Author Topic: Avast review rated #11  (Read 40912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2004, 08:53:12 PM »
Hehe you did the nice mail. Mine turned out into serious complaint with not so nice "sound".
I didn't focused on avast!,but on the overal undetailed and misleading review with reviewers own opinions instead of techical facts.

Here is also the real ladder which has been done by our own test on Security-Ops :)

#1 BitDefender
#2 ESET Nod32
#3 PC-cillin
#4 AVAST! 4.1 Pro
#5 F-Secure Anti-Virus
#6 McAfee VisurScan
#7 F-Prot for Windows
#8 Panda Anti-Virus
#9 Norton AntiVirus
#10 AVG Anti-Virus
#11 eTrust EZ Antivirus

This is how the thing really stands but there was also the point on which avast! could get into 3rd place but some other factors forced it on 4th place. Its also a very good result :)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2004, 08:57:35 PM by RejZoR »
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2004, 09:25:25 PM »
ah goo to see avast nad F-Secure next to each other
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

Offline bassbag

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2004, 09:44:33 PM »
fprot for windows "effectiveness" summary sums up this site...

Effectiveness:    
F-Prot did do a good job as far as effectiveness.  A 1.5GB folder on my PC(PIII/650MHz) took 12 minutes to scan; not too bad.  
 

Wowee...3 out of 4 antiviral effectiveness because it scans the guys computer in 12 minutes !!!
Pathetic really isnt it.I just hope no one actually takes that site seriously.
me

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2004, 09:58:15 PM »
It takes avast 12min to scan 20GB disk of mine (Maxtor,5400 RPM,2MB cache) :P :D
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Offline martik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2004, 01:18:58 AM »
It takes avast 12min to scan 20GB disk of mine (Maxtor,5400 RPM,2MB cache) :P :D

15 mins for a standard scan on 44GB of a 80GB WD 7200 RPM, 8MB cache on an Athlon XP 1700+ with 256MB

neal62

  • Guest
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2004, 02:17:59 AM »
I also sent this company an e-mail that questioned the validity of their so called test and the ratings of Avast. Perhaps this might wake someone up, perhaps not, but at least they will know that what their report states is not factual to alot of Avast users. ;)

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2004, 07:23:27 AM »
I also don't get it how did they managed to put ESET's NOD32 on 8th place!? And under detection efficiency it doesn't get 4 out of 4 !? Every idiot knows that NOD32 has the most sophisticated detection engine on the market (100% detection in all VB100% tests). When i do the job,i do it thoroughly not like this reviewer heh ??? ::)
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2004, 12:13:40 AM »
Here Is my Email to them:

Hello,

I do not know Why you rated Avast! so badely. Especially in the support area when all users Home OR Pro have a Forum to get help on at
http://forum.avast.com/index.php
and can email Avast directly at this email address
support@asw.cz.

Avast! Has won many VirusBtn 100% awards so why is it rated low on preformace?

I hope you will re-evaluate Avast! in the near future.


                                                 
--------------------------------------------
Assistant Editor of MacWorld Mag.
www.macworld.com
« Last Edit: May 19, 2004, 12:16:01 AM by MacLover2000 »
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

Offline BBFI

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • Nationwide Christian Prison Ministry
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2004, 01:04:24 AM »
Back in November 2003, we had a post on this same site http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1801. It appears that nothing much has changed from these so called 'reviewers' since then. They still do not like Avast. :o
Christian Screen Savers - CLICK HERE

Christian ebooks - CLICK HERE

S.Z.Craftec

  • Guest
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2004, 01:41:54 AM »
Hahaha... and take a look at this one (form the same review - link martik  gave us in his first post):

Quote
It also would have a much better look if it was consistent throughout the package. For example, the "on-demand" scanner window has a nice interface which is intuitive and easy to use. Most of the other screens have a standard Microsoft Windows look and feel to them. Overall, it doesn't seem quite as polished as many of the other programs reviewed.


