Hmm…
I don’t profess to be an expert on anything, but, it looks like an objective evalutation to me.
However, avast! plus the “wonderful three” are working for me. I don’t think I’ll change a thing.
Interesting read though.
When talking about a futuristic looking interface (non–standard interface, what the hell is a standard interface, there is no such beast ?), the review becomes subjective and not objective,
Part of the test seems to be subjective in my opinion.
But it also states that Avast is not the best trojanscanner in the world. 
I don’t think that’s something new, lets hope on improvements in that area. 
Personally I will continue to use Avast because I like the most of it.
But let’s face the facts, too. Not everything negative about Avast needs to be wrong. 
HL
DavidR,
I wasn’t referring to the interface (I agree with you), but Message Labs’ definition of the Malware used in Computer Shopper’s test, the testing procedures outlined in the “How we test AV software”, and the testing results outlined in the second to the last paragraph in the article.
If you can get past the interface, and care to comment on how and why the testing procedures and results are flawed, I’m all ears, and happy to learn.
Thanks.
And I wasn’t replying directly to you or I would generally use a quote.
I still don’t see any detailed mention of what was tested and how it was tested, however, I didn’t mention anything about the AV tests themselves because I don’t know what and how the tests were conducted. I did however agree that avast could improve detections previously.
Yes avast can definitely improve its detections but does it make it bad, I don't think so. Some of the recent reviews from the likes of avcomparitives places AVGs detections below that of avast, yet this single review places it higher.
But when a summary lists only three items, Free, Detections, Non-standard Interface, two out of three have no barring on the effectiveness of an AV and to me that isn’t objective, sorry if you think differently.
or norton…
or panda…
or trend micro…
or…stick with avast
i saw the review and i still have my avast! pro and its staying there ;D 8)
DavidR,
No offense taken from this end. Different views are the spices of life. My apologies if you read that into my post.
Frank was kind enough to post the article, and the Message Labs’ methodology on providing the raw data for the test. It was that info I based my comments on. In my opinion, there’s enough meat there, for someone who knows a lot more than me, to comment on the effectiveness of the testing. I’m not going to take the time to look them up, but I have vague memories of a couple of other marginal reviews in other publications recently. So, I’m interested, but as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, unmoved by the article.
You’re correct, that you don’t really know for sure what they did, unless you’re looking over their shoulder when they’re doing it, but when I said I’m all ears, and willing to learn, that’s what I meant, and why I read this forum.
We don’t like the way the review was written, and for that reason, we have contacted its author and asked him to explain some of its points. Also, Eda (our CEO) will probably be meeting him during the next week (in London). Let’s see what the results will be like…
Thanks
Vlk
I have neither read the review nor am that competent a person to comment on the efficacy of the review.
I however feel avast is THE BEST
However we should not be complacent about negative comments and the ALWIL team should endeavour to improve the product so that scope is not given for commenting on basic functions of the antivirus
LONG LIVE AVAST
Vlk, please keep us posted on the result of the meeting
By rereading what was written, I agree upon that the presentation was not good.
I f you read the excerpt, and know nothing about antiviri programs, you might get the impression
that Avast generally speaking is a one star(out pf 5), which I of course know is VERY misleading.
IMHO I would Give Avast 4 stars out of 5, with a user interface and ease of use that I
like very much. After rereading, they focus on lack of trojandetection in the text, which is not the stongest part of Avast, as stated many times on this forum.
I must admit that I thought the “one star” was because the trojans that went through.
I understand now that I have misintepreted the presentation, and then I totally agree that
the conclusion is wrong, looking at the whole of Avast.
If I misintepreted the results, I suppose others might do,too…
Keep on the good work.
HL
The review is now available online:
http://www.computershopper.co.uk/labs/220/anti-virus-exposed/products.html
Hmmm … I dislike the AVG interface and compared with this forum the AVG forums might as well not exist (I cannot like forums that tell you the conditions on which you may be graciously permitted to post - and no, it was not like that when my sticky in their mail forum was reposted at their request).
However, if they are rated that highly (and at the same price point as avast) I suppose I should give their product another look.
Alanrf, that was a joke, right?
I mean, do you really think this review is relevant? We now have their official reaction to our objections, and it makes me even more confident that the “test” is one of the worst conducted I’ve ever seen…
It turns out that avast missed 6 (six) samples from their collection, and that was enough to score worst in the test. I can only wonder how many samples in total there were in such a “collection”. Twenty? Fifty?
Vlk, i bet there was just 6 samples lol ;D
Vlk,
you may have noticed that some us (including RejZoR) do sometimes look at what other products are doing and how they are looked at by the community. The fact the we are still here in these forums speaks highly of the loyalty that your product has created in us, by its quality and the sustained efforts of your team in managing, maintaining and developing the product and your willingness to actively interface with us, your user community.
OK, you are now waiting for the inevitable “but” that negates all I have just said.
There is none … I just think that, as your users, it our job as much as yours to keep your team on its toes.
If another product is faster than you with virus updates … we should ask why you are lagging … if another product can scan faster than yours we should ask why … if another product can make it simple to terminate encrypted mail safely and scan it then we should ask why you do not. So, it is up to us too to look at what the others are doing … not just your folks.
Besides … some of us don’t get to visit Redmond several times a year and attend all the other major gatherings (any more in my case). We just have the time to look at this stuff on the web … the good analysis, the crap reports and the plain biased ones.
Would you really want a forum that that was not a pain in the rear end?
I have absolutely no objections about you (or anyone else) trying, OR using, any other AV product, of course… It’s just that I’d find it a bit funny that someone (especially someone so proficient in the matter) would do anything after reading this particular review.
In reality, tell me a name of an arbirary AV, and I will be give you not six, but six thousand samples it does not detect.
Thanks Vlk, you got my point and I get yours - it wasn’t so much a case of believing that report (since I disbelieve most of them on sight) - it was one of nudging me that avast is getting to me like an old pair of slippers and I really should should be out there looking at what is new.
You know - I really think I am becoming an avast evangelist - something I promised myself I would never become.
Any specifics from this meeting that you can share with us? Particularly, anything from their “official reaction” besides the six samples nonsense you mentioned in your later post?
this just leads back to what i keep suggesting and awaiting for long time
different system of suspicious file to upload/analyze and faster response times
(ie addition of “suspicious/riskware” detection sets)
it just feel strange that i have in archive sitting trojan spamming tool element
from active infection sent to avast 3 months ago ,
most others AV detect it in some form yet Avast! itself still not …
and that’s why answer on question what’s best AV something in style
" KAV, NOD32, (sometimes Dr.Web) and THEN avast!".
IT really not matters on some details (KAV false positives, NOD32 hype or missing files)
noone of them can be called perfect and as standalone to protect enough.