If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am
not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance Drew. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Drew wrote on 8/23/2015 1:42 PM:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I don't think there is an answer. I'm currently running Bitdefender and I have no complaints. In the past, I've tried AVG, Avast and Avira. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:42:16 -0700, Drew wrote:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. You're already running both, so you already have all of the information you need in order to make a reasoned decision. Isn't your own opinion, based on your personal experiences, much more valuable than someone else's? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
"Drew" wrote in message
... Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. Choosing an Anti-Virus Program http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...ces/?p=2316629 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
A persistent troll from the homebuilt PC group...
-- Char Jackson none none.invalid wrote in news:ec2kta9jjit34kafb2et2hr8a63tqp4t9g 4ax.com: Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!e nother.net!enother.net!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx27.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Char Jackson none none.invalid Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general Subject: Avira versus Avast Message-ID: ec2kta9jjit34kafb2et2hr8a63tqp4t9g 4ax.com References: mrd0id$73p$1 dont-email.me X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 X-Complaints-To: abuse easynews.com Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:59:23 -0500 X-Received-Bytes: 1590 X-Received-Body-CRC: 4126157905 Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-8:27805 alt.windows7.general:132045 On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:42:16 -0700, Drew Aylen1957 donotspam.net wrote: Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. You're already running both, so you already have all of the information you need in order to make a reasoned decision. Isn't your own opinion, based on your personal experiences, much more valuable than someone else's? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Drew wrote:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance Drew. I use AVG on some machines; Avast on others. Oh, and Windows Defender on one. AVG is my favourite. I don't think it's ever let me down. I have to go back years to the last infection I had. You become used to a certain product; learn how to use it quickly. I find AVG very unobtrusive. Avast seems about the same level, but it sometimes nags and pesters. I installed it some time ago when I felt the need to break old habits. Win Defender is the lazy option. It's there anyway, so why install a custom product? Ed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Drew wrote on 8/23/2015 11:42 AM:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance Drew. I'm using ESET NOD32 on a few computers and have been happy with it for several years. I'm paying but they might have a free version. I'm paying because 1) somebody has to if they are to stay in business and 2) I want to feel "free" to seek help when I need it. I'm also running MalwareBytes Anti-malware on the same machines. I'm paying for the same reasons given above. -- Jeff Barnett |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
In message , Ed Cryer
writes I use AVG on some machines; Avast on others. Oh, and Windows Defender on one. AVG is my favourite. I don't think it's ever let me down. I have to go back years to the last infection I had. You become used to a certain product; learn how to use it quickly. I find AVG very unobtrusive. Avast seems about the same level, but it sometimes nags and pesters. I installed it some time ago when I felt the need to break old habits. Win Defender is the lazy option. It's there anyway, so why install a custom product? I'm running Avira, Avast and Windows Defender on different machines. Under Windows 10, I've had error messages that something in Avira has stopped working (I can't remember the details) but it does seem to still work. All seem OK on W7. On one W10 machine I get nags from Defender because I'm running different AV. I've not used AVG recently as it annoyed me some time back by advertising itself too stridently. -- Bill |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:42:16 -0700, Drew wrote:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. Instead of crossposting why not try alt.comp.anti-virus? It may not look like it, but there's still some life left in that newsgroup. -- s|b |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Drew wrote:
Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. An old problem still not fixed is running any software that looks at a device's S.M.A.R.T. data would trigger Avira to constantly re-poll removable devices (floppy, optical drives, USB-attached drives) at 1-minute intervals. While most newer computers no longer include floppy drives, I build my own and still add a floppy drive (if the mobo has the header for it). I don't care to have Avira grinding my empty floppy's drive every minute, nor have it spin up the CD/DVD drive if there happens to be a disc inserted, or keep awake my USB-attached drives. The number of users afflicted with this bug was small, Avira could not reproduce the problem on their hardware test computers, so it never got addressed. Their solution was wait for a later version. I tried 3 later major versions but the bug was still there (for me). I wasn't going to keep waiting when there were other free solutions that did not exhibit the Avira's SMART bug. Avira also claims to have a web shield but only if you installed the adware toolbar. If you disable their toolbar then you don't get their web