Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: runelord999 on August 06, 2004, 01:33:22 AM
-
Well, i was looking around....
http://forums.spywareinfo.com/index.php?showtopic=6165
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table
???
Doesnt compare too well against AVG.....
-
Did you even read what you posted ??? ??? ??? ???
Avast! 4, VPS file version: July 29, 2004 - [0431-2]
620 Possible Viruses/malware/Trojans Found in 607 files out of a total of 758 files!
Approximately 80.08% detection. (Based on number of infected files, not number of infections)
AVG 7.0.253 Professional, Virus Base 264.1.0 7-29-2004:
532 Possible Viruses/malware/Trojans Found in 523 files out of a total of 758 files!
Approximately 69.00% detection. (Based on number of infected files, not number of infections)
In my books 80% is better than 69%. And they even tested AVG 7 Pro.
Your post is confuses me greatly.
EDIT: But anyway, thanks for showing me I made the right antivirus choice.
-
Can we trust in this test?
I don't think so... Conditions and configurations are not posted, you can guide a test to prove anything these days... A lot of comparison tests will prove exactly the contrary...
-
About the 1st "test" (ahum)
620 Possible Viruses/malware/Trojans Found in 607 files out of a total of 758 files!
So they found more harmfull things then there are files ;) This line alone does show that the test wasn't conducted as it should have been.
Viruses, malware, trojans...... What about the rest of the catagories of harmfull files????? It sure looks like they even don't know the difference between them.
They are just putting all harmfull things in one box and call it the same. Definitatly looks like they haven't got a clue what they are doing/talking about.
Second one isn't saying much either.
What version of Avast did they test?
What version of the vps did they used?
And again, a virus is not a trojan is not spyware is not adware. They just put it in one box. Anti virus software is (hence the name) primary ment to detect/remove/handle viruses.
Next time they test something, I would suggest they better start with updating there knowledge.
And as for me... Working with comps for over 24 years (both private as well as running two companies) and never had a virus on one of my systems. And the last couple of years I used Avast. Let the facts speak for itself.
-
runelord999
Doesnt compare too well against AVG.....
Welcome to the forum. Your right it doesn't. Even their help is better.
I even like their forum. Their people are always so helpful.
You know ofcource that I was trying to show you the biggest reasons for using avast. :)
-
I'm just a user of Avast, having come here because of problems with AVG.
It keeps this machine of mine virus free, and these forums are a wealth of information.
I only speak as I find, and have had no problems with avast or with the forums. Updates work without any hassle, and there are many here on these forums who can help you.
-
this obviously is not right, it ranks avastlower than norton :P
-
Ok, im sorry, did i really POST THAT???
Ok, usually im not that stupid, im sorry.... :'(
Maybe school does help, i cant wait to august 26? hell no, but sorry, i probably was daydreaming or something...... ???
:-\
-
What runelord999 should have added was this section found in one of the links:
QUOTE:
Did your favorite antivirus perform poorly in this test? There are a lot of factors that could have caused this:
Each AV program uses a different virus database. Some containing more malicious signatures than others, meaning some AV programs will have higher detection rates than others.
Each AV company has their own interpretation of what constitutes malware. Some AV companies only want their product to target primarily viruses and worms, and to a lesser degree Trojans and exploits, and to an even lesser degree (or not at all), spyware, hijackers and adware. For example, if you look at the attached chart, you may notice that several of the tested AV programs miss a significant number of the Trojans.
Considering there are roughly 100,000 (or more) unique infections in the wild, a population sample of 758 infected files may not accurately represent true detection rates of AV programs.
Could poor detection of certain AV programs be due to ‘zoo’ viruses in this test sample?
Not likely. First of all, many AV programs will detect zoo viruses. Second, all of these test files were obtained from within the ‘wild’, meaning that all of these files exist outside of laboratories and they have been (unfortunately) released out into the real world. ‘Zoo’ viruses are proof of concept viruses or otherwise unreleased viruses and generally do not exist outside of controlled laboratories. There are no known zoo viruses in these tests.
These test are NOT to determine which AV software is superior, this is just a test on 758 POSSIBLE Trojan, backdoor, and virus infected files. END QUOTE
Let's be fair when posting such AV evaluations in the future. :)