> You're comparing Norton's first update vs Avast's daily > update. While I hate Norton and don't use it, that comparison is > completely invalid. What is Avast's first download plus their first > update? I'm sure it's smaller than Norton's pig of a download, but > once again, I wasn't talking Norton.
The reason is because Avast! Free is updated weekly at their website in the download. Downloading the whole program is 6MB - smaller then Norton's first update. Downloading your first update will NEVER be more then 1MB. I have a box here running NIS 2007. It last updated 12/21/06. This morning's update: 9.2MB. That's an update that is only 1 weeks worth! > You have a very good point about the size of the downloads, but since > I wasn't discussing this, I'm not sure how it's relevant. NOD32's > downloads are small as are Sophos' downloads. I agree, and as I've noted, NOD is a very good program, and as I pointed out, I would recommend it. > Chris, you're taking the worst case (Norton) and then trying to use > it to disprove my argument (arguing, I guess, that free is always > better.) That's not realistic. I don't use or recommend Norton AV > products. No one in their right mind does. I'm arguing that if you No, I'm not arguing that free is always better (it isn't) I'm just arguing that because something is free doesn't make it ipso facto "bad". > I would argue that an infected box is not repairable from within its > OS. Perhaps Avast is doing something no one else has been able to do > and is a much better AV. > Ok - I'm still not sure where Norton/McAfee came from - I certainly > didn't bring them up - and I would agree that there are better > options. But if you're infected, you take it to a shop, let them > clean it up and then put a good AV on. Or put on an AV before it > gets infected. I think we're debating a bit in a circle because we aren't arguing the same point. What I'm saying is that for the average CONSUMER, there are only two AV softwares on the market (well, three now counting Microsoft OneCare). That's Symantec/McAfee which make up almost 80% of the marketspace. You can go to any Walmart/Target/etc. and buy them. Consumers who spend $15 on dialup know those products brand name. Convincing them to switch to ESET or Kapersky, which cost the same as two products they know of is a very difficult proposition. Imagine it this way: You know kitchen appliances. In a store there is a Maytag and a Kitchenaid. Next to those, there is one called a BOOGOO and it's made in Romania. Now, I can talk up the BOOGOO all I want, but the consumer has never heard of it, has no name recognition of it, so if it's the same price as the KitchenAid, the odds of them choosing it are nil. Forget the initial investment, think about what it takes to get a consumer to accept something that is different from what they think is the perceived standard. That's the only competition anything has. > How much does one cost? Perhaps my argument fits here as well - but > of course, I wasn't talking about firewalls. A few hundred :) Doctors offices happily have FireBoxes and Symantec Gateways, Trend Gateways etc. that do this function pretty well. > So since Avast free is better than Norton, that means no one should > ever spend money on AV software? That's insane. I think it's > reasonable to assume that Avast Pro (for pay) is better than Avast > free. If Avast Pro is in the $50 range, then my argument still holds. > > You're argument appears to be: If some for pay AVs aren't as good as > Avast, then everyone should use Avast. I don't buy that argument, > but you're free to use whatever you like. I think you're looking at this in a different lens then I'm suggesting. If you're going to PAY for something, yes, I recommend ESET. I like it, I consider it very functional, and I have installed it numerous times. But a big part of the buying audience will never consider paying for ESET. They haven't heard of it, they know nothing about it, and it hasn't made any market penetration into getting into the "hearts and minds" of the consumer. So, to the consumer who pays, there are only two AVs. In general, if I were to tell someone off the street who buys cheap internet to get an AV soft, they would look for those two brands - which is why I've used them as a staple. They won't pay for something they haven't heard of. I would have far better luck selling them MS OneCare then I would ESET, because they've heard of Microsoft. That's just the reality. So, in that marketspace, I would much prefer to give them the lure of "you get a good product, and it's free" because FREE can trump all when it comes to the mind of a consumer. I have no problem with ESET. I stock it in our store. I also stock NIS, McAfee, Onecare. I can tell you that despite my thoughts on which I prefer, Norton/McAfee outsell ESET something like 20:1. (if it's that close). But free makes up a fair lion share as well. In regards to the BOOT scan, you might take a look at how AVAST does it. It is very impressive. Basically, AVAST stops the boot process and does a command-prompt scan (even in XP) before the GUI loads. This is one of those things that I really, really like about the software, and something I consider very unique. There have been times I've been to a client, whipped out a pen-drive, done an Avast install and installed the updates, told it to do a boot scan, and cleaned a PC before I left their building. That's something I haven't seen any other AV software do (period). I'm not sure exactly how they insert it in as a boottime scane, but it works, and it's text-mode prompts to delete/remove virus, etc. and keep a log file while it's at it create a brilliant paper trail that shows the client that the product worked. CW
