Free AVG 7.1 vs Free Avast 4.6
tinybilbo schrieb:
Had no problems with AVG free for a couple of years now
Also try
avast -
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html
AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic. -
http://www.free-av.com/
BitDefender 8 Free Edition -
http://www.bitdefender.com/site/Main/view/Download-Free-Products.html
ok, today i finally made the move to rid my life of the needy-greedy-buggy-bloated Norton. i decided to replace it with Free Avast 4.6 and i'm currently test-driving it. as i said before, i already had Free AVG 7.1 installed on my old P3-700 and i wanted to try a new antivirus program. here is my first impressions on Avast and a quick comparison with AVG:
compared to AVG's, Avast's settings and UI are a bit less intuitive. Also, there are several options on Avast whose functions arent clear at first. i had to do some reading before being able to configure it. AVG, however, is very easy to setup and use!
the downside of AVG: the damn thing a bit lazy when it comes to "nosing" inside encapsulating files like ISOs, BINs, NRGs, or EMLs (email files). so if you happen to have a CD image with a virus inside, you will only find that out once you burn the CD (or mount it) and then you scan it with AVG.... the same goes for infected attachments inside EML files (some lame-os love to forward emails as attachments...).
Avast, on the other hand, can detect infected files on CD Images and EML files. on the top of that, Avast can also detect infected files whose extensions have been renamed (to JPG, TXT, HTM or whatever). in fact, it can detect infected files *even* if the extensions have been changed and the file ZIP'ed, renamed again, then RAR'ed, renamed again and finally ISO'ed.... seems to be difficult to trick Avast. it doesnt care about extensions or formats. it reads the lines of codes inside files. as for AVG, if you change the extension of an infected file, AVG will ignore the file.
for these tests, i used the EICAR Anti-Virus Test file (
www.eicar.org). no fancy testing, sorry. :tongue: in order to really know if AVG or Avast are efficient, i'll need to keep using both for a few more months. and maybe, at the end, i'll find out that neither is actually efficient against new threats (after all, finding a rot cow inside a shoe box is too easy).
to close the comparisson: neither AVG or Avast will warn you against infected ZIPs/RARs/ISOs/etc if you copy, move, rename, burn, delete, re-archive or open (YES, open!) them around in your system. a VIRUS.COM file inside a RESUME.ZIP will only trigger these antiviruses' defenses if you actually try to manipulate VIRUS.COM.
that sure saves resources but you might end up handling and infected archive for months until you finally discover that it contains a virus inside... (!)
i hope this post can help someone to decide which prog to try.
--
nordloewelabs
?
