a thread at Wilders about avast4 pro

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/index.php?board=24;action=display;threadid=23748

2

well, as far as i’m concerned > Avast is already with the “big boys” ;D

Seems there making a judgment on a very unprofessional test-lab (my humble opinion).

btw ; a score of 93.06 is not bad ! (better than Trend Micro Pc-cillin :slight_smile: )

Waldo

3

Sometimes I found a lot of weird opinions at Wilders…
Sometimes I feel unconfortable reading a lot of non-experts and non-professional posts there :cry:
Opinions, opinions… users must find solutions from time to time and seek for answers 8)

4

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

Under Comparatives, Online Results

Results are weak. 83.5% less DOS and other OS. That’s for the pro (paid) version, which is not competitively priced with the others.

5

I think an overall detection rate is a very difficult task to do and a results depend on a quality of malware sample ( it’s a real malware or some garbage that download from VX site ) that are used in that test.

Personally, I don’t care about how many viruses Avast recognise as long as Avast gives me a fast-ease-auto update for A REAL-LIFE MALWARE. :wink:

6

This is more inspiring. 9 out of 10 give it a thumbs up.

http://download.com.com/3302-2239-10245925.html

http://download.com.com/3302-2239_4-10261831.html?pn=1&fb=0

Just look at the negative responses. Most people are XP users or had problems with crashes during installation and so forth. Many others are falsely claiming the Home Ed. is not freeware and thus giving it a negative approval rating.

Contempt prior to investigation works both ways.

BTW, minacross thanks for posting your link. It is difficult to get readings for Avast! compared to other AV programs. In fact, that comparison is the most comprehensive I have seen.

7

I can’t find on that website where they claim their source is from VX site (what ever that is). Plus you’re referring only to malware, which Avast! performed above average. In auditing, sampling is a good indicator of an error rate. I suppose the same premise works with a virus sample as well. I don’t see anything wrong with the sample size used.