AVAST VS AVG

[Bear]

Hello,
I have downloaded bother the Free versions of AVG and AVAST. (AVG was first as I knew about it.)

Can anyone tell me what product is a better one? Or provide any links to test that have them both.

Thanks very much.

 

[zekkye]

I've tried both over the past few weeks. Neither let anything
through, but Avast is what will stay on my system, AVG is gone.
Here's why in a nutshell:

Avast updates virus definitions every four hours, very reliably, where
AVG tries to update daily but has a great deal of trouble connecting
to its server. I understand there's a workaround circulating about
this group for that, but I don't think the product is worth fiddling
with when there are other free products that are better.

Also, I personally prefer Avast's UI to AVG... it's slicker, easier to
navigate, easy to configure exactly as you want.

Cheers,
Wade

 

[alexy]

Hello,
I have downloaded bother the Free versions of AVG and AVAST. (AVG was first as I knew about it.)

Can anyone tell me what product is a better one? Or provide any links to test that have them both.

I'll be interested in hearing substantive comments. I use both
(different machines) and much prefer avast's UI. And I started with a
bias against it -- why does an AV program need skins?!?! But when
Avast's monitor finds a virus, it gives you options for what to do
about it. AVG's monitor is only a monitor -- it tells you what it
found, and says to run the AV program to handle it, which is a PITA,
requiring either a lengthy scan or entering the directory tree of the
infected file for a more directed scan.

 

[Geese_Hunter]

I'll be interested in hearing substantive comments. I use both
(different machines) and much prefer avast's UI. And I started with a
bias against it -- why does an AV program need skins?!?! But when
Avast's monitor finds a virus, it gives you options for what to do
about it. AVG's monitor is only a monitor -- it tells you what it
found, and says to run the AV program to handle it, which is a PITA,
requiring either a lengthy scan or entering the directory tree of the
infected file for a more directed scan.

Not to mention that with Avast you can turn on or off peer to peer &
instant messaging virus scan. Instead of waiting for the virus to run on
your pc before AVG would find the virus.

 

[polly tito]

Not to mention that with Avast you can turn on or off peer to peer &
instant messaging virus scan. Instead of waiting for the virus to run on
your pc before AVG would find the virus.

I am currently in the process of switching over 115 clients from AVG to
AVAST. I trialed avast on one system here before installing it on all the
others and would not consider going back now. If AVG cared enough about
their customers, their customers security and their own reputation they
would have dealt with their sloppy updating system long ago.

pt

 

[Tim Downie]

Hello,
I have downloaded bother the Free versions of AVG and AVAST. (AVG was
first as I knew about it.)

Can anyone tell me what product is a better one? Or provide any links
to test that have them both.

General concensus is with AVAST but in my very limited trial on one old
laptop running Windows ME, AVAST was *much* slower when doing a full system
scan and seemed to have a greater impact on overall system performance than
AVG.

Tim

 

[polly tito]

General concensus is with AVAST but in my very limited trial on one old
laptop running Windows ME, AVAST was *much* slower when doing a full system
scan and seemed to have a greater impact on overall system performance than
AVG.

This impact would be considerably less than the potential impact of a virus
infestation caused by the failure of AVG to get an update!

pt

 

[Tim Downie]

This impact would be considerably less than the potential impact of a
virus infestation caused by the failure of AVG to get an update!

So, I should put up with a permenant degredation in PC performance in
exchange for a *very* marginally increased chance of infection?

As I've *never* had my PC infected it seems a highish price to pay. In my
case. this has nothing to do with antivirus software, simply safe hex.

Of course for folk who don't update, don't practice safe hex etc, AVAST will
almost certainly keep them out of trouble better. I was just presenting a
reason why one size doesn't fit all.

Tim

 

[Shane]

This impact would be considerably less than the potential impact of a virus
infestation caused by the failure of AVG to get an update!

AVG is very easy to update manually - and probably the quickest AV of all in
that respect with it's incremental files.