shield. No thanks. Avast includes a web shield without me having to waste screen space with a adware toolbar plus I don't need a redundant searchbar. However, Avast is definitely adware. They get periodically energized to spew an advertize campaign. You will see this via popups that you cannot disable telling you about some component that you should add to your Avast suite. They are surreptitious about the "upgrade" by not telling you it requires buying their payware suite to get the advertized component. For me, having half of their config UI window occcupied with an ad is more than ample adware functionality. They recognize that most freeloaders, like me, were not often enough nuisanced with this method of advertizing because we configure once or a few times and rarely have to go back to looking at the config UI window. They got more aggressive. Well, when they pushed ads maybe once per year (but for a month) then I suffered with that nuisance. Now they have apparently gone to a repeat advertizing plan that nails you with their nuisance popups about every couple of months. I must've gotten about a dozen nuisance adware popups from Avast Free in the last month alone. Instead of prodding me to buy their product, their nags have me looking at other security solutions, like BitDefender Free. While many users don't notice the impact to responsiveness of their web browsers (how long to download a web page), I and others have noticed that enabling HTTPS scanning in Avast will slow down delivery of a secured page. Avast is slowly addressing that issue but their HTTPS scanning is definitely slower than their HTTP scanning. That's to be expected because there is more overhead to HTTPS scanning. The encrypted downstream traffic has to first be decrypted so the AV program can interrogate its content and then reencrypted for delivery to the client (web browser). Avast uses a MITM (man-in-the-middle) approach to hack into the HTTPS traffic by installing their own certificate in your local certificate store (as part of the install of Avast and over which you have no control). They use the same hack scheme employed by companies so they can monitor all encrypted web traffic by the employees that hit hosts outside their network. Companies will install or push certs into the local cert store of their workstations so they can do the MITM attack to look at your encrypted traffic going outside their network. The slowdown is usually not significant but is noticeable and measurable. After upgrading to a major version of Avast that added their HTTPS scan feature which was enabled by default, I was wondering why web pages were taking longer to deliver. Not for the connection to the web site but for my web browser to start painting the page. Disabling Avast make surfing fast again. Enabling Avast but disabling their HTTPS scan option kept surfing fast. They need to improve their algorithm or their scan engine's speed on how they hack into and interrogate HTTPS traffic before I reenable that option. With Avast turning into nuisancesome adware with popups that I cannot disable (you "disable" them by buying it), I have a note for when I have the time to try something else. BitDefender Free is a likely replacement. While it is not as sophisticated as Avast Free regarding the number of components available in Avast's suite, I do not install many components in Avast's suite. Many components are actually lurewa you cannot use them or they disable after a trial period unless you buy that component. Some components are superfluous, like their e-mail (and newsgroups) shield which afford no additional protection but allow the author to fluff the features in their product. I don't need a web browser BHO cleanup utility (have other tools for that). In Avast, I only install their file and web shields. The rest is junk (superfluous) or lureware. File shield: installed. Web shield: installed, HTTPS scan disabled (too slow). *E-mail shield: superfluous, uses same engine as for on-access scan. *Grimefighter (renamed to Cleanup): not installed, lureware. *SecureLine: not installed, lureware. *Browser cleanup: BHO cleaner, redundant. *Software Updater: nags about old versions, I'll update when I choose. *Remote Assistance: so you can have them control your computer at a fee. Rescue disk: might have some value. *Browser protection: worthless web reputation ranking (most not ranked). *Desktop gadget: superfluous widget. Home network security: quickie check, has minimal value. Secure Virtual Machines: sandbox but limited use in free edition. One feature that I very much like in Avast is URL blocking. I can specify what domains to block. This is included in some firewalls but I already have it in Avast Free. When Avast dropped URL blocking, I complained about its loss. The typical user and Avast response was to get a firewall with URL blocking (which is NOT the same as IP blocking since a hostname can remain the same but its IP address can change which is another purpose of DNS). Eventually I replaced the local URL blocking in Avast with URL blocking available at the DNS server (e.g., OpenDNS) but that requires you have an account with them and use their DNS updater client to update your OpenDNS so they can associate your IP address to your account to then apply your config there. The free OpenDNS account only lets you define up to 50 URLs on which to block but a domain includes all hosts at that domain so, for example, adding doubleclick.net gets all hosts at Doubleclick (versus the over 50 entries listed in the pre-compiled 'hosts' file to do the same blocking by hostname). So if I leave Avast because of its ad popups then I lose local URL blocking but that's becomes a replaceable feature albeit at the expense of having to install a DNS updater client so server-side DNS URL blocking is usable. If I move away from Avast (to BitDefender) then I'll have to change to use OpenDNS as my primary DNS provider and move my URL blocks to there and install their DNS updater client. Be aware that AV comparative sites only test the payware versions of Avira and Avast. It would be nice to have equally comprehensive testing of Avast Free and Avira Free (both without and with their toolbar) to have ONLY the free editions compared to each other. I'm sure each claims that their same engine is used in their free and paid editions but it's the other features missing in the crippled free versions that would differentiate those products as which is "better" than the other. Just because payware Avira is a couple percent higher than payware Avast does not mean the same is true with the free versions of each. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Jeff Barnett wrote:
