Is AVG better than Avast?

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,337
Location
west Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Taylor
Here is some info on AVG, I am using Avast.

Although there are quite a good number of Antivirus programs available for free, most of them consume heavy system resources. A good example is the antivirus program from Norton, which consumes the largest amount of RAM.

When the program runs in the background, Windows and other programs respond very slowly. This is because maximum CPU resource and memory is being consumed by the Antivirus program itself.

The fastest and best Antivirus program (in my opinion) is AVG antivirus, which can be downloaded from the official website.

Here are some points worth noting about AVG antivirus:

System requirements: AVG antivirus runs on any Windows operating system - from the age old Windows 98 to the latest, Windows7. The program can run smoothly on 256 MB RAM and on an Intel 300Mhz processor. The disk space consumed is 30MB, which is fairly low when compared to other Antivirus programs.

On the other hand, antivirus programs like Kaspersky, Avast, Norton require at least 512 MB Ram in your system.

Faster System Scans: I have been using Avg antivirus for the last 3 years and all I can say is it’s the fastest Antivirus on the planet. It takes only a few minutes to scan your entire system and you can always exclude some folders from the scan. Since AVG scan is faster than other antivirus scans, it’s obvious that AVG will consume less Windows memory and hence will not affect your Windows speed to that extent.



Quick Booting: Since antivirus programs associate themselves with Windows startup, you might have noticed that Windows boot up slowly after installing the antivirus program. Prior to AVG, I was using Norton which heavily slowed down my computer’s start up time. I had to wait for almost a minute before I can see my desktop.

Such is not the case with AVG, it does not affect Windows startup time to that extent. After making the switch to AVG, my system startup time decreased to 26 seconds. That’s almost a 50% increase!

Website Scanner: AVG now comes with a website scanner which can automatically scan websites and report whether they are safe for visiting or not. McAfee is the most popular browser based scanner till date, but I have again had problems with the McAfee browser extension for Firefox. The extension hogs down Firefox memory which again slows down my browsing experience.

The current version of AVG comes with a website and Link scanner; hence you can scan unknown and suspicious links or URL’s for malware. You don’t have to scan each and every page you visit, just use the option from your browser’s context menu on a page or link you don’t trust.

The update manager of AVG is also very user friendly, you can choose the setting to automatically download and install the latest security fixes at a scheduled time of the day.

The most interesting part is that you can tweak the scan settings to Low, medium or Fast. Thus, if you are working on a document and need to scan something, set the speed to slow and continue working on the document. Your Windows speed will remain unaffected.

Overall, if Antivirus programs slow down your computer and you want a better option, it’s worth giving AVG a try.
 
The answer depends on the malware/virus/trojan. :wink2: Each one will pick up something over the other. Neither of them will help with the rogue antivirus malware. That one is RPITA and I read a white paper recently that claimed there are over 500k variants of that particular malware. :hairraise:

You are correct Norton is a resource hog. Had someone b*tch at me that I had to 'fix' my companies program to work with Norton. Didn't matter that when I disabled the Norton, the program response time decreased from around 20 seconds to 4! :dunno:
 
Microsoft Security Essentials. Everything else I've tried has been a resource hog.
 
Mac!!

;)

FYI I did look at Avast for my PC and ended up just renewing the AVG license. I have been happy with AVG for the past two years.
 
Microsoft Security Essentials. Everything else I've tried has been a resource hog.
I have used both AVG and Avast and I prefer Microsoft Security Essentials.
 
The problem I have with MS Essentials is that it requires you to allow them to dump information from your machine to MS. Some of the others make that optional. You can never be sure that the info dumped to MS is limited to the offending program/potential virus.

I use Eset (NOD32) where uploading of data is optional...
 
I've used Norton, PCcillin, Avast, AVG and settled on Microsoft Security Essentials. Fastest, best, least obtrusive.

I don't care what MS knows about my computer. They are already all over it with updates.
 
I haven't found one that's perfect, and recently all of them seem to be missing more than they used to. I've cleaned malware off machines running any of the antivirus programs mentioned above (except, so far, Microsoft security essentials; but friends of mine in the business have). Others, including Comodo and Trend Micro (both of which I've recommended here before) are also having a hard time keeping up with today's malware.

My advice? Choose one, and hope for the best. I can't even recommend a "best" one right now because they're all failing to detect some pretty nasty malware.

The only resident program I don't recall missing anything recently is the paid version of MBAM. (The free version does a good clean-up, but provides no resident protection.)

-Rich
 
Belt and suspenders?
Anyway to install 2 programs, let each catch what the other doesn't?
 
It's all pretty much been said above. None of them are doing a great job of catching the latest struff.

You're on the right track with AVG and Avast though. I've run AVG since it came out way back in the day and have been very happy with it. After a recent upgrade to Windows7 x64, I'm now running avast and it seems to be doing a good job as well.

Really, the first line of defense is you - using common sense when opening E-mails and surfing is probably the best thing you can do to boost the effectivness of your anti-virus software. :D
 
Microsoft Security Essentials is our recommendation for a good free AV solution. The thing I hate about all the other "free" products is that they are continually trying to get you to upgrade to the paid-for version. Or make the free product obnoxious enough to eventually wear you down to buy the "pro" version.
 
BitDefender currently offers some of the best real-world protection rates, according to av-comparatives.org: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_prot_2012b_en.pdf (I've extracted a graphic from their report, and posted it below for easy reference)

Antivirus_Test_Results.png
 
Last edited:
hmmm... Microsoft's Security Essentials not tested... 'previously rated as one of the top products. It's worth noting BitDefender has also scored at the top of Consumer Reports tests for years.
 
I've used both and prefer Avast, tho admittedly, my tech knowledge is poor at best.
 
I bailed from AVG after I paid for it to protect three home computers and got totally lousy service when it showed a false positive. All they wanted to do was direct me somewhere where I could pay for help. I would have been more tolerant if I had been using the free version.
 
Microsoft Security Essentials. Everything else I've tried has been a resource hog.

A good friend who is an IT nerd agