Battle Avast 2014 free or Ad-aware 11 av free

[dwarfin]

Which one is better in your opinion ? Avast 2014 is very light on ram, and uses some kind of stream updates, its updating even every minute. Ad-aware 11 uses bitdefender engine and lack some options compared to avast .

 

[aztony]

There are many issues with Panda Cloud Free. It restores viruses from the quarantine, ignores exclusions, and has a sluggish although minimalistic UI.

I am trial-ing PCA as we speak. Know about the issue with exclusions and reported it to Panda support. For me the issue is specific to Win7, it's fine on XP. Anyway, they thought they'd solved it with the release of 2.2.1, and now found out different. Txerra said today they will be releasing version 2.3 later this week which, hopefully, will correct it. Haven't had any issues myself with viruses leaving quarantine. I currently have (6) there to test it, and so far they've stayed there with every restart. Haven't noticed any discernible slowness with opening the UI. No different from any other AV I've used.

 

[LS Andy]

With all due respect andy you work for lavasoft so your naturally going to say ad-aware is better lol.

But im open minded so give us some factual test results to see your claim as a reality.

Glad to hear that you're open to the discussion. Internet strangers are usually unshakeable in their views, so it's nice to talk to someone that isn't like that. Sorry internet strangers - you know it's true.

It's to be expected that people would question detection test results by Lavasoft on it's own product - it's totally understandable and correct to do that. I would do exactly the same, but, with all due respect to you, I may have responded to your (valid) points before you asked them.

If I could refer you back to my original post:

If you want to see the raw data, you can download the results from my Dropbox folder: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43298762/AA%2011%20In%20House%20Testing.7z

These tests were really intended as QA for Lavasoft, not for public consumption - because they were conducted by Lavasoft it leaves them open to accusations of bias or manipulating the results, which is understandable. I personally conducted the tests and can assure you that there was no manipulation or finessing done to the results. We'd just be cheating ourselves - they were for QA purposes.

Hope this helps.

Andy
Lavasoft Malware Labs

 

[LS Andy]

I'm testing it and so far I'm impressed. Yes, it's a little heavy on RAM, but the program works very fast in terms of real-time protection. And the detection rates do seem very good. I'll be testing some more.

It's really gratifying to hear that - can you share the test results and possibly the test methodology?

 

[Jaspion]

My tests are quite simple really, I just use the AV in my day-to-day – so a usability test – coupled with on-demand and real-time scans for detection rates. I don't run malware here at the moment.

For now, I do have a comment: I don't like the mandatory auto-quarantine in case of real-time detection. I love this feature when it's on a computer that I manage but don't use, but on my PCs I like to decide by myself. At least auto-quarantine is better than Avira Free's mandatory manual dealing with real-time – ok for me but not so much for family and customers. But still can be an annoyance in case of FPs. So if this whole thing could be optional, that'd be great.

 

[LS Andy]

My tests are quite simple really, I just use the AV in my day-to-day – so a usability test – coupled with on-demand and real-time scans for detection rates. I don't run malware here at the moment.

Got it - the 'user experience' test. That's a valuable comment - thanks.

I don't like the mandatory auto-quarantine in case of real-time detection....if this whole thing could be optional, that'd be great.

I hear what you're saying, but not everyone is a power user - we need to strike a balance between people who want a 'set and forget' experience and those who want complete control. We'll give this idea some thought. I'm sure we can do better than how it is now.

Andy

 

[Jaspion]

I understand that. Like I said, I love this install-and-forget thing for the regular user. I just think there should be an option to see and change more settings for those power users and sys admins, while leaving the default settings and interface simple for those who don't know or don't care.

Another detail: the tray icon is grey here. Is this to show there are Pro features off?
Edit: and one more detail, the date format should follow what is on the system, but it uses the American M/D/Y format.

 

[Ink]

LS Andy, do you know the reason why Lavasoft chose Bitdefender over the previous Vipre or other engines?

If you didn't work for LS, would you recommend Bitdefender Free over Ad-Aware 11 Free? If not, what benefit does Ad-Aware 11 Free have over BD Free?

Thanks.

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

You can run your browser fully sand boxed with Avast.

Not with the free version you cant.

So, does the freebie version have the SafeZone browser?

 

[Ink]

No, SafeZone is included in the Pro, Suite and Premier only.
http://www.avast.com/compare-antivirus

 

[aztony]

No, SafeZone is included in the Pro, Suite and Premier only.
http://www.avast.com/compare-antivirus

Well, at least one guy reported on Wilders that he somehow got Safe Zone with his program update from v8 to 9.0.2006 (free version), and it was essentially useless. Some years ago, I also somehow got it with my initial program update from v5 to v6 (also free), there too it was useless. The next update, which was days after, it was gone.

 

[Ink]

Avast Free sometimes offers the Internet Security software through the program update, of course it would be a 14-day or 30-day trial.

SafeZone is simply an isolated area for sensitive transactions. Bitdefender, Comodo and many other vendors also offer this, however, I don't believe it's necessary if your PC is secure.

 

[Ink]

You're welcome.

When will Ad-Aware AdBlocker be compatible with Windows 8.1? The current alpha version doesn't work my system.

Thanks for the feedback, aztony & Earth.

@ Earth - Ad-Aware has those features too, but I get that you don't care for the toolbar. That said, the toolbar does not make Ad-Aware less good at blocking and detecting malware - in fact, it includes a malicious URL blocker, so you could say that it enhances security. If you're not a fan of toolbars (and many people aren't) maybe you'd prefer something else we're working on: http://www.lavasoft.com/products/adblocker.php

 

[MrXidus]

Andy, for a product called Ad-Aware it's hardly "aware" of adware.

So what happened eh?

Back in the 2005-07 era Lavasoft Ad-Aware was my number 1 go-to tool for getting rid of adware, spyware and trojans that wrecked havoc back then, to me it was really the best tool for getting the job done as AVG and Norton were too busy being the biggest system hogs of their time while Ad-Aware was small in size, light and fast.

Now the only adware Ad-Aware is aware of (tongue twister indeed) is its own ads on the main UI with all those greyed out premium features that just make the free user feel like he/she is missing out on proper protection.
Relying on signatures and bare minimal features alone is not good enough these days IMO.
(Unless the user is informed about web security and actually has some common sense which is not common with novice users)

This is my thoughts about my once favorite product, My view is based on many various personal tests I performed in my own time within a virtual machine and on my own host system, aswell as viewing video and written reviews by various people. The test methodology's vary of course.

Back up the "Legendary Antispyware" motto you have advertised on the product pages of Ad-Aware because to me it lost the 'Legendary' tag a long time ago.

Care enough to change my view with a reply in your own words and not so obviously "we are the best you're doing something wrong" company reply?

I've spoken my mind. Cheers.

 

[Oxygen]

Avast - Its been around longer and has alot more settings to fool with.