AVG Anti-Virus

Lately I had been hearing a lot about AVG AV, seems a lot of people are mentioning it. Does anyone on this board use or have any comments pro or con on AVG compared to others like Norton AV.
Thank you, Paul

 

paul43--I do not use it, but it seems well regarded and the price is right
http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13967&highlight=AVG
http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15254&highlight=AVG

 

Thanks Jim

 

well, since you asked, AVG has in fact repeatedly failed testing by some very respected independent labs. here's one...

nav, otoh, fared better...

i think that AVG is praised by nearly everyone that uses it, yet it has turned in poor performances in tests. i don't think the labs are being paid off. i actually believe that both conditions can exist...

that it can be popular (it's free, easy on resources, and catches a lot of viruses) and it can fail lab tests (it doesn't handle the more exotic strains).

just my take on the apparent contradiction.

hth



mark

 

I use the free version, I was surprised to find out it cannot see inside zipped files, and any restore or undo options are not available--once it does detect and fix a problem thats it..
I notice the price for full version is even more that most other
AV programs also..
But tis free --handicapped but free ---so I use an on-line scan once weekly to.

everyone , spybot has a new version today 1.2--Update

Lonny

 

Thanks guys, anyone else?

 

AVG

I have been using it for a few months and i have no known problems yet. knock on wood!

Rick

 

mr.mark wrote:

It'd be interesting to know which viruses the various products fail to detect. Is it the case that AVG is missing the new stuff? Or is it missing the mid-90's floppy infectors which, for some strange reason, are still included on VB's ITW list?

 

I've been using AVG for quite a while. I'm a huge fan. Though, I don't wait for automatic updates...I check mine daily.

Daizy

 

hey brett

looks like it is *not* missing real old stuff, from what little i can find. lots to wade through, but here you go....

another test site ( http://www.av-test.org ) compares AVG and Norton....
********************************
AVGS-98, -ME, -XH (Test 2001-10) and
AVGS-NT, -2K, -XP (Test 2001-11)
Grisoft, Jakob Software
AVG

Comments:
- In many countries the product can be obtained as free-of-charge version
for personal use, but without any support (download: www.grisoft.com)
- Includes two different GUI versions: A basic one for beginners and an
advanced one for power users
- Differences on Zoo virus detection which are not listed in the XLS sheet:

Polymorphic Win32 viruses: 885 will be found under Windows 98/ME/NT/2000,
but under Windows XP only 848 viruses will be found;

Backdoor detection:
856 files will be identified under Windows 98/ME/NT/2000, but under XP
only 742 backdoors will be identified
- The virus detection was different for Win 98 vs. ME vs. NT/2000 vs. XP

Missed ITW viruses (Windows 98):
- On-Demand and On-Access: JS/Kak.A (1x HTA)

Missed ITW viruses (Windows ME):
- On-Demand and On-Access: Win32/Kriz.4029 (2x), Win32/Kriz.4050 (2x),
Win32/Magistr.A (2x), Win32/Weird.10240 (1x), JS/Kak.A (1x HTA)

Missed ITW viruses (Windows NT, 2000 and XP):
- On-Demand: JS/Kak.A (1x HTA)
- On-Access: O/A: JS/Kak.A (1x HTA), Michelangelo.A (2x)

*******************************

Symantec
Norton Anti-Virus 2002

Comments:
- Using optimal program settings (scan all files etc.) the program is very
slow (applies to all tested operating systems)
- The program has problems to handle big report files correctly, sometimes,
they cannot be displayed or exported (but no crashes occurred)
- The Windows NT version needs at least Internet Explorer 4.01
- Under Windows XP, an update using the "????x86.exe" update file was not
possible: The update was copied in the correct directory, but was not
activated, even if the update program tells the user, that everything
went ok; LiveUpdate worked fine and the bug is now documented:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/win.xp.defs.support.html
- Differences on Zoo virus detection which are not listed in the XLS sheet:
The Windows 98/ME/NT/2000 version had 7 false positives, but the XP
version had only 5 (using exactly the same update)
- The virus detection was different for Win 98/ME/NT/2000 vs. XP

Missed ITW viruses (all platforms):
- (None)

*********************************
http://www.av-test.org/down/data/2001-11-en/comments.txt