Additional features for future avast! versions...

[occultdestroyer]

Ok, so yesterday I was able to buy myself a new notebook 
It's an ECS G320 with a VIA C3 Nehemiah 1GHz coupled with 128MB DDR SO-DIMM and a 40GB HDD.
I know it's not much but it gave me a run for the money..
Anyway, just yesterday I downloaded Avast and Spyware Terminator with WinClamAV plug-in for comparison analysis.. Unfortunately, the major drawback for the ClamAV plug-in was that it could not be identified by Windows Security Center/ I also made up some "dummy" viruses. Avast was able to fetch a few false positives, only 4 in total. ClamAV found only 2 false positives. With regards to real-world detection for in-the-wild viruses, avast outperformed ClamAV in a marginal rate. I believe that ClamAV is better than AVG Free Edition, but I have yet to analyze these results.. Perhaps I will post these results in their respective forums 

[Lisandro]

Avast was able to fetch a few false positives, only 4 in total.
ClamAV found only 2 false positives.

Are you sure about the false positives? Sometimes we *think* the files are clean when they're not.

I believe that ClamAV is better than AVG Free Edition, but I have yet to analyze these results.. Perhaps I will post these results in their respective forums 

It will be a good contribution.

[occultdestroyer]

My final verdict:
Alright, just for the record  ..
There are 5 outstanding freeware antivirus available these days:
avast! Home edition
AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic
AOL Active Virus Shield
AVG Free Edition
ClamWin AV

I guess we all have our own opinions on which is the best AV for us.. It all depends on advertisers' marketing strategies and consumer brand loyalties 

[mauserme]

ClamWin is an on-demand scanner only.  It's not suitable as a primary AV.

[Vladimyr]

ClamWin is an on-demand scanner only.  It's not suitable as a primary AV.

Anyway, just yesterday I downloaded Avast and Spyware Terminator with WinClamAV plug-in for comparison analysis.

I think occultdestroyer meant the ClamAV .DLL plugin for Spyware Terminator which is an on-access scanner, when he wrote "ClamWin AV". 

[occultdestroyer]

We don't want bloated-all-in-one-SystemWorks-like-suites... we just want avast better as you want
[/quote]

Avast works almost identically with all-in-one suites... What I mean is that it has enough scanning modules to support the entirety of the CPU. The only general features it lacks are anti-rootkit capability and a firewall.

[Vladimyr]

Avast works almost identically with all-in-one suites... What I mean is that it has enough scanning modules to support the entirety of the CPU.

Hi occultdestroyer 
You may've been just indulging in hyperbole but my experience is the opposite. While it's true Avast has almost as many "shields" as a heraldry convention, it steadfastly refuses to occupy all CPU time.

Speaking of 'bloated-all-in-one...suites', some may be great if you can only install/activate the components that work well and then install something else to cover the missing protection area more effectively without it conflicting with the suite or vice versa.

Example:
My ISP has just started providing F-Secure 2007 suite for free to customers. I've installed it today on one PC to see how it goes. It seems to work but it'd want to - the install is nearly 280MB! (see attachment)
F-Secure uses Lavasoft's Ad-Aware scan engine which is not the best at on-demand scanning so I have retained Spyware Teminator and SUPERAntispyware (free). Seems all 3 can be configured to avoid real-time conflicts but there is no way F-Secure will manual-scan for viruses only, and the scan takes a long time; the anti-spam is no better than that built-in to Thunderbird; the "Internet Shield" (firewall) had to be tweaked to get network access back.
A one-size-fits-all, set-and-forget, all-in-one solution is a nice idea (and I applaud my ISP for doing something positive for their customers), but so is world peace! 

[Lisandro]

Avast works almost identically with all-in-one suites... What I mean is that it has enough scanning modules to support the entirety of the CPU. The only general features it lacks are anti-rootkit capability and a firewall.

No... the modules (providers) aren't resource hoggers.
Avast is not a suite: antivirus + firewall + antispam + etc. + etc.

[occultdestroyer]

Alright, it's time to eat my words. I must confess I fell prey to the media critics (editors' reviews) who have reviewed this AV software. I just upgraded my laptop to Windows Vista and found out avast! is no resource hog after all. Between the three "A"s, avast seemed to have the best balance for a free AV (all are Windows Vista ready, by the way).

The moment I upgraded and installed my new OS on my laptop, I noticed a significant decrease in overall CPU performance. At first I thought it was avast or the other anti-malware I installed that affected this, but I found out it was the works of Microsoft. After my CPU configured the new updates that it automatically downloaded into the system, the system suddenly slowed down. I think this is one of Microsoft's schemes to force you to opt for better upgrades and to eventually increase net profit. I therefore recommend to all Windows users to turn Automatic Updates to stop these undesired results.

[Lisandro]

I therefore recommend to all Windows users to turn Automatic Updates to stop these undesired results.

I have to have this on manual or Microsoft will take the resources of my computer when I don't want to...
I've made an automatic script to load Windows updates when I want...

[occultdestroyer]

Whoops!! I mean every Windows user should turn Automatic Updates OFF or set to MANUAL. Sorry for the lack of words..

[xyzzy]

I think this is one of Microsoft's schemes to force you to opt for better upgrades and to eventually increase net profit. I therefore recommend to all Windows users to turn Automatic Updates to stop these undesired results.

So you think there's a problem with some update (no proofs) and based on this you advise to turn off WU? That's a total lack of responsibility. I'd advise turning off WU only if you daily check avaliability of new updates. How many cases there were when WU updates caused system problems? - a few, none affecting every PC, with one or two requiring recovery procedure and none system reinstall. How many bug fixes have been made? For XP+components- like hundreds.
Turning off WU you say that you have better idea of what the problem (vulnerability) is and you can cope with it yourself. Do you? So, is your system hardened, not used components removed and adequate files deleted? Group policy settings tuned? OK. Is it the same for some folks' systems you advise to turn off WU?

X.

[Lisandro]

That's a total lack of responsibility.

I don't think so...

I'd advise turning off WU only if you daily check avaliability of new updates.

There are other ways to get advised about updates. I don't check daily. It's a lose of time...

How many cases there were when WU updates caused system problems?

In my case, turns computer unresponsive... svchost.exe takes all the CPU cicles, when I don't want to.

[xyzzy]

That's a total lack of responsibility.

I don't think so...

It's my bread and butter to know if that's so or not.

I'd advise turning off WU only if you daily check avaliability of new updates.

There are other ways to get advised about updates. I don't check daily. It's a lose of time...

The way is not important, it's important to be notified asap, especially that WU is usually behind exploits.

How many cases there were when WU updates caused system problems?

In my case, turns computer unresponsive... svchost.exe takes all the CPU cicles, when I don't want to.

Fix your PC then.

X.

[Lisandro]

Fix your PC then.

Problem is on Microsoft Updates and how Windows deal with svchost.exe priorities. It's not on my computer, but in every computer worldwide. In yours too... just that you don't want/need/know how to fix it.