I was singularly unimpressed with Avast! - 32 bit and DOS version. Even
while I admit that auto updating is important for the otherwise clueless, I
wouldn't recommend Avast! to anyone.


Shane

 

[Gray Owl]

Does anyone know how to set up AVAST to manually check downloads as AVG does
when implemented with the Getright download manager??

Many Thanks Gray Owl.

 

[alexy]

AVG is very easy to update manually - and probably the quickest AV of all in
that respect with it's incremental files.

I was singularly unimpressed with Avast! - 32 bit and DOS version. Even
while I admit that auto updating is important for the otherwise clueless, I
wouldn't recommend Avast! to anyone.

I've not had the update problems that others seem to have had with
AVG. But I still like Avast's handling of any viruses found by the
monitors. What is the that made you "singularly unimpressed" with
Avast? Any specifics?

 

[Gregg Cattanach]

in
that respect with it's incremental files.

I was singularly unimpressed with Avast! - 32 bit and DOS version. Even
while I admit that auto updating is important for the otherwise clueless, I
wouldn't recommend Avast! to anyone.

Avast also uses incremental updates and it never stalls or fails on getting
new updates. It also knows immediately to get any program updates as well
as virus database updates. I use dial-up and I particularly appreciate that
it detects when I go on-line and goes out to get any new updates without any
intervention from me. AVG uses a 'scheduled' update (a specific time every
so many days), and this was quite inconvenient as I couldn't count on being
on-line at those times.

Avast has a virus recovery database that actually CAN repair infected or
damaged files if you do get a virus (AVG says they can but I've never seen
it work). Also, Avast stops an e-mail virus BEFORE it's loaded onto your
hard drive, AVG just scans your .dbx files after the message has been posted
to your system. The ability to turn on and off 2 e-mail types (OE or
Exchange mail) P2P, IM and on-access scanning is really good and cuts down
on system resource use if you don't need those types of scans.

AVG is amateur stuff. Avast knows what they're doing.

Gregg C.

 

[FromTheRafters]

So, I should put up with a permenant degredation in PC performance in
exchange for a *very* marginally increased chance of infection?

As I've *never* had my PC infected it seems a highish price to pay. In my
case. this has nothing to do with antivirus software, simply safe hex.
:O)

Of course for folk who don't update, don't practice safe hex etc, AVAST will
almost certainly keep them out of trouble better. I was just presenting a
reason why one size doesn't fit all.

If a person's security is wholly dependant upon timely
updates from any AV vendor, then something else is
wrong with their methods.

 

[Shane]

I've not had the update problems that others seem to have had with
AVG. But I still like Avast's handling of any viruses found by the
monitors. What is the that made you "singularly unimpressed" with
Avast? Any specifics?

With the 32 bit, hated the interface. Maybe that's trivial, but I was
playing with about a dozen other AV products at the time, all of which I was
perfectly comfortable with. In this group I'm not an expert, but compared
with the majority of computer users I am. Not exactly sure how that
translates, but the demographic that appears to matter is the one that can't
go to http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_updt6.php?lng=fe and download a small
file , say once a week, put it in the update folder and open AVG to install
it.

What else - if anything - irked me I don't recall, as I uninstalled it and
moved on until I started reading how 'the consensus' appeared to be Avast.
How many makes a consensus, I wonder. Meanwhile there are a lot of users
who do more than simply nullify viruses, who use AVG Free and don't get
infected (not to mention Art, who doesn't use an on-access scanner at all).

With the DOS version, it failed to detect most of the viruses I tested it on
recently (tested 8 products in all). I now call a batch at boot that runs 6
of those, one after the other. Avast!77e is one I dropped. Only 3 products
impressed, but only 2 were discarded.

Shane

 

[Shane]

all clueless,

Avast also uses incremental updates and it never stalls or fails on getting
new updates. It also knows immediately to get any program updates as well
as virus database updates.

