I search some free antivirus tests, ı found this,
http://www.chip.com.tr/images/content/20070805175601.jpg
http://www.chip.com.tr/konu/Ucretsiz-Anti-Virus-TEST-SONUCLARI_4165_7.html
Avira %78
Avg %56
Avast %69
Why Avast very low score ???
Personally I have little confidence in many so called AV Tests as we don’t know what their test samples are, or how the tests are conducted, etc. etc.
Not to mention this appears to be a very old test, as it doesn’t mention what avast version and lists AVG as version 7.5, which is positively ancient.
There are a few more test organisations that I have more confidence in as the tests are pretty comprehensive and transparent, like http://www.av-comparatives.org/ where avast regularly gets in excess of 90%.
I also tend to have more faith in real life experiences of just over five years with avast! There is also one area, which is probably the most prolific and that is hacked sites and this area doesn’t get tested in said tests. avast is probably the best IMHO of only a few AVs that are even checking for this much less detecting it.
Every 3.6 seconds a website is infected http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=47096.msg396648#msg396648.
I know http://www.av-comparatives.org/ but they are test only avast pro version. I wanted to get ideas about the free version.
Because , Mr.Agent says, “the Avast! 4.8 Pro detect more virus and got more updates than the Home users”
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=12640.msg381570#msg381570
The Home and Pro versions use the same scanning engine and virus signatures, so with the exception of the script blocker they are essentially the same.
The update frequency is also the same, with the push updates notifying and getting any update that is available, the auto update function for the Home and Pro are also essentially the same. When you first connect to the internet avast will check for updates, if you remain connected it will check again after 4 hours. With the pro version you can reduce the update check frequency so it will check more frequently (also available in the Home version but you can’t set it as low), this however makes little difference if there are no updates available.
The biggest competitor to avast Pro is avast Home and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, you have to balance what is said in one post against what is said in many and by whom it is said.
So in my opinion the Home and Pro versions using the same scanning engine and signatures will detect the same %. Something else which isn’t said in that post is that the Script Blocker only works with 3 browsers and whilst it can also scan scripts that are run on your system (Windows Scripting Host, etc.). In over five years on the forums I can’t recall a single case of malware being detected ‘only’ by the script blocker.
David, you are the best salesman for avast! Home 
You taught me that avast! Pro is not needed on Vista nor Windows 7 due to IE8’s Protected Mode.
I will support avast! on my XP Pro system though as it is one way that I can pay back for all the wonderful work that the avast! developers do.
Looking forward to avast! V5.
You taught me that avast! Pro is not needed on Vista nor Windows 7 due to IE8's Protected Mode.
Not guilty, as a) I don’t have Vista or win7 and b) I don’t have IE8 so I have no practical experience of those products in conjunction with avast.
I cant trust this test.
I’ve used avast for a long time and I haven’t suffered from any serious problem!
avast updates virus database really fast in my country(I don’t know why they usually name them win32: trojan-gen {other} ;D)
how about avira! it is “more than great” because…it detects some known harmless files as viruses ???
The avast Win32:Trojan-gen is generic signature (the -gen at the end of the malware name), so that is trying to catch multiple variants of the same type of trojan/malware.
So the bit after the Win32:Trojan-gen, relates to a group/type of trojan, the {other} classification is in my guess something which doesn’t fall into the other classification (group/type) will be in the {other} detection signature.
I did say that Defence. But i was mean that if im not wrong u can have more chance to caught a web infected with Script Blocker and PUSH Update. Correct me if im wrong David 
Im not really expert but for sure i can attempt to defend my opinion. Hehe.
OK I think you are wrong. The web shield provides good protection against on-line malware including scripts, considering the script blocker only works with 3 browsers. Not to forget what YoKenny mentioned (that I didn’t teach him) with Vista/win7 and IE8 running in protected mode it won’t work in IE so that reduces the number of browsers it works with further and push updates won’t change that.
If someone is always connected and has auto updates (the default setting) enabled then they will get their updates promptly too. Don’t forget how many actual VPS updates there are in a day so push updates aren’t something that I find an absolute necessity if there are one or two updates in a day that isn’t a huge gap between Push and regular Auto Updates.
The area where the script blocker is of most worth (however, much that given my post in Reply #3 last paragraph) is on your system and not the web.
I shan’t explain further as it isn’t relevant to this particular topic and is counter productive.
Maybe it was CharlyO?
Whomever it was they let me know that IE8 is more secure with Vista and Windows 7.