Hi! I have heard that Antivir 7, actually is better of Avast Home, because it has a more high detection rate… and because is more stable and light on resources. It is true? I haven’t tried it.
I have heard that Antivir open some port on PC for the internal comunication of the components and this is not a very good choice… it’s true?
I’m using Avast from an year… My question is,… I can continue with Avast or actually is better try Antivir 7.0?
Thanks for support.
This seems to be truth, specially for the heuristic detection.
I don’t think so… avast is as stable as Antivir, at least, when I’ve used Antivir in the past.
The same… avast is not a resource hog. avast has extra features that Antivir does not have and these ones, when activated, could take extra resources. Nothing that you can’t accept…
Internal (local) communication is safe. Antivir, if it really use this, won’t be affected and your computer won’t be in danger. A lot of applications (any) uses local communication…
Please, consider support, updates, features, etc. to compare both of them.
Suggestion is unnecessary here in avast! forums 
I agree with Tech. It’s true Antivir ha better detection rating, but Avast! offers more options. Coming to the Support forum of Avast! asking if it’s better keep Avast or not it’s a bit pointless.
I’ve use Antivir 6, 7 beta and 7 in the past. But the 7 gave me lots of problems with the updates (I used the free version. The paid one has better update servers) and I removed it.
Avast! takes a bit more resourses from my system but that’s because I have all the providers active, all on hight settings.
As for the support I think it’s better Avast! I tried Antivir forum but the english forum is a bit slow in responding. And not so good in support for “unknown” issues.
I guess the German one is better but I don’t speak the german language.
If you don’t have problems with Avast! I think you can keep using it. And do an on-line scan, from time to time, with Trend Micro (it supports firefox too) or Symantec (sadly only using IE). Lately even Kaspersky is offering an on-line scanner, both for single files and for a system.
I don’t think there’s a big difference between the detection rates of AVG and avast! avast! has more features (like Webshield) and AVG has a stone age interface for lovers of the retro look.
AntiVir has a better detection rate but the servers for the free version are so busy that it’s impossible to download updates unless you’re an insomniac. Come to think of it, AVG’s servers used to be slow- that’s why I switched to avast! Antivir lacks email integration- I considered it on my system because my ISP blocks viruses in email, but the impossibility of getting updates made it a no-no.
avast! just needs to work on definitions (and perhaps malware removal) to be a really great AV. At the moment, it’s probably the best of the three, features and update speed winning over definition, in my opinion of course!
Thanks very much for all the comment.
AntiVir has a bit better overall detection rates than avast! but that reason doesn’t enough for me to think AntiVir is better than avast!.
When people look for an antivirus they look for detection and user simplicity avast! has good detection and it is getting better. Alwil hired a couple new virus analysts a few months ago and they are working hard. 4.7 was just released lets see what is new.
I have to disagree about the resource usage point. Right now the new avast 4.7 is using total 9mb of ram foe all 5 avast processes… i don’t remember being this low. I believe its one of the lowest right now and we have to congratulate the alwil team for this one 
Yes, I totally agree with you.
I believe that avast! is now one of the lightest (but full of features) antivirus software in the market.
Why Awil dont implemen heuristics detecntion in the standard shiedl. It will improve the detection rate of avast
It could also greatly increase the number of false positive detections if not implemented correctly or have a good heuristic engine. So that would also have to be a major consideration for Alwil.
I don’t see this in other antivirus… maybe they know how to implement this…
NOD32, McAfee, Kaspersky… they are not known as being false positives fans 8)
The response was “it could” just look at the reactions in the forums on email detections using the heuristics settings. It throws many into a loop/panic when they see the suspicious email warning.
The fact that you don’t see it in other AVs that use it isn’t relevant to avast. avast won’t be using their heuristics engine, they will either have to build their own or buy one in. So if and when avast do include heuristics to the other shields it will be a huge step forward, but it is a giant step ready and waiting to trip you up if you don’t get the balance right.
Get it right and everything is sweetness and light, get it wrong and the forums and support could be very busy and it could damage avast’s good reputation, so it could also have huge commercial ramifications.
In my opinion, some reputable antivirus (e.g. Trend Micro, CA eTrust) doesn’t care much about heuristics or how much detected malware in their database, they seem to heavily rely on signature and process of updating for malware that are really spreading in the wild.
Signature-baed method may best fit to their circumstance and their resource, it’s may easier to management and maintenance.
They won’t use heuristics at all. They already stated this before 
I have just come back to Avast after about 6 months of trying other AV’s. I ran AntiVir 7 for a few weeks but was always concerned about how much RAM it took, in the region of 24Mb. Just looking at Avast now and it is about 10Mb. This makes a difference on this old PC with only 256Mb of Ram.
It runs well and has little impact when scanning.
Even after the Computer Shopper review I am happy to be back, I really Avast and hopefully it will protect me as well as it did last year.