Disapointed with Avast's impact on speed

[scubadoo]

I've been trying the Avast's free version over the last month or so having switched from Avira and whilst I really like the interface and the ability to configure its filtering, I hadn't checked out the impact on download speeds.
I had thought the recent sluggishness of my broadband was due to heavy traffic but having spent considerable time over the weekend trying several on-line "speed-checkers" with various Avast settings, I've decided to revert to Avira.
My findings (FWTW)....
Previously, with Avira my speeds were ranging from 5.5M - 11M depending on day and time of day.
This weekend, with Avast (WebShield enabled), speeds have been 3 - 7M and with Webshield disabled this immediately rose to 6.6 - 9.7.
I removed Avast and reinstalled Avira (default settings) and my speeds are now back around 10M.

Sorry, Avast, as I said, I do like the looks of the package but at that cost to performance it's a no-brainer.

[christy a]

I am having the same problem to,i thought my computer needed cleaned out but i did that and it hasnt helped.When i had the 4.8 Avast in my computer before i went to Avast5 never was that slow now it is like dial up.

[CraigB]

Maybe if you had of come here and supplied some info about your system and setup, previous av's what firewall your using we might have been able to help you rather than just stating your view and leaving as that has helped no one

[DavidR]

It is hardly surprising as if you have the free avira, guess what, you have no web protection, you have to pay for that, see image.

I would have though as craigb suggests had you sought help here first I would imagine that a clean reinstall would have resolved this as I find zero difference in speed between avast 4.8 and avast 5.0 as essentially the web shield functionality is the same.

[schmidthouse]

I am having the same problem to,i thought my computer needed cleaned out but i did that and it hasnt helped.When i had the 4.8 Avast in my computer before i went to Avast5 never was that slow now it is like dial up.

Hello Christy a and welcome: I can understand what you are saying and how slow connections can be frustrating, however what craigb and DavidR have pointed out...with some further information and a bit of patience most of these issues can be corrected. Things like Firewall software, Malware, OS configurations and Processing speed can all have an effect on connections. Please provide some further information and I'm sure the two evangelists can help with your problem as well as the original poster.
Thanks...

[Vladimyr]

There'd instead be a delay after the download has been completed but have you tried disabling 'intelligent stream scanning'?

"Use intelligent stream scanning - this is also checked by default. When checked, files that are downloaded are scanned in real-time i.e. during the actual download process. The packets of data are scanned as soon as they arrive - and the next ones are downloaded only when the previous packets have been verified to be infection-free. If this feature is disabled, by unchecking the box, the whole file will be downloaded to a temporary folder first and then scanned."

[scubadoo]

Wow, quite a response from a simple observation, thanks for the feedback.
So, for what it's worth, I'm running XP sp3, Comodo firewall (free) and Firefox (latest releases of all); I regularly run MalwareBytes and CCleaner to hopefully optimise things.
As stated, over the course of several days I tried various Avast settings including Vladimyr's suggestion of "intelligent stream scanning" both on and off.
But DavidR's comment confuses me ..... "It is hardly surprising as if you have the free avira ..... you have no web protection" ..... that's not the impression I got from the interface; if there's no "web protection", why's there a tick box for WebShield and why'd it cause such a slowdown?
I'm not trying to be funny, but as a non-expert on PCs/networks, Schmidthouse's comment on Firewall, Malware, OS config & Processing speed affecting (download?) speed is logical, but surely their effect should be somewhat similar between packages and I'd have thought the fewer system resources required implies a more efficient package.

As I said, it's a shame 'cos I liked the look/feel/tweakability of Avast.
Sadly, unless there's an EASY resolution to this issue I'll have to stick with Avira (with its flaky update procedure and annoying pop-ups).

[SafeSurf]

I just checked with Avira as well, and if you have the Free version, you do not have the Web Shield, Behavior Shield, Mail Shield that Avast Free has.  There are other Shields as well that Avast Pro and AIS offer that Avira does not include; I am not sure what version of Avast you had.