ESET NOD32 ... I'm paying but they might have a free version. The only free version is their online scanner (which requires downloading a light client on your computer to run the scan locally but with definitions retrieved from the server). "Free [to] download", "free online scan", and "free trial" are not the same as "free product". |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
"Drew" wrote in message ... Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. Thanks in advance Drew. Tough question, I can only answer based on my own use of Avast in Win 7-64bit. For the most part, I don't know it's there. It appears to clean up what it finds, and doesn't seem to miss anything that I know of. It does keep flagging chrome for suspicious activity that I haven't yet found an answer for, though I've only flagged it as a false positive as feedback through the software and haven't called them. Not sure what else I can say. I run Avast and Spyhunter together, and haven't had any issues that I know of because of either one. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
VanguardLH wrote:
Drew wrote: Yeah I know , This has probably been asked a gazillion times but I am not really finding the answer I am looking for. I cannot find a clear answer on which one runs better or is the better product. Currently running Avast free on this Win 8.1 machine as well as on some win7 machines and Avira free on other win7 machines Question: Which do you feel runs better on your machine? What others besides Norton or Mcafee do you run. I know I am going to hear the response of run them and decide yourself but occasionally I would like a second opinion. An old problem still not fixed is running any software that looks at a device's S.M.A.R.T. data would trigger Avira to constantly re-poll removable devices (floppy, optical drives, USB-attached drives) at 1-minute intervals. While most newer computers no longer include floppy drives, I build my own and still add a floppy drive (if the mobo has the header for it). I don't care to have Avira grinding my empty floppy's drive every minute, nor have it spin up the CD/DVD drive if there happens to be a disc inserted, or keep awake my USB-attached drives. The number of users afflicted with this bug was small, Avira could not reproduce the problem on their hardware test computers, so it never got addressed. Their solution was wait for a later version. I tried 3 later major versions but the bug was still there (for me). I wasn't going to keep waiting when there were other free solutions that did not exhibit the Avira's SMART bug. Avira also claims to have a web shield but only if you installed the adware toolbar. If you disable their toolbar then you don't get their web shield. No thanks. Avast includes a web shield without me having to waste screen space with a adware toolbar plus I don't need a redundant searchbar. However, Avast is definitely adware. They get periodically energized to spew an advertize campaign. You will see this via popups that you cannot disable telling you about some component that you should add to your Avast suite. They are surreptitious about the "upgrade" by not telling you it requires buying their payware suite to get the advertized component. For me, having half of their config UI window occcupied with an ad is more than ample adware functionality. They recognize that most freeloaders, like me, were not often enough nuisanced with this method of advertizing because we configure once or a few times and rarely have to go back to looking at the config UI window. They got more aggressive. Well, when they pushed ads maybe once per year (but for a month) then I suffered with that nuisance. Now they have apparently gone to a repeat advertizing plan that nails you with their nuisance popups about every couple of months. I must've gotten about a dozen nuisance adware popups from Avast Free in the last month alone. Instead of prodding me to buy their product, their nags have me looking at other security solutions, like BitDefender Free. While many users don't notice the impact to responsiveness of their web browsers (how long to download a web page), I and others have noticed that enabling HTTPS scanning in Avast will slow down delivery of a secured page. Avast is slowly addressing that issue but their HTTPS scanning is definitely slower than their HTTP scanning. That's to be expected because there is more overhead to HTTPS scanning. The encrypted downstream traffic has to first be decrypted so the AV program can interrogate its content and then reencrypted for delivery to the client (web browser). Avast uses a MITM (man-in-the-middle) approach to hack into the HTTPS traffic by installing their own certificate in your local certificate store (as part of the install of Avast and over which you have no control). They use the same hack scheme employed by companies so they can monitor all encrypted web traffic by the employees that hit hosts outside their network. Companies will install or push certs into the local cert store of their workstations so they can do the MITM attack to look at your encrypted traffic