These are some of the key features(I think) that could make avast! the NEXT BIG THING if(and only IF) they want to be known as the #1 FREE AV!
Anti-rootkit capability - Avira’s AntiVir has stepped up ahead of competition for this innovation, giving it away for the Free Edition.
Better adware/spyware detection - avast! can detect 33% of in-the-wild spyware! Not bad for an AV software, considering its free! But then again it would be better if it detects at least 70% of spyware. That could be a great compliment for your other anti-spyware programs!
Low memory storage for new virus definitions - Unfortunately, this is avast’s major weakness. Unlike other freeware AVs, like AVG and AntiVir, it takes up 2x the space on hard disk.
Other than those, avast has no problems. Oh, and for those who wonder why avast’s virus definitions are not relative to virus names, it’s because they are ENCRYPTED, which is good. Hope somebody out there finds this post useful!
That somehow surprises me - how big are the definition files of AVG or AntiVir?
Anyway, I’m quite sure the size of avast! VPS file won’t be decreased (on contrary, maybe). But I must say I find it rather funny to call it a “major weakness” ;D
Today, when many program installers have hundreds of megabytes, new operating systems takes gigabytes of disk space… and a 7MB definition file is a problem?
The virus definition space is not a weakness, it can or will increase because everyday there are new viruses. That suggestion don’t has sense. It had nothing to do with Avast ability to remove or detect virus
To igor:
That’s easy for you to say. Perhaps you have a new OS such as Windows XP/Vista? But for users of old OS(I run Windows ME), it is a problem. The more the bytes, the more the space it takes up and eventually slows whole system performance. I am just clarifying that it is safe to say that avast is good for those users with high-performance OS and processors w/ lots of hard disk space. As for me, I’m sticking with AntiVir because it isn’t a system hog like avast. But this does not mean that I am underestimating the capability of avast to detect viruses. According to latest studies, avast was able to detect 85% of in-the-wild viruses while AntiVir was able to detect 91%+. Do your research ifyou don’t believe me…
It’s not a resource hog. On contrary, I even tried it on Windows 95. Which is your Standard Shield protection level: High or Normal? Normal is the best balance between protection and performance.
It’s not affect the system performance using more disk space. Two things aren’t related. You could use Windows Me in a faster computer, with a good (big) HDD.
Well… tons of studies are released every day, some of them serious, some biased…
Antivir is a good antivirus, for sure. But I don’t think it has the avast configurability and features.
Look, I’d really like to upgrade my processor speed and my hard disk drive… but the problem is I still don’t have the money. I’ve only a blue collar job, working as a repairman in a computer shop. And if I HAD the money, I wouldn’t settle for free antivirus software, wouldn’t I? There are plenty of excellent paid-for AV products out there, like Kaspersky and NOD32, which beats the rest in the competition.
For sure I’ll agree with you on point 1, and partly on point 2. But the downloadable definition file for avast! = 6.98 mb while Antivir = 14.9 mb compressed. If the size of avast! definitions is a problem for you then Antivir must be more than twice the problem.
Based my observations, the term "Windows ME user" could be considered an oxymoron, but back to your main points.
You’d like Avast! to detect more spyware (2.), which would require a larger definition database, but you’d also like “Low memory storage for new virus definitions” (3.), i.e. a smaller definition database. I’m afraid you really can’t have all your shopping in one bag and not have that bag be heavy. ;D
Now, as to the relative bloatedness of Avast’s definition file, Igor says it’s currently 7MB. I don’t know about Antivir but AVG’s current “u7iavi8354t.bin” is 9,125KB, or about 8.9MB.
Exactly how little RAM do you have? I have a 98SE laptop with 80MB that is hardly slowed by Avast! and even a 95OSR2 desktop with 48MB (which I admit is more a curiosity than for everyday use) that works well enough but does take a really really long time to apply Avast! program updates.
Ok, I must admit, I think I over-exaggerated on point #3… The current AntiVir version(w/ the anti-rootkit capability) might have bigger definitions files, but the older versions(AntiVir w/o anti-rootkit) takes up much less space than any other AV freeware. Back then avast was not that popular, and AVG and AntiVir were the only MAJOR competitors in freeware AV. It’s no wonder so many patronize AVG and AntiVir.
Anyway, going back to the related issue… All these points I have stated are just my opinions on how to be the better AV, and we should always look forward to changes. Avast, AVG, and AntiVir all have their own strengths and weaknesses… but based on editors’/users’ reviews and overall experience, AntiVir topples them over.
Avast is still one of the best out there, no doubt about it, but it will never be as good as Kaspersky or NOD32…
but it will never be as good as Kaspersky or NOD32..
always good to know we have occultdestroyer peering into crystall balls and dreaming future dreams in which avast is firmly ranked for all time. Not much help to be had from that quarter then.
You’re exaggerating again…
I think avast is better than NOD32 right now.
The detection of Kaspersky is better than avast but I did not try it to know about other features (resources usage, configurability, etc.).
Take care: a biased review is worse than ignorance in my opinion.
Colour me confused on the latest av-comparatives May Retrospective tests, whilst avast has Received an Advanced rating, there would appear to be some issues with the bottom line detection percentages and the category awarded.
Some AVs have had a reasonable percentage, yet they have only received a Standard assessment and some with a lower percentage have received a higher assessment ‘Advanced’ category ???
I will talk about the size or space of VPSs. Sometimes updates of avast downloads 8 kilobytes, sometimes 15 kilobytes. Did you see how big is updates of Norton? Avira, AVG and Nod32 updates are bigger than the Avast! ones too.
Why not? I have a good job, I have a nice monthly salary, and I still prefer avast!
And I think avast! is really low on resources, I have installed it on my mothers Win98-computer, and avast! runs smooth!
I have tried Kaspersky and NOD32, but I don’t like them, so I am back with avast…wich IMHO is the best antivirus, and it is the most configurable progam out here!
Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing.
I know avast does incremental VPS updates so as to reduce the download size for the user so updates are quick and to reduce server load.
So unless you can clearly state that they too are using incremental updates then there is no direct comparison. I remember the old AVG updates being the download of virtually the complete signature file and on dial-up that was a nightmare, so I’m thankful for avast’s quick incremental updates.
If anyone wants a nightmare update… just use AVG (either the antivirus and the antispyware).
I need to work one afternoon in a friend’s computer… It just can’t update at all… it’s silly.
By the way, what a good detection rate has Kaspersky even in the on-line scanning.
An infected computer that passes through a-squared, Spybot, AVGas, AVG antivirus… it was detected by Kaspersky.
I wish I could have that scanning engine. AVK has two engines, one is Kaspersky, it would be nice if there is a freeware version 8)
I have a good job, I have a nice monthly salary, and I still prefer avast!