personal detection statistic :-)

[veryhappyjk]

I tried both avast and norton on a collection of 3000+ virii (i can't say the source :-/ ).
I was quite unhappy of results.

On the batch of dos virii (.COM/EXE) of about 2800 infected files,
norton 2004 beta catched 2685 virii while
avast catched 2537 (deep search).

150 missed virii is a little too much!!

however i will use avast from now on, and as i work in computer trading, i will diffuse it also :-))) [obsviously free of c.]
i wuold see however some little things to be changed to reach great user-friendness :-)
first a total automatic (a no bugs!) for email client configuration :-)

[techie101]

I tried both avast and norton on a collection of 3000+ virii (i can't say the source :-/ ).
I was quite unhappy of results.

Sorry that you feel Avast is not up to the task, but since you will not elighten us on the source of your testing, and the manner in which it was conducted, it remains your opinion.
You seem to like it enough to be using it!

Norton is good, but not the best, plus it costs.
You can read other threads here as to what other users feel about Avast Home and Pro versions against other freeware AVs and payware.  Opinions are wide and varied so I will not pound on it further.

Avast is an excellent product whether Home or Pro. It has attained the Virus Bulletin Award many times and will continue to do so.
I feel comfortable enough with the protection it offers to be using it in all my machines. (I have both Home and Pro). If you consider the wider picture of stability, functionality, versatility, reliability, availability of support and oh yes....cost, you have to go a long way to beat AVAST !!!

 

[mantra]

veryhappyjk
what ****** virii are ?
i did same test

and avast did a great Great job

norton did a bad test

[jdong]

No AV can provide 100% detection, and the AV team isn't responsible for that..

If you want really good detection... F-Secure / KAV is for you (but be forewarned: good detection usually sacrifices <b>speed</b>!)

[veryhappyjk]

sorry

i didn't want to say avast is not up the task

instead i think it's the ONLY free av that can be on par with commercial av.

i simply thought a statistic with 3000 makes law
instead 3000 happy users make law :-)

i remark that i am currently supporting avast; i think free software can be useful for computer reselling market, and avast it's my actual solution.
i really appreciate avast.

however the virii site was biohazard, you can make some research for yourself.

byebye and my best wishes for your work!

[mantra]

send to the alwil team they will fix them

[Vlk]

Well,

the problem with these 'home-made' tests that employ large collections of old viruses is that they can hardly rate the real scanner effeciency. You may or may not be familiar with the term 'in the wild' that is used to pinpoint viruses that are actually 'out there' (that is, are seen, anywhere in the world, among 'normal people'). You may be surprised that this is not something vague -- the 'in the wild' list is actually well maintained and monthly updated. It contains hundreds of viruses, and lots of these viruses come in variants. To see the current list, follow e.g. this link: http://www.avast.com/i_idt_25.html .

And here are my points:
1. The probability that you will be infected by a non- in-the-wild virus is almost zero.
2. avast! catches all in-the-wild viruses, including all their variants.
3. Beside the 'static detection rate' factor, other pros/cons of an AV product need to be considered when rating it. Most notably, the speed at which new updates are issued in case of outbreaks, and the relibility with which these updates are delivered to the end user.

Vlk