Thane, I think your line of reasoning is ridiculous. Who's doing the testing? Let me make a p air of arguments.
First, as far as most research I can find, Avast! does quite well: http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2006/06/vb200606-comparative But here's the real test, one I call the real world. The problem is, most of us make the invalid assumption that the lab tests equal the real world. They don't. They are conditions in which viruses are subjected to a scanner, yes, but they also make the assumption that users are always up to date and have bandiwdth to support the updates. I know this sounds ridiculous, but we have to remember that more then 50% of the internet users in the US still connect via dialup, not broadband. Lots of of people still use AOL dialup, or whatever dialup because of one basic reason: it's super cheap. People who want to pay $15 or less a month stick with dialup and find it just fine because all they want is email. And that's all well and good. Here's the problem this creates for Antivirus software. Out of the box, first install: Avast! daily update: 85k (about a minute or so on dialup) Norton Internet Security 2007 out of box first update (as of yesterday): 73MB. Over a dialup connection: HOURS So, who do I think has more up to date antivirus? I seriously doubt it's the person with the norton. Hell, even Symantec gets this and in their corporate product, the MicroDefs downloads are small and daily. Antivirus software is only as good as it's ability to quickly update and recover. Avast! has small updates that can be retrieved or quickly inserted even into a screwed up box. And it's boot-time-scan provides it an outside of windows utility that does an effective job of wiping out virus before windows restarts. Outside of a well updated BART, Avast provides one of the more effective solutions to fixing a virus infected PC. If you have a PC you know is infected, and you run out and buy NIS or McAfee to save you, I wish you luck because you're going to end up totally hosed. Because both of the products require a reboot before they update, by the time you get back up into windows both products tend to be pooched before you get a chance. And sustaining a large download while you're infected, even on a broadband connection is nigh impossible. Neither offer effective pre-boot execution, and even if they did, since both of them shipped with massive engine flaws (both have entirely new engines available for download since they went out in retail box) even if you could get a scan how accurate would it be? The problem with many lab tests is they take a great, fully updated PC and then run AV at it. Not enough people do that. The reality is: (1) Is this an AV that can stay current with updates on it's own? An AV that isn't current is worthless (to use your condom example: a condom may be 98% or whatever, but leave one sit in a hot wallet for weeks and it's worthless) (2) Is this an AV that can effectively recover from being subject to a virus? (3) Is this an AV that the end user can understand and will not turn off due to bells/whistles? (You don't know how many people turn of McAfee or Norton altogether because of constant pop-ups and reminders from their software offering them "other software" from NAI/Symantec) Your fundamental argument is: if you aren't using the best, you might as well use nothing. By that token, I could argue that anyone who isn't using a Packet-Level Antivirus Firewall scanner is completely wasting their time. There are tons of people who pay for AV software I don't consider very good. And tons of AV software out there for pay that isn't very good (even in lab tests). Is Avast! etc. constantly "#1" no. But is it real world effective? Far moreso then most of the over-the-counter for purchase crap people run into at their local stores ;) -----Original message----- From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 06:58:46 -0600 To: The Hardware List [email protected] Subject: RE: [H] Free or Cheap AV Software > At 08:33 AM 28/12/2006, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: > >Wait a minute....you cannot prove that any one AV software is the > >"best solution" in the real world. Your logic of having the ability > >to complain to someone is specious at best. Now your argument goes > >over to the POV of paying for the "best solution" rather than just > >paying for AV software. The question should be whether or not one > >can get adequate protection from any AV software. If it is not > >possible to do with a free version, than I agree that one should pay > >(as I have done for years, but that hasn't prevented > >inflections). However, if any acceptable good free AV prog exists, > >then the color of the sky changes. > > Maybe one can't prove a "best" solution (too many variables) but one > can prove which AV gives the highest level of protection in > testing. The Avast for pay isn't as good as some of the other for > pay AVs out there. We can extrapolate from that the the free version > is at best no better and at worst, worse than the for pay > version. My argument is that if there is a better level of > protection, and it's cost is minimal, then there is no point in going > with the free version. As an example: If I offer you two condoms - > one is free, and it's 95% likely to protect protect you from VD. The > other cost $5 and is 98% likely to protect you from VD. Which do you > use if you know you are going into a brothel where VD in commonplace > (I think the VD infested brother is analagous to the malware infested > internet?) Clearly there is still a chance that you get infected, > and clearly the best approach is common sense (don't have sex in the > brothel) but if one is taking the chance, then why not spend the > money? The downside clearly overcomes the cost. > > T > >
