http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124475,00.asp
I really wonder how independant the above review is . I would like other peoples thoughts on it as I rate Avast way above Norton any day !
Hmmm… :-\ AVG is bellow Avast but it is said
Though the best looking of the free antivirus products, Avast performed the worst.so I bet if the review is really objective.
Sorry but this test is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
avast!
WildList viruses: 100%
AV-Test zoo threats: 86%
Heuristic detection with one-month-old signatures: 9%
Heuristic detection with two-month-old signatures: 5%
Scan speed (in seconds): 791
Outbreak response time: 8 to 10 hours
AVG
WildList viruses: 100%
AV-Test zoo threats: 80%
Heuristic detection with one-month-old signatures: 8%
Heuristic detection with two-month-old signatures: 4%
Scan speed (in seconds): 354
Outbreak response time: 8 to 10 hours
Is it just me or i really don’t see any point where AVG is better than avast!.
If scan speed is the measure then i should hit myself.
Less thorough scan in favor of speed is not something that i tolerate.
And avast! scanned my windows partition with archives enabled in few minutes on my system. But if you give it 16MB of RAM and some crappy PII you really can’t expect miracles. Also their testing methodos are unknown and we don’t even know which versions they used exactly (program and updates).
And saying that avast! is bottom barrel based on some mumbo jumbo crap (which my briliant mind still cannot understand) is really not trustworthy and even more it sounds nothing else than product bashing. ANd certanly something that i wouldn’t expect from magazine like PCWorld.
Now i’m really not surprised why ESET isn’t included. They obviously refused the testing because its plain crap. But the damage to Alwil Software was done by publishing this piece of ****.
Well, I would certainly like to know the exact way they tested the speed. I’m not saying that avast! is fastest of all, but this scan time is way too big (compared to the others).
Unfortunatelly, they don’t give much details (which could make quite a big difference). Also, is there any exact version (build) stated anywhere?
I could’nt agree with you more RejZoR . I just hope that other user’s will not migrate to other AV solutions as a result of this very suspect av review . 
I currently subscribe to maganzine called webuser they gave avast a glowing report last year here is the review http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/Avast_46_Home_Edition_review_2433-200.html. I suspect they will do newer review later this year :).
Igor I must admit I cant find any build version which like you say would make a big difference so therefore the review maybe flawed in that respect .
I actually said that the details about the scanning process can make a big difference in the total time (used to measure the “speed”). But of course, it would be nice to know the exact version.
I totally agree with RejZor ;D
Why Alwil even agreed avast! to take part in this test?
Amazing! and totally misleading.
PCWorld offer a link How We Test but, when you
go to the site, all it tells you is that “In the near future we will publish all of the methodology we use for our hands-on testing”.
I also couldn’t find any place to offer a rebuttal. Almost sounds like one of the reviews where you put up your money and we’ll put
you near the top… ;D ;D
Actually most reviews on the net are like that…
Call me a cynic but bitdefender achieved No1 and every review page has an advert for bitdefender?
I used Norton/Symantec and then McAfee (both for about 2 years each) before coming to Avast. Both of those let my computer get infected with at least 2 infections each without my knowing it. >:(
There is no way either of those 2 should be on any list and be above Avast!
I have now been using Avast for over 2 years without even one infection. 
I have to say I think that set of tests are complete BS!!! :
BitDefender seems to have gone to the top by virtue of a cheap price despite better detection and faster scan speeds by Kaspersky, F-Secure and Symantec. (Although BitDefender’s heuristics detection is marginally better.)
I hope avast!'s detection rate will improve as the new virus analysts start work!
I just dropped my subscription to P.C. World . :
RejZor, I echo your sentiments…exactly 
=YLAP=
I really wonder how independant the above review is . I would like other peoples thoughts on it as I rate Avast way above Norton any day !I agree with you YLAP . I've tried persuading several Norton and other (expensive) AV users to drop 'em and use Avast! but things have almost gotten violent, so I give up. ::) Maybe having spent $300 or more makes them feel they've a better AV . ::) I love Avast! , it[b] is [/b]essential . Maybe some advertising dollars should used to spread the word to a larger demographic of AV users. I'm sick of people saying ; " Never heard of it ! "
Same here, but after few months I started to ask myself… why are we even trying to “convert” other AV users ? What do we have from that ? I don’t care if they feel safer by spending $300 or more on an AV software… btw, Norton is around $29 CAD in some stores here, and also there is some action going on… if you buy some other software package which is btw just $19 CAD, you get Norton Suite for free. Maybe all those things sounds attractive for people, and sure it’s nice when you see something like that… for unbelievable low price you get two packages. So it’s something to think about… in the mean time, I’ll never ever try to “convert” anyone to use something I use. Who says it’s the best possible solution anyway… People are individuals and we all have rights to decide what’s best for us. Maybe they feel safe with Norton… We’ll ask them for their opinion after they suck their first virus and after their computer becomes a zombie… until then, I’m happy with AV of my choice. Let them enjoy theirs…
I love Avast! , it[b] is [/b]essential . Maybe some advertising dollars should used to spread the word to a larger demographic of AV users. I'm sick of people saying ; " Never heard of it ! "
Me too, but what can we do ? Nothing… it’s not up to us… I won’t argue with someone who isn’t aware of pluses and minuses he/she gets with Norton, nor they even ever tried to find out is there anything better or more effective than Norton out there. That’s their problem, and that’s their loss… not ours.
True, Alwil is the one that needs to change their policy when it comes to advertising… make it more efficient somehow.
Your right N.Tesla , I shouldn’t force my ideas on others. Norton Anti-virus 2006 here in Australia is around $300 .
Basically two things annoy me :
- I don’t like my family and friends paying so much for a piece of Sofware with dubious performance.
- The more people infected with viruses the worse off we all are. That’s my objective , a safer net for all .
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink…
You must have been looking at the multi user option i think Abraxas
I didnt think it was that much
Exactly my point too… and even worse… you can lead that horse to water, trying to help him, and quite often he can kick you in the butt… not quite thankful IMHO, haha… ;D
Cloussau :
You must have been looking at the multi user option i think Abraxas I didnt think it was that muchYeah, thanks[b] Cloussau[/b]... A family member uses NA for their business . I tried to sway them towards an Avast! solution but as [b]N.Tesla[/b] put's it ; " ... you can lead that horse to water, trying to help him, and quite often he can kick you in the butt..." ;D I'm even givng up telling people that there are such things as viruses out there. ::) It seems us sensible Anti-Spyware dudes are frowned upon as paranoid to casual Internet users. Being passionate and incessantly reporting the latest dangers "If Unprotected " of being online gets responses like; "Maybe you should get out more " ... ;D
PCWorld is just another corporate affiliate of the major Anti-Spyware companies . Shame people have to cop a load of Malware before looking for alternate software like Avast!
Such is Life 8)
Sorry but why is antivir on top of us?
AntiVir:
Performance: Good
• Ease of Use: Good
• Features: Fair
• Price when ranked: Free
AntiVir performed the best of the free programs, although it failed to clean several old macro viruses.
Avast!:
• Performance: Fair
• Ease of Use: Very Good
• Features: Good
• Price when ranked: Free
Free product has a slick media-player-style interface that hides some features. Scan speed was slow in tests. (Bull$sh1t)
??? :-\ : ??? :-\ ???