Quickly to the point: I want to drop my current av (nav), so I’m looking for a better alternative.
Sure Avast! seems great - vb & icsa awards, features rich, easy on the system, free, continuously developed (excellent!) and very good scores everywhere around… but I was wondering: would it be enough? In other words: is it a good idea to use an av which has not the - or, more realistically, one of the - highest detection rates?
When it comes to scan my files, will I feel safe by using such an av, knowing that it covers say 91% of potential issues AND that there are avs covering say 98%?
??? That’s a big question for me, and it will probably be the reason why I’ll choose Kaspersky, in the end, paying a (high) price just for that 7% difference.
But I have not decided yet, and look forward to suggestion from your experience!! I really would like to switch to Avast!, for all the great improvements, the smart company Alwil is and… the ‘price’!
By the way, it seems that Avast! has not being tested by Westcoastlabs.org for its ‘Checkmark’ award, actually Alwil doesn’t even get taken into consideration… Does anyone know why is that? Can’t believe it, I think Alwil deserves that test!
Toms, welcome to avast! forums.
Tons of ex-NAV users are here. We all think that NAV will never be an alternative to avast! (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=15932.0)
No other antivirus have WebShield and this could be the difference.
About detection rate I won’t lye, I think NAV is a very good alternative. Kaspersky would be excelent.
But you can get similar protection levels with layered defense (other antispywares and antitrojan applications, all free). 8)
I have used Kaspersky in 2004 and my experience is that it is very, very secure but to achieve this, it is a real drag since it slooooooooows down everything you do.
My complaint with Kaspersky 5.0 is that, because of the newbie-friendlyness there are very limited possibilities to fine tune it in a way it doesn’t scan so thoroughly.
The high detection-rate is achieved by the fact that it has every obscure old virus from years ago still in the database. So, when tested, what is the mix of samples being used by the testing institute ?
It’s a choice av-vendors need to make, finding the right balance between usability and security but I can say very honestly that you will need to be very patient when you use Kaspersky and this starts with the start-up time of your pc which will be increased by 400%.
What have you got to lose? I switched from nav and haven’t regretted it. Avast scans alot more files than norton did when I do a system scan. You can even try Avast! Pro free for 60 days.Don’t know about those percentage rates you gave in your post.
You make some interesting points. Sure layered defense is a must, and webshield is a plus!
Did not think of Kav that way, Fast, that would be a problem in fact.
What have I got to loose? That’s a strange question speaking of virii, Timcan
Anyway, I’m still undecided.
I see now why Avast! has not a Checkmark award, does it cost way too much? I guess it would be nice to be able to show that award too.
Anyway maybe I overestimate it, and sure I agree that money is better spent on development!
I had avast, then Panda Titanium, Panda Platinium, Panda Internet Security, AVG Free and Pro, NOD32, Kaspersky Personal 5 (after uninstalation my system became unusable, I don’t know why, but I had to format everything ??? ), finally NORTON 2005 (only for two days, as I felt that means real computer slowdown) and now I’m back to avast and it’s more than 6 months I’m using it. Because I couldn’t find anything better. And more, because of avast! I’ve found some new friends from all over the world. So avast! protects and unites the world!
How else do you plan on stopping JPEG exploits? The other AV solutions wait for the image to download onto your machine. Too late! Web Shield stops it from even downloading.
