I didn’t find any topic about this so:
New Antivirustest from av-comparatives is out:
its a Retrospective/ProActive test:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
as expected avast! isnt the best in this test - “Standard”
but see for yourself…
yours
onlysomeone
Well, it doesn’t matter. As long as Avast detects virus/malware all the time, it is fine.
They should reduce a lot the false-positive detection…
As far as I understand the last test was made with same settings and signatures dating from the test made back in august while using some very new malwares samples… new malwares use new techniques so therefor improvements of av’s programs in updates… though that might not explain exactly the high FP’s except the using of old program version 4.8.1229… however I just did very quick look at the report, so will refrain from commenting for now… just thinking out loud…
Well if you check all others AVs against the standard on-demand scan tests, the majority take a bit of a dive as this is geared to proactive detection.
Like we have said before… avast will drop down with proactive tests regardless generic signatures, etc. etc.
what s the reason why avast have only average proactive protection.I ve seen NOD 32 have the best proactive protection!!!
Just to add: Avast was a grade higher than NOD 32 on the August on-demand scan test(report 19).
Let’s not forget that Avast scored very well in the on-demand test.
Tech has given the reason for the average proactive protection in the post before yours. 
HL
Even though false positives rate may be high, that was before they implemented the new false positive reporting system.
I think it should decrease slightly now. I don’t mind false positives in favor to higher detection rate if they aren’t critical and are fixed fast.
Which all of them were non critical and also fixed right away.
It could be better but we can’t expect much from proactive part for now. The avast! 5 will show greater proactive protection.
Please, elaborate… Heuristics analysis? ???
Well, we all know they’ll going to use behavioral detection system which is already partially implimented in version 4.8 already (most notably Rootkit detection). They’ll us ethat at much greater extent in avast! 5.
There was also some talk about generic unpacking and improved emulation and things like that but everything off the record so nothing confirmed about that yet.
There is a proper board to talk about this ;D
By “off the record” i meant that programmers mentioned it as possibility but nothing that was actually planned or scheduled for implementation.
Talking about best AV.Wich in our humble opinion is Avast of course.I have been going to how to geeks as a comparatively newcomer to computers to learn a few tricks.I read through one of there security articles on windows vista and Avast is one of the ones it recommends for anti virus.Its quite a big article that shows people who want to download Avast how to install it.I of course added a comment saying Avast is great as have quite a few others. ;D ;D ;D.Just thought you fellows might like to know.
I totally agree with you!
And I am sure the avast-guys agree with you
I have only had 2 or 3 FP’s with standard shield and 3 or 4 with webshield,
and that’s during 5 years. Guess I must have been lucky.
Not a sinlgle TP in the same period. (TP=new abbrevation for true positive ) Guess I must have been careful. 
HL