"Pete" <Pete.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> writes:
> "Todd H." <comphelp.TakeThisOut@toddh.net> wrote in message
> news:84mz7tlljo.fsf@ripco.com...
> > "Parisian" <ihate.TakeThisOut@sapammers.com> writes:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other
> >> ones
> >> ?
> >
> > It doesn't test/rate as well a Avira or competing $ programs.
> >
> > Avira is revered as a better free av.
>
> Nonsense. AVG is a highly regarded anti virus. It also is VERY easy on
> system resources. I run it on an old 386 with no problems.
"Nonsense." LOL. Who SAYS that these days? Pete, I guess.
If AVG is so great, I'm wondering how you can explain its exceedingly
poor performance on polymorphic viruses in this round up of on-demand
scanning capabilities of various programs, and also achieving the
lowest level of certification among the competition?
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_08.php
And with an overall 7% on new samples it's at the bottom of this
roundup that tested proactive detection capabilities on new virus
samples:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_05.php
So unless the product they're giving away is somehow more effective
than their AVG Professional for $, I'm not sure I'd be so certain that
you're really getting best in class protection.
Don't get me wrong, I have one machine running it and it's kept it
clean. Well, I think it's kept it clean. At least AVG thinks its
clean. Okay, I did verify that recently with multi_av so we can say
it's doing its job over there and the price was right. But if I had
to install something free on a new machine today, it'd be Avast.
http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/ >> Stay informed about: AV free vs not free 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