So with Avast running, you were better protected with the various Shields watching out for you by constantly scanning your machine and web sites for you, thus perhaps slowing you down slightly.  Is it worth it?  In my opinion, yes, to be better protected than the time trying to remove malware or worrying about it, especially the new malware that is out there these days!

[zerotox]

Hello. As one of Avira's developpers mentioned when discussing web guards (HTTP scanners) in various AV products - "And guys, every HTTP scanner slows down your system. Stop that silly arguing! :-) More scanning means more slow down. If you have a fast, modern machine with lots of RAM you might not notice it. But it is impossible to scan so many additional files without having an impact on your system. As a side note, the few HTTP scanners I tested so far cause the browser files to be scanned twice: first, the HTTP scanner module scans them and afterwards, the on-access guard again, when the browser stores the files into its cache."
Every user has quite different experiences with web guards in different AV programs. I myself find a very slight slowdown with both Avira Premium and Avast web guards. With downloading files though, Avast has implemented it in a better way, as it doesn't give you false speed readings as is the case with Avira Premium. Usually, I don't use web guards as I think Sandboxie will give you much better protection.

[igor]

Well, the quote is kinda questionable.
I mean sure, something is being scanned, so it has to have some effect - no arguing about that. But:
- don't see what RAM has to do with that; unless you are really low on RAM and the system starts swapping, this is mainly about CPU
- double scanning - first, the browser doesn't have to store everything into its cache; second, the AV doesn't have to scan every file being written to disk - may be e.g. extension dependent (and different file types may be scanned in web shield and in file system shield)

And third, everybody seems to think that malicious files have to be written to disk to perform any damage - but it's simply wrong. OK, maybe it's how it works today, possibly because malware authors didn't try hard enough to bypass that - but it's possible that a browser exploit appears and a piece of malware will abuse that problem - purely in memory. Fine, being just in memory, it won't be able to persist on the system... but it might send our your personal data at least, before it gets killed. Or it may try to disable your AV - and then write itself to the disk, when nobody watches that anymore.

[zerotox]

I agree with you. The quote about double scanning doesn't apply to all Av-s, it is not specified. Of course you can exclude file types from scanning - that's convenient. But nevertheless the fact is that there is delay, even if minimal - its extent varying for different users/set-ups. I agree that nowadays RAM is rarely an issue. As to the exploits and drive-by-s that can execute directly in memory without the need of being downloaded to the hard disc, of course that is a possibility but Sandboxie or Geswall (both with free versions) will be better options in this case as even the web guards of AV-s depend on signatures or a list against which pages and content is checked. So no signatures - no detection.

[scubadoo]

I'm really impressed with the enthusiasm of this forum's members.

Safesurf & Zerotox, I was using Avira's free version and I fully appreciate that the more things a package has to do, the greater will be the impact on speed but I certainly don't consider a reduction in speed of 30-40% as a "slight" slowing down.
As I've said already, I'm no expert; I want something that'll download/install easily and give me a similar level of protection to what I'm used to without having to fine-tune it.
As each company/developer seems to use their own versions of tech-speak and calls their various modules by different names it tends to confuse those of us (me at least) who aren't experts and who assume company A's free package will be very similar to company B's free package.
From your posts, it seems this isn't the case; Avast has more bells and whistles than Avira?
Oh, and sorry DavidR, I mistook your comment on the absence of web protection to mean in Avast not Avira - many apologies.

So, as a complete numpty, am I to assume that if I used Avast with WebShield off, I'd still have a 'similar' level of protection to Avira free?

[zerotox]

IMO in this case Avira will be a better option as it has better detection rates and better heuristics. If you can live with the interface and nag screen.

[YoKenny]

IMO in this case Avira will be a better option as it has better detection rates and better heuristics. If you can live with the interface and nag screen.

It has a terrible forum and one of the main reasons I am here.

They do not like you to run anything other than Avira and will not help you unless you remove what they do not like like WinPatrol and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (MBAM).

By the way I purchased Avira AntiVir Premium just to get rid of the nag screen. 

[zerotox]

Well the OP asks about the product not the forum. Otherwise I agree that this forum (Avast's) is one of the best concerning support and friendliness.