Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AVG vs AVAST

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
June 7, 2005 6:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

I've used the free version of AVG for years. Nowadays AVAST seems to have
become the favorite AV. Is it worth switching to AVAST or is the protection
essentially equivalent to that afforded by AVG?

Can they be used together?

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com

More about : avg avast

June 7, 2005 7:17:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In news:e1Zi5P5aFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> I've used the free version of AVG for years. Nowadays AVAST seems to
> have become the favorite AV. Is it worth switching to AVAST or is
> the protection essentially equivalent to that afforded by AVG?
>
> Can they be used together?

Which is best for you? Check here:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_0...

Together? Yes and no. You probably CAN but I'd not recommend it. Too many
chances for conflicts or false positives or even files being in use and
locked and not getting scanned accurately. The resource usage isn't
justified. What you can do is have one as a backup but have it disabled from
running in real-time mode or starting on boot. Then when ever you have
doubts you can scan with the alternate program after updating it. However,
if you can't trust your AV what can you trust?

My recommended solution? No I make no money from my recommendations but if
you can afford it buy KAV and be done with the worries.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
June 7, 2005 10:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

I've used the KAV trial version. It used up so much resources it slowed my
PC to a crawl. Otherwise I would have purchased it.

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com



Galen wrote:
> In news:e1Zi5P5aFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
> Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> I've used the free version of AVG for years. Nowadays AVAST seems to
>> have become the favorite AV. Is it worth switching to AVAST or is
>> the protection essentially equivalent to that afforded by AVG?
>>
>> Can they be used together?
>
> Which is best for you? Check here:
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_0...
>
> Together? Yes and no. You probably CAN but I'd not recommend it. Too
> many chances for conflicts or false positives or even files being in
> use and locked and not getting scanned accurately. The resource usage
> isn't justified. What you can do is have one as a backup but have it
> disabled from running in real-time mode or starting on boot. Then
> when ever you have doubts you can scan with the alternate program
> after updating it. However, if you can't trust your AV what can you
> trust?
> My recommended solution? No I make no money from my recommendations
> but if you can afford it buy KAV and be done with the worries.
>
> Galen
Related resources
June 7, 2005 11:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Thanks for the url that compares the AVs.

Can one assume the free versions have the same effectiveness as the paid
versions?

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com



Galen wrote:
> In news:e1Zi5P5aFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
> Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> I've used the free version of AVG for years. Nowadays AVAST seems to
>> have become the favorite AV. Is it worth switching to AVAST or is
>> the protection essentially equivalent to that afforded by AVG?
>>
>> Can they be used together?
>
> Which is best for you? Check here:
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_0...
>
> Together? Yes and no. You probably CAN but I'd not recommend it. Too
> many chances for conflicts or false positives or even files being in
> use and locked and not getting scanned accurately. The resource usage
> isn't justified. What you can do is have one as a backup but have it
> disabled from running in real-time mode or starting on boot. Then
> when ever you have doubts you can scan with the alternate program
> after updating it. However, if you can't trust your AV what can you
> trust?
> My recommended solution? No I make no money from my recommendations
> but if you can afford it buy KAV and be done with the worries.
>
> Galen
June 8, 2005 12:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In news:uE6wbV7aFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Thanks for the url that compares the AVs.
>
> Can one assume the free versions have the same effectiveness as the
> paid versions?

I'd go ahead and guess that it was close to or equal to the paid versions, I
doubt they'd stay in business long if there were big differences in
effectiveness. Beyond that, you said KAV slowed your system down? Which
version and how long ago? While it is a bit heavy on system resources you
can use the non-mail scanning option and that helps quite a bit. I guess, I
buy fast CPUs and lots of RAM, I don't really notice that actually but
you're not the first person to say so.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
June 8, 2005 12:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

It was about 6 months ago. I tried it in my Pentium 4, 2.66 GHz laptop with
512 RAM and XP home.

