack wrote: »

Oh, and BTW, I use avira on my desktop and workhorse lappy, with avast on the mini-Gun's and my main lappys. For average user I would normally recommend avast over avira, for the inclusion of the e-mail scanner and other bells & whistles which the less-techie person may well need more than a more advanced user who doesn't really need them as such...

I use avira on my XP,Kaspersky(free from Barcs) on the netbooks(not very light but hey ho) and NIS on the workhorse(paid for by OH work) and this beast here has NIS or nowt (if running Fedora/Ubuntu) and even less when using for banking (it runs a tailored version of systemrescuecd {running via usb / xboot } ) Oh and GJ I don't want to see you in a dress either hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3938717 :rotfl::rotfl:

grizzly1911

I found Avast better than AVG.

AVG seemed to slow things down way too much as did Kasperky, free through Barclays. KAspersky did track down and sort out a couple of issiues once that AVG didn't.

Use MS essentials on the secondary PCs.

Avast updates automatically and you get a nice accented verbal notification;)

GunJack

NIS has got better apparently for detections, but I still believe it's a bit (but not as bad as it was) of a resource hog, same with KIS - never seen a system run properly with that on it....

debitcardmayhem

GunJack wrote: »

NIS has got better apparently for detections, but I still believe it's a bit (but not as bad as it was) of a resource hog, same with KIS - never seen a system run properly with that on it....

Yeah I know especially if running on an [STRIKE] amoeba [/STRIKE]Atom(270):D

gonzo127

latest av comparatives test result for a on demand scan with roughly 300,000 virus test sample (http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_fd_mar2012_intl_en.pdf)

virus's found
Avira - 99.4% detection
Avast - 98% detection
AVG - 96.4% detection
Microsoft security essentials (MSE) - 93.1% detection

false positive test
MSE - 0 FP
Avast - 14 FP
Avira - 15 FP
AVG - 38 FP

this is generally the normal standing for these products and why avast is generally the recommended AV for most people atm as it has good detection rates with only a few false positives, and combined with the extras it has such as the email scanner and a basic auto sandbox is a very good all round product.

yes Avira does have better detection rates but in general is a bit more annoying as it has a advert pop up everytime it updates asking you to buy the main product for 'better protection' and also doesnt include the email scanner etc

as it stands at the moment, both AVG and microsoft have performed pretty poorly for the last few tests i have seen and so i wouldnt recommend them until they have shown a sustained improvement in detection rates