Does anyone know much about, or use, Avast anti-virus?

[Critters2]

Thanks for any info! :hi:

[RoyGBiv]

1. Yes ...

It's awesome.

[TroglodyteScholar]

2. Yep, been using it for years

Free (for home users), updates automatically (and frequently)...I'm happy with it.

[ghostsofgiants]

3. Yep, it is great.

[Critters2]

4. Thanks, everyone! I've been having trouble with Norton, and am getting fed up.

Norton has been blocking things it should be letting through, on my desktop. In fact, the only way I can get anything on Firefox is to go into Norton and turn off the worm protection...which, obviously, leaves me vulnerable. I've had to techies look at this, each one thinking they had fixed it. Enough is enough. I'm gonna download Avast.

Thanks for the reviews!

[Turbineguy]

5. It's great, it's free.

re-register every year. I've been using it for at least 3 years now. I rearely get a virus attack but it's intercepted all so far.

[mvd]

6. I'm considering moving to it

I currently use McAfee, also free from Comcast. Tests are inconclusive if the free version has better detection than McAfee. Anyone have experience there?

[RoyGBiv]

9. Define better ...

Some of this "better detection" stuff that floats around is essentially a myth. Yeah, their engines work differently, and some dig in different ways than others, but at the end of the day, the top scanners do their jobs in much the same way.

The real measure of how effective a virus checker is at protecting your system lies in how good its database of virus definitions is, how frequently it is update on their servers, and finally how quickly that gets passed down to the client, i.e. you. Avast, AVG, Nod32, etc. are big players in that process. McAfee is among the top ten also, I believe.

[mvd]

10. Avast updates more frequently

As McAfee still won't update on weekends unless there's a huge outbreak. Since the scores are similar, if I can get rid of my fear of a free product, I might change.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Why do you fear free products?

Just axin...

[mvd]

12. Probably unfounded

Just the fact they ARE free, I guess.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Okay ...

It's not entirely unfounded. The web especially has had a great influence in re-defining the meaning of the word "free." You'll see a lot of things that say "free download." Yeah, you don't get charged to "download" anything, but when you install it, all bets are off.

Think of it this way though: corporations have an enormous interest in perpetuating the idea that free=inferior. It just ain't so. You have to do your homework on things, but it eventually becomes second nature as to what's what.

And you can always ask. There are those of us who've been wading through this stream for awhile and have learned to spot the pitfalls pretty well.

[mvd]

17. It's not that I think Avast is sleazy

I probably trust them not to spy more than McAfee. The effectiveness of a free product is my issue.

[RoyGBiv]

19. I understand that ...

But, it's the same thing. Corporations and those whose business model is based on the sales of licensing have an interest in defining "free" as "inferior."

And some of it is. But much of it isn't.

In the system security world, the somewhat odd thing is that non-free products are more often inferior to free ones. Nod32 and McAfee (to an extent) are the exceptions to this rule, but with those, I'd only count Nod32 as actually any better, largely because they are superior in recognizing threats and disseminating that to the end-user and because the client doesn't bring your system to a grinding halt with bloat. They also avoid the fear-tactics used by many security products.

Computer security has evolved into a quasi-legal protection racket. Many companies spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and then offer you the solution to all your problems ... if you'll just pay up. A certain, ubiquitous class of paid-for software does its business by having you install a "free" scanner that tells you your system is infected (often with a "may be" qualifier in some fine print somewhere you never see), but requires you to pay them to remove the infection. With some of this, the "free" scanner is in fact the infection. With others, the warning is just that, a warning, not a true indication of anything being wrong with your system. The profit motive in system security lessens your ability to trust those companies that profit exclusively through deployment licenses. The motive is to get you to install and pay for the software and keep perpetually paying for updates.

Free security services work differently, according to what is essentially a support and service business model. They make their money not by raw deployment licenses but by quality of service. They have an interest in keeping the larger network that is the Internet as clean as possible because it helps with their profit generating sector offering security service to businesses and other large organizations that pay them.

OnEdit: "Free" versions of McAfee you get from your ISP is basically a form of cross-marketing. The ISP wants a clean network, thus they want their subscribers to use virus scanners. They could very well point people to free products, but they don't because they work out cross-marketing deals with companies like McAfee or Norton, which allow the ISP to distribute a scaled-down version of their product for little or no cost, which then encourages users to upgrade to the full-featured version. The reason your McAfee updates less frequently than Avast is because of this. It's not that it can't, just that it doesn't because they want you to buy the version of their product that does. Even if most subscribers never do, some will ... the nature of advertising.

[mvd]

20. The pay version of McAfee also doesn't update on weekends

So there's no difference there. Free AVs do tend to be less of resource hogs, but the best AVs IMO are pay: KAV and AntiVir Premium. I don't use KAV because it does not run well on my computer, and AntiVir's false positives bother me. Just the other day, AntiVir alerted on the Yahoo baseball box score page - not good. I don't trust what ESET counts as important enough threats - otherwise, I'd use NOD32.

[RoyGBiv]

14. BTW ...

When/If you change virus scanners, make absolutely, positively sure you have rid your system entirely of your old one before you install the new one.

Competing virus scanners can wreak havoc on a system.

[mvd]

18. Good advice

McAfee has a removal tool to make sure.

[Schema Thing]

7. Is Avast any less of a resource hog than McAfee?

[RoyGBiv]

8. Oh hell yes ...

McAfee is only second in bloat to Norton.

Avast is lean and mean ... well, as lean and mean as a quality virus checker can be.

[Raffi Ella]

15. I've used it for years, it's great.

No viruses and no problems with it at all. It's very easy to install and very user friendly. I highly recommend it.

[dropkickpa]

16. Love it!

Simple to use, updates all the time, catches everything (so far, 3 years). And my computer seems to be much happier with it than it was with Norton.