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com



Galen wrote:
> In news:uE6wbV7aFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
> Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Thanks for the url that compares the AVs.
>>
>> Can one assume the free versions have the same effectiveness as the
>> paid versions?
>
> I'd go ahead and guess that it was close to or equal to the paid
> versions, I doubt they'd stay in business long if there were big
> differences in effectiveness. Beyond that, you said KAV slowed your
> system down? Which version and how long ago? While it is a bit heavy
> on system resources you can use the non-mail scanning option and that
> helps quite a bit. I guess, I buy fast CPUs and lots of RAM, I don't
> really notice that actually but you're not the first person to say so.
>
> Galen
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
June 8, 2005 12:17:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:04:48 -0400, "Jeff" <jeff@phony.com> wrote:

>I've used the KAV trial version. It used up so much resources it slowed my
>PC to a crawl. Otherwise I would have purchased it.

If you absolutely must have a "free" antivirus product, I prefer Avast
over AVG. I've never had AVG discover a virus, but Avast does a good
job of discovering viruses. Avast also used very little resources on
my machine.

Personally, I have always had the philosophy that "you get what you
pay for". If you pay nothing for your antivirus product, that is what
you will get -- nothing.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================
June 8, 2005 1:19:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

In news:u78t9G8aFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> It was about 6 months ago. I tried it in my Pentium 4, 2.66 GHz
> laptop with 512 RAM and XP home.

That makes me wonder... I've been using KAV since, well, before it was KAV.
It used to be AVP. (Anti-viral toolkit Pro) If you're already set on using
one of the other AV applications and not willing/wanting to pay for the
application then this is not important but the question begs to be asked.
Did you have anything else doing real-time scanning at the same time? Was
there a conflict with pre-existing software perhaps? Your box has statistics
well enough so that it should have run KAV without a hitch. On a bad day I
have my main PC set and running around 50 processes or so. KAV is one of
them though I do not have it set to inspect outbound mail or self extracting
archives as those would be scanned when they are opened.

Hmm... The PC at the moment is not really too fast. It's a AMD 3200+ w/2 GB
RAM and XP Pro so it's not that fast at all really. It's currently using
2700 k of memory and 1000 k of memory as the service and process. Far less,
for instance, than IE, Explorer, or even Yahoo.

It's not that I'm trying to alter your opinion but rather that my opinion
has always been that when it comes to security second best isn't really good
enough unless, of course, price makes the best out of my league.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
June 8, 2005 2:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

I did not understand it either. When I get the time, I might try it again.
The version I tried was the trial version. Maybe it is not identical to the
paid version.As I remember it, I believe I tried KAV right after SP2 came
out and I recall they were having some kind of problem with XP SP2. I now
recall, I also installed the trial version on my daughter's college laptop
to clean it up (you will not believe all the spyware I found on it!) and
after the scan which ran "forever", I had to uninstall it so she could use
her laptop again. It was running like molasses with KAV installed. It too
was a speedy laptop.

I suspect it will not let me re-install the trial version again on my laptop
because it keeps track somewhere of the original installation date and only
allows it to run for 30 days from then. That's what happened the last time I
tried to re-install and try it. I'll see. Wish I could install the paid
version to see if it runs any better before paying for it.

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com



Galen wrote:
> In news:u78t9G8aFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> It was about 6 months ago. I tried it in my Pentium 4, 2.66 GHz
>> laptop with 512 RAM and XP home.
>
> That makes me wonder... I've been using KAV since, well, before it
> was KAV. It used to be AVP. (Anti-viral toolkit Pro) If you're
> already set on using one of the other AV applications and not
> willing/wanting to pay for the application then this is not important
> but the question begs to be asked. Did you have anything else doing
> real-time scanning at the same time? Was there a conflict with
> pre-existing software perhaps? Your box has statistics well enough so
> that it should have run KAV without a hitch. On a bad day I have my
> main PC set and running around 50 processes or so. KAV is one of them
> though I do not have it set to inspect outbound mail or self
> extracting archives as those would be scanned when they are opened.
> Hmm... The PC at the moment is not really too fast. It's a AMD 3200+
> w/2 GB RAM and XP Pro so it's not that fast at all really. It's
> currently using 2700 k of memory and 1000 k of memory as the service
> and process. Far less, for instance, than IE, Explorer, or even Yahoo.
>
> It's not that I'm trying to alter your opinion but rather that my
> opinion has always been that when it comes to security second best
> isn't really good enough unless, of course, price makes the best out
> of my league.
> Galen
!