going outside their network. The slowdown is usually not significant but is noticeable and measurable. After upgrading to a major version of Avast that added their HTTPS scan feature which was enabled by default, I was wondering why web pages were taking longer to deliver. Not for the connection to the web site but for my web browser to start painting the page. Disabling Avast make surfing fast again. Enabling Avast but disabling their HTTPS scan option kept surfing fast. They need to improve their algorithm or their scan engine's speed on how they hack into and interrogate HTTPS traffic before I reenable that option. With Avast turning into nuisancesome adware with popups that I cannot disable (you "disable" them by buying it), I have a note for when I have the time to try something else. BitDefender Free is a likely replacement. While it is not as sophisticated as Avast Free regarding the number of components available in Avast's suite, I do not install many components in Avast's suite. Many components are actually lurewa you cannot use them or they disable after a trial period unless you buy that component. Some components are superfluous, like their e-mail (and newsgroups) shield which afford no additional protection but allow the author to fluff the features in their product. I don't need a web browser BHO cleanup utility (have other tools for that). In Avast, I only install their file and web shields. The rest is junk (superfluous) or lureware. File shield: installed. Web shield: installed, HTTPS scan disabled (too slow). *E-mail shield: superfluous, uses same engine as for on-access scan. *Grimefighter (renamed to Cleanup): not installed, lureware. *SecureLine: not installed, lureware. *Browser cleanup: BHO cleaner, redundant. *Software Updater: nags about old versions, I'll update when I choose. *Remote Assistance: so you can have them control your computer at a fee. Rescue disk: might have some value. *Browser protection: worthless web reputation ranking (most not ranked). *Desktop gadget: superfluous widget. Home network security: quickie check, has minimal value. Secure Virtual Machines: sandbox but limited use in free edition. One feature that I very much like in Avast is URL blocking. I can specify what domains to block. This is included in some firewalls but I already have it in Avast Free. When Avast dropped URL blocking, I complained about its loss. The typical user and Avast response was to get a firewall with URL blocking (which is NOT the same as IP blocking since a hostname can remain the same but its IP address can change which is another purpose of DNS). Eventually I replaced the local URL blocking in Avast with URL blocking available at the DNS server (e.g., OpenDNS) but that requires you have an account with them and use their DNS updater client to update your OpenDNS so they can associate your IP address to your account to then apply your config there. The free OpenDNS account only lets you define up to 50 URLs on which to block but a domain includes all hosts at that domain so, for example, adding doubleclick.net gets all hosts at Doubleclick (versus the over 50 entries listed in the pre-compiled 'hosts' file to do the same blocking by hostname). So if I leave Avast because of its ad popups then I lose local URL blocking but that's becomes a replaceable feature albeit at the expense of having to install a DNS updater client so server-side DNS URL blocking is usable. If I move away from Avast (to BitDefender) then I'll have to change to use OpenDNS as my primary DNS provider and move my URL blocks to there and install their DNS updater client. Be aware that AV comparative sites only test the payware versions of Avira and Avast. It would be nice to have equally comprehensive testing of Avast Free and Avira Free (both without and with their toolbar) to have ONLY the free editions compared to each other. I'm sure each claims that their same engine is used in their free and paid editions but it's the other features missing in the crippled free versions that would differentiate those products as which is "better" than the other. Just because payware Avira is a couple percent higher than payware Avast does not mean the same is true with the free versions of each. I was struck by what you say about floppy drives. I haven't come across one of them for years and years. And I can't think of a single use I'd have for one beyond copying data from old floppies prior to throwing those in the bin. It's a similar situation with, say, musicassettes. Ed |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:23:24 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote: A persistent troll from the homebuilt PC group... Hello, idiot. Once again, you've picked a group to which I've never posted. Back to youtube for you. Stupid crossposts removed. Path: not-for-mail From: John Doe Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-8,alt.windows7.general,free.usenet,free.spirit Subject: Avira versus Avast Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:23:24 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:23:24 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f12e2745b1ec60fc66cfca82459575f5"; logging-data="17598"; "; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+s0AmDBwqU6DSAeZpbxHZMg0y7ZHWdF nc=" User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Te/gSgGZEZrPlThXEYRO6HT4TEU= X-Received-Bytes: 3102 X-Received-Body-CRC: 175500844 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Avira versus Avast
Ed Cryer wrote:
I was struck by what you say about floppy drives. I haven't come across one of them for years and years. And I can't think of a single use I'd have for one beyond copying data from old floppies prior to throwing those in the bin. It's a similar situation with, say, musicassettes. Ed They're still necessary to work on older equipment. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|