The new test results from av-comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org) are out. Avast didn’t do bad, but there’s always space for better detection 
How do you better 100%
DavidR, what do you mean? That avast catches 100% of all viruses? Come on… I LOVE avast & I am glad it is free, but when I scanned my PC with KAV a few days ago and found 14 instances of viruses/trojans (and I STILL LOVE avast), I think the least I could wish for is a better detection rate…
Spyros,
Where they viruses, or just malware (infection names was?).
Did you send them off to avast virus labs to be added, that will help the ‘better detection’ rates you speak of
–lee
Lee, I have the log but at home (I’m at the office now) so I can’t post it right now and anyway I didn’t want to make a big deal out of it, otherwise I would have posted it earlier. I know that no AV is 100%. They were mostly trojans and that’s why they were deleted, so I don’t have any samples. Whenever I have one though, I always send it to Alwil.
Peoples, this has been discussed before. Please do not start the same discussion again.
Every av detecs things that another one misses.
Yeah, and I noticed a HUGE update at trojans today for avast! ;D
Simply, showing a different independent test by Virus Bulletin, the 100% relates to in the wild viruses. Without details of the tests, etc. results are meaningless. For me I look at practical protection and how well avast has done this when compared to previous AVs I have had, 100% (so far). This protection has been greatly improved with the new web shield (that very few other AVs have anything like) providing earlier detection.
Just one other point that makes this comparison invalid, a very old version of avast.
(comment on wrong report, I didn’t even notice it was Feb 2004, sorry.)
Edit: Above comments edited due to having Anal Cranial Inversion, but partial left otherwise some of the comments following this post would look strange.
Besides all limitations of these tests, congratulations Alwil team 8)
Please take a look to the latest test and report. You are refering another test. In the last test of February 2005, Avast 4.5 was tested. I do not understand how you can start to say the test is old/invalid when you did not check carefully everything before posting; I am a bit dissappointed about this 
Well the test is with an old version of avast (current is 4.6.603), so logically the results would be different with the current version.
But David was referring to one of the older tests (the one that was posted ;)).
Anyway, as Eddy said, this has been disused many times before in here (possibly over a hundred times).
So people can get a little tired of the subject and just end up being frank with the poster.
However I’m sure no offense was meant.
–lee
Believe me, even with version 4.6 of avast, the ranking would not change (I know it because I tried it); also the other AV’s does not sleep and update their scanners continously. So it is usually not a good argument to say “yes, but with the new version product xy would be scored much better…” etc.
You are right, the changes between avast! 4.5 and 4.6 (Network Shield, Web Shield, support for a few new archive formats, etc.) wouldn’t probably affect this kind of test (simple scanning of samples on disk) - it depends mostly on the VPS version.
Thanks IBK for jumpin’ in and discussing the test with our users. Much appreciated. 
Vlk
Hi all!
Everyone here can see I’m low level with informatic, so I’ll never be able to have a technic discussion concerning AV ;D
Therefore I’m just saying that the best AV test IS my computer 8)
Oops, hands up, caught out by the reverse chronological order, saw Feb report at the top and took that, didn’t even notice it was Feb 2004, sorry.
Seems to me that alwill need to better the detection of script viruses at least according to av-comparatives
By the words of Vlk, you must be important on antivirus testing…
Can you post the real limitations of this tests? We read that a lot of limitatations are just around them…