Does anyone know if there are AV tests that also take into consideration the repair and removal abilities of a given product, rather than just detection rates and scanning speeds and resource usage?
It seems that repair and removal is an area that is somehow overlooked, or maybe not given as much attention, in tests like Virus Bulletin.
When I compare avast! v4.7 Home Edition to Norton AntiVirus, for instance, I’m curious to know what each product will do after the virus or worm is detected. Does Symantec have a more extensive Removal Tool library than avast!? How effective are the tools that are available for free to the public?
There are, of course, many more areas each user must investigate when making a buying decision (compatability, user interface, price, etc.). But I believe that repair and removal is not getting its share of coverage.
Is this a segment of comparative testing that needs improvement?
Although I can’t answer for sure, there are reviews on the Web that try to cover the repair capabilities.
avast has VRDB as an unique method to recover infected executable files.
There is also a standalone cleaner.
But I think there are other better antivirus for cleaning, like BitDefender.
I just haven’t come across them. They all seem to be aimed at detection.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Are you interested in personal experiences?
I’m sure that a lot of avast users could talk about ‘other’ experiences in this field, including me: Norton, McAfee, AVG, BitDefender, Antivir, Nod32…
But, of course, right now, after all tests, my experience is hardly biased toward avast… ;D
Sure, I’m interested in personal experiences.
Sometimes I’ll rely on them more than I would rely on a review.
Once in a while when reading a review, one gets the distinct impression that the writer has a hidden agenda.
Personal experiences might be limited or anecdotal, but at least they aren’t driven by payoffs.
Since most of us are avast! users and most of us are using the free (home) version,
our comments aren’t driven by payoffs or payouts. ;D
So, here it’s mine:
First I used PC-Cilin… time of DOS and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups :-[
Then I’ve migrated to Norton into SystemWorks (early versions). Too many resources taken by the antivirus. Every time I test NAV I see it as a resource hog. It’s a suite, all-in-one, and I started to do not like this. I’d rather layered defense, as no program is perfect, other ones help me when avast failed, for instance. NAV is very little configurable.
I bought McAfee for two years. But when I renew my subscription they changed the program version from 4 to 5 and did not allow me to get the new one when I have 11 months of an ‘old’ subscription. Lost my respect in this company. It was better than NAV in resource usage.
Then I’ve stayed one year with the free AVG. Difficulties to update (that are still there :P) and the very little configurability and I find avast browsing the Internet. When I’ve installed avast, I’ve got a problem with 16-bits applications… in one hour I receive fully support from Kubecj and Vlk. They are guilty for me to be here since then ;D
The others were always a second, non-resident antivirus for me: BitDefender, Antivir, Nod32. The easier is the BitDefender to have as non-resident, good detection rate. Antivir becomes difficult to be used side-by-side with avast. NOD32 i just tested the trial period of an old version.