AVG or advast?

Daz2009

I found avg slowed my computer down so switched to Avast a couple of years ago (the free version obviously).
I've not had any reason to complain since

Wongsky

Daz2009 wrote: »

I found avg slowed my computer down so switched to Avast a couple of years ago (the free version obviously).
I've not had any reason to complain since

Well I largely did the same - got a bit fed up with the bloat and slowdown from AVG, so went with Avast for a couple of years, then found that to have a bit of an overhead, and went with MSE.

I have to say, I've found MSE perfect, not overly intrusive, yet decent levels of protection, and updates done through the normal Windows / Microsoft update mechanism.

marleyboy

I am sorely tempted by MSE but still in the unsure whether to or not. I currently have Avira installed, but am getting frustrated over the constant pop up nags it displays.

Have always trusted Avira (since recommended by the Tech team) albeit is a drag on resources, but the nagware is becoming more of a nuisance.

The only reason for not installing MSE upto now, is the word Microsoft, yet have seen many people recommending it in the forums, enough to tweak my interest. Can anyone tell me if it is secure or as good as Avira?

closed

As has been seen in this thread, people recommend all sorts in forums.

mse is bloated, uses a lot of ram, doesn't always update properly, has a rubbish interface, and inferior protection compared to the other free ones, apart from that, it's fine.:D

Wongsky

closed wrote: »

As has been seen in this thread, people recommend all sorts in forums.

mse uses a lot of ram, doesn't always update properly, has a rubbish interface, and inferior protection compared to the other free ones, apart from that, it's fine.:D

Eh?

I've found MSE to be pretty much the lightest out of all three of: AVG, Avast and MSE, and is the choice I've used after migrating AVG -> Avast -> MSE, on some fairly old desktops, for family members and friends, for performance reasons.

As to it's efficacy, well opinions always vary - however, I've had experience of it being deployed in HUGE corporate environments, after migrating away from 3rd party payware.

And I'm really not getting the doesn't always update properly thing - it uses the Windows update mechanism. Sure, nothing is perfect, but I'd hardly see it as something inferior to the update mechanisms in other freeware A/V products.

closed

corporate decisions are probably more related to cost or the whim of someone in power who has been wined and dined, than anything else.

Windows update is not the most robust update mechanism invented, and when it fails, slowing bootup and leaving crap all over the system, it's almost impossible to find out why.

There are some percentages above about detection, but as with all percentages they shouldn't be taken as gospel, but used as an indication - 93% isn't best of breed or anywhere near.

it's not light on resources compared to avast, the difference should be very apparent on old machines with little ram

mse is ok for free, but the best choice of free AV is a different matter.

Gillor

closed wrote: »

....mse is bloated, uses a lot of ram, doesn't always update properly, has a rubbish interface, and inferior protection compared to the other free ones, apart from that, it's fine.:D

Agreed.

Read the independent test reports if you want to see how good MSE really is.

Wongsky

closed wrote: »

corporate decisions are probably more related to cost or the whim of someone in power who has been wined and dined, than anything else.

Strategy decisions and scenarios where big corporates have enterprise agreements, I'm not really seeing it for something like A/V - more likely they would be influenced by, um, ISVs with expense accounts.

In the instance I'm talking about, alcohol nor cuisine greased the wheels of industry - the decision was taken at a technical level, on preference of the technical team - not one I was directly involved in, I work with bigger, more important environments.

closed wrote: »

Windows update is not the most robust update mechanism invented, and when it fails, slowing bootup and leaving crap all over the system, it's almost impossible to find out why.

Um, none of the solutions for software updates are foolproof, my experience hasn't made me hate Microsoft Update any more than other vendors - in fact, probably less.

That's with having to have written and deployed code to resolve issues with Windows / Microsoft update on many desktop machines.

closed wrote: »

There are some percentages above about detection, but as with all percentages they shouldn't be taken as gospel, but used as an indication - 93% isn't best of breed or anywhere near.

We're not talking about best of breed, here - we're talking about freeware.

closed wrote: »

it's not light on resources compared to avast, the difference should be very apparent on old machines with little ram

Exactly the environments I am talking about - I look after PCs for several family members. Some are really old (read: Celerons, PIIIs or P4s in some cases with as little as 256M RAM, others mostly half a gig, running XP) - and over time, I've progressively seen AVG, then Avast slow the things down. It's not been anything they've done, because I only let them use them as normal users (no admin privileges) and the slowdown / sluggishness has gone away, once moving on from the incumbent AV software. For old machines, that I look after, I've found MSE the best of the three (AVG, Avast and MSE) for still leaving the PC responsive, and I've not noticed any issues with infections.

closed wrote: »

mse is ok for free, but the best choice of free AV is a different matter.

Opinions vary - tomayto, tomato. I've run with all three, and on my own PCs as well as ones I look after for other people, several of which are damn old, and need every help staying responsive.

Now true - it may not offer the ultimate protection, it may not be best for those that surf and turf with abandon, but as a free product, with little footprint, unobtrusive, with reasonable protection, I find, in context of AVG and Avast, it's preferable.

closed

In terms of detection, it's clearly not the best AV around, so whatever reason a specific corporate (of which there are many who use something else) chose to use it, detection wasn't the number one reason. Being a member of a technical team, doesn't guarantee an expert decision.

93% is poor for any AV.

mse would cripple a machine with 256M ram, windows update uses a similar amount of memory, that would be a very slow bootup.

http://www.raymond.cc/antivirus/peakmem.html

Wongsky

closed wrote: »

In terms of detection, it's clearly not the best AV around, so whatever reason a specific corporate (of which there are many who use something else) chose to use it, detection wasn't the number one reason. Being a member of a technical team, doesn't guarantee an expert decision.

93% is poor for any AV.

You're being selective on criteria, though - that's one factor - there will be others.

Which is why, in the instance I cite, the technical team did choose in favour of MSE. Before that, they were running 2 or 3 different products on different tiers of infrastructure.

closed wrote: »

mse would cripple a machine with 256M ram, windows update uses a similar amount of memory

I run it on a Celeron, running XP, with 256M RAM.

And prior to that, that machine ran (originally) AVG, then Avast. It runs (if you can call it that) notably more responsively since moving from AVG and Avast to MSE. No intervening rebuild, it's on my rig at home. There are other similar, and slightly better powered PCs in ones that I take care of for other family members, so it's far from a sample size of 1.