Hello, it's better to you based upon the tests proposed by VLK here: http://blog.avast.com/2010/03/03/malekal-2010-test/ ... For the direct link is here (Google translation): http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.malekal.com%2Fcomparatif-antivirus-gratuits-2010-t23535.html
The AV Comparative tests are obsolete (this is only my opinion) because they are only "on demand". I use Avast Internet Security Suite and I can not endorse the results of recent tests of AV Comparative.
Thank you and wish you a good day.
PS: sorry for my bad English
theyr not obsolete, they show a different area of the AV, and what i use my AV for is to be able to detect, i dont rely on it alone to prevent hence why i want to see detection capability. whats the point of even creating signatures and traditional methods of detection, whats the point if u can just focus on prevention and not need sigs of any kind? thats why these static tests still have relevance to certain situations.
I was not particularly happy with Avast's performance especially seeing as how Avira did fantastically well and also managed for the first time to really reduce their FP's. Avast was caught a bit short in Trojan detection and most current malware is of that type. Avira did great.
I too ONLY use an AV for real time and on demand SIGNATURE AND HEURISTIC detection. I do not use shields like Web shield. (I do use zero day behavioral detection but IMO that should NOT be behavioral but classic HIPS which is FAR STRONGER PROTECTION). I detest Suites and want an AV that has nothing except outstanding real time, on demand, network scanning and zero day protection preferably classic HIPS rather than behavioral in nature . I also do not use anything in the cloud or anything that calls home all the time checking lists in the cloud or tattling to mommy in the cloud, etc.
Avira has recently stated that the free version cannot protect users anymore because it does what I think an AV should do and nothing more. But supposedly, a real time detector is deficient now and one must use a web shield/detector to be protected. I think that is BS and designed (in the case of Avira) to force users away from free AV. Avast has a webshield for the free version also but I would never use it. I use the Proxomitron and I cannot daisy chain two web proxies together and expect to have any enjoyment of the internet. So, if AV vendors are now claiming that their products are effective only if you have the web protection part turned on then I will stop using AV and use other types of protection. Thus, IMO AVComparatives tests are extremely valid and not the slightest bit old fashioned. Never put your eggs in one basket. It it is very foolish to use an AV vendor's Suite for that reason alone.
I realize that all AV is headed toward in the cloud weak, behavioral only (instead of strong classic HIPS) detection but as that gets further along, I'll probably be gone and using other protection. The current model of signature and heuristics does have to change because of the sheer magnitude of the malware we see now so that vendors cannot keep up with the onslaught using traditional methods.