NOT POLISHED AS MANY OTHER PROGRAMS ???
Is he blind or just stupid ? Oh my God... Oh my...

« Last Edit: May 19, 2004, 01:42:21 AM by S.Z.Craftec »

Offline LordDragonDan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Brain damage survivor since 1999.
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2004, 02:00:03 AM »
Hahaha... and take a look at this one (form the same review - link martik  gave us in his first post):

Quote
It also would have a much better look if it was consistent throughout the package. For example, the "on-demand" scanner window has a nice interface which is intuitive and easy to use. Most of the other screens have a standard Microsoft Windows look and feel to them. Overall, it doesn't seem quite as polished as many of the other programs reviewed.


NOT POLISHED AS MANY OTHER PROGRAMS ???
Is he blind or just stupid ? Oh my God... Oh my...



I vote for stupid.

Actually, I originally thought they were bias for other reasons (like money). But after having a second look at the site, I realized they are just plain incompetent.
The easiest way to fix a windows problem is to load Linux

Offline wilbertnl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Cheers
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2004, 02:58:48 AM »
http://www.anti-virus-software-review.com/avast-review.html

Any comments on this rather poor rating of Avast. I have tried the top-rated bitdefender but prefer avast because it has more options such as email, p2p, autoupdate etc.
This review is more s list of statements, I miss the foundation of these statements. For each statement I read, I think: how did they come to this rating and to this conclusion. How do they measure?

This review is rated #11 in my list of reviews.  :D
I suggest that you read better founded reviews first.
Browser: Firefox (http://www.mozilla.org/); E-mail: Thunderbird (http://www.mozilla.org/)
RSS: Thunderbird (http://www.mozilla.org/); Usenet: Newsman Pro (http://www.newsmanpro.com/)
MP3: give away iPod (http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=11975678)

Offline martik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2004, 03:53:27 AM »
I use a router and enable the firewall therefore no need for a SW firewall.

Offline DavidR

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Certainly Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 85959
  • No support PMs thanks
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2004, 11:51:32 AM »
I use a router and enable the firewall therefore no need for a SW firewall.

My understanding of a router is it effectively masks (stealth) all ports downline of the router, so blocking most/all incoming hostile traffic.

But what stops outbound traffic  ??? not your router, unless it also has some sort of software interface?

If my understanding is incorrect I'm sure someone will correct me.

You say you enable the firewall, the Windows XP default one I assume? If this is correct then you need to cross your fingers as well as it is pretty basic at stoping outbound trafic. Many people recommend that you use a third party firwall rather than the XP firewall.

Perhaps you need to do a LeakTest at grc.com and confirm your router protects you from outbound traffic.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2004, 11:56:19 AM by DavidR »
Windows 10 Home 64bit/ Acer Aspire F15/ Intel Core i5 7200U 2.5GHz, 8GB DDR4 memory, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD/ avast! free 21.9.2494 (build 21.9.6698.703) UI 1.0.672/ Firefox, uBlock Origin, uMatrix/ MailWasher Pro/ Avast! Mobile Security

S.Z.Craftec

  • Guest
Re:Avast review rated #11
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2004, 12:22:35 PM »
I use a router and enable the firewall therefore no need for a SW firewall.

My understanding of a router is it effectively masks (stealth) all ports downline of the router, so blocking most/all incoming hostile traffic.

But what stops outbound traffic  ??? not your router, unless it also has some sort of software interface?

If my understanding is incorrect I'm sure someone will correct me.

You say you enable the firewall, the Windows XP default one I assume? If this is correct then you need to cross your fingers as well as it is pretty basic at stoping outbound trafic. Many people recommend that you use a third party firwall rather than the XP firewall.

Perhaps you need to do a LeakTest at grc.com and confirm your router protects you from outbound traffic.

You are right my friend... hardware + software firewall = perfect combination

You have some Hardware routers/firewalls like Linksys, with outbound protection also... but alsways is good to use software too...

Cheers !