Yes, well AVG Free did that perfectly well until recently. It remains to be
seen if they'll sort it out or not. Meanwhile I manage to keep it updated
every day, no problem. The bit that's broke is trivial.

I use dial-up and I particularly appreciate that
it detects when I go on-line and goes out to get any new updates without any
intervention from me.

Sure.

I don't like programs downloading in the background. However for those who
never otherwise initiate AV updates, that's a point in it's favour (so long
as we're restricted to free AV). I've always preferred to encourage users to
learn to use the software though.

AVG uses a 'scheduled' update (a specific time every
so many days), and this was quite inconvenient as I couldn't count on being
on-line at those times.

OK, but my comment about the incremental updates was re manual updating, ie
going to the site and clicking a link.

Avast has a virus recovery database that actually CAN repair infected or
damaged files if you do get a virus (AVG says they can but I've never seen

The trick is to not get infected in the first place. If you have been, it's
failed. While if you want repair tools get McAfee's Stinger and/or Trend's
Sysclean. Anyway, repair from within Windows is a flawed concept.

it work). Also, Avast stops an e-mail virus BEFORE it's loaded onto your
hard drive, AVG just scans your .dbx files after the message has been posted
to your system. The ability to turn on and off 2 e-mail types (OE or
Exchange mail) P2P, IM and on-access scanning is really good and cuts down
on system resource use if you don't need those types of scans.

AVG is amateur stuff. Avast knows what they're doing.

I collect the viruses that come via e-mail. I don't use e-mail scanning at
all. I collect them for testing AV progs, of which I always have several to
hand, in part for keeping abreast of their relative abilities, but mostly to
verify that I've not inadvertently run a virus that the on-access scanner
fails to detect. Which is why I feel fairly confident in stating I've only
ever had one virus infection (for which I was entirely to blame) - while
running NAV 2001. Never been infected running AVG Free.

Shane

 

[burris]

So, I should put up with a permenant degredation in PC performance in
exchange for a *very* marginally increased chance of infection?

As I've *never* had my PC infected it seems a highish price to pay. In my
case. this has nothing to do with antivirus software, simply safe hex.

Of course for folk who don't update, don't practice safe hex etc, AVAST will
almost certainly keep them out of trouble better. I was just presenting a
reason why one size doesn't fit all.

Tim

I agree with you...

AVG hasn't failed me yet. Each night it automatically scans and when it
finds a virus, I see it in the virus vault. Updates are not a problem
for me, as they too, are automated.

I tried Avast, but found a huge slowdown with any program or command.

burris

 

[Spock]

If a person's security is wholly dependant upon timely
updates from any AV vendor, then something else is
wrong with their methods.

I totally agree with that last paragraph.

 

[FromTheRafters]

I totally agree with that last paragraph.

Me too, except for that misused dependant. (

 

[BoB]

SNIP
I collect the viruses that come via e-mail. I don't use e-mail scanning at
all. I collect them for testing AV progs, of which I always have several to
hand, in part for keeping abreast of their relative abilities, but mostly to
verify that I've not inadvertently run a virus that the on-access scanner
fails to detect. Which is why I feel fairly confident in stating I've only
ever had one virus infection (for which I was entirely to blame) - while
running NAV 2001. Never been infected running AVG Free.

Shane

How do I set AVG to stop healing my virus collection? I would
prefer just a report. I have to sneak new virus' onto a floppy
and write protect it before allowing AVG to scan.

BoB

 

[Tech Zero]

The voice of "BoB" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...

How do I set AVG to stop healing my virus collection? I would
prefer just a report. I have to sneak new virus' onto a floppy
and write protect it before allowing AVG to scan.

Place them on a partition you don't care to scan, then open AVG and go
to Service/Complete Test Settings and remove that partition's drive
letter from the list... As simple as that...

I'm not sure how you'd silence system scan, but it does work for the
manual "full system" scanner.