avast! in Brazilian media

[wetabax]

check text in PCWORD.http://pcworld.uol.com.br/reviews/2006/04/05/idgreviews.2006-04-05.9984950722/IDGReview_view

regards
walter

[Lisandro]

I'll post a translation of avast! review of that site:

Antivírus - Avast Home Edition 4,6 Tony Bradley - PCW/EUA 05-04-2006 The product is gratuitous and has an interface similar to one measured to player, but the performance is below of the waited one. Avast does not adopt a window standard as the other antiviruses, Avast can assume skins differentiated. Some new users can find a little difficult to locate where they are the tools, perhaps but the people who are made familiar to players find the interface atractive. Unhappyly, the performance of Avast does not match with the appearance. It presented the worse performance enters the tested products in our comparative degree of antivirus. The performance of Avast was poor in heuristicos tests, being in the antepenultimate place of ranking. In the test of scanning time, he was slowest, leading more of the one than 13 minutes and 11 seconds to execute the task.

Two points that avast is not good:
1. Heuristic
2. Scanning speed

The old prejudice about the interface, the very peculiar test that was performed: they want an antivirus for heuristics, nothing more.
Well, it's a test. But, imho, a very specific[/b] test and the conclusions are far away further from the test, as usual, test one thing and prove others... 

The test winners:

1. Bit-Defender 9 Standard
2. VirusScan 2006 McAfee
...
7. Antivir
8. avast
9. PC-cillin Internet Security Suite 2006 Trend Micro
10. AVG

The conclusion of them: if you don't have money to buy an antivirus, you can use the free ones.
Man, I CAN BELIEVE THIS!!!

[polonus]

Howdy Tech,

This again proves to me that loads of these tests are nothing but "bull", my friend. In another test from another Dutch site Bitdefender ended far in the rear. One thing is: "What kind of criteria do you presume, that is one, and sometimes with AV products you are comparing apples with pears"". Heuristics for instance has some benefits, but also has serious drawbacks (FP's were sequences in definitions are closely related to those of normal software).
The malware fighter of to-day needs a scale of techniques and apps to keep these boxes clean. It is not that easy as they tell you.

polonus

[Lisandro]

This again proves to me that loads of these tests are nothing but "bull", my friend.

They're money most of times... we're the ingenuous that believe on them...

In another test from another Dutch site Bitdefender ended far in the rear.

Heuristics for instance has some benefits, but also has serious drawbacks (FP's were sequences in definitions are closely related to those of normal software).

The worst for me is that they promisse a lot and do nothing... The user thinks he/she is protected for everything with the bloatware-all-in-one-master-of-the-masters application.

[TAP]

For scanning speed,

For me, besides Clam, Kaspersky (and its clones e.g. F-Secure), BitDefender is one of the slowest AV I've ever seen, I used to test its latest version on my personal laptop, desktop and several machine on corporate network but all gives the same results, slow on-demand scanning speed and slow down entire system in real time, so I don't care about BitDefender is implemented with super-advanced heuristics or something else if it slows my machine down.

Although avast! is not that fast as NOD32 but for me avast! is not as soooooo slow as Clam, Kaspersky, BitDefender.

[Staind]

Calm took approximately 8 hours to scan my PC, so I uninstalled it.  Kaspersky, when I used it awhile ago wasn't too bad.  Avast! is also really slow, it's one of the downsides of it.  BitDefender was always 'ok', but it is fairly similar to Avast!.

[wetabax]

BitDefender is one of the slowest AV I've ever seen,

What the magazine writes: Entretanto, a velocidade de varredura do BitDefender foi a segundo mais lenta, levando 9 minutos e 16 segundos para analisar os arquivos em nossos testes.

something like: Althoug, speed of scan from BitDefender was the second slowlier, with 9minutes and 16 seconds to analyse the test files. First was avast!, of course, so... 

[bob3160]

so... 

So unless you know all the settings used or not used, there isn't any way to know
what or how many files the actual scan contained.

[RejZoR]

They wanted proactive protection? They got it here:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=20412.0

I hope they'll see it too

[Lisandro]

so... 

So unless you know all the settings used or not used, there isn't any way to know
what or how many files the actual scan contained.

Fully right... Fully agree...
Anyway, we know avast scanning speed is not a Shumaker 
Besides this, that comparison does what a lot of others do: overlap the conclusions far away from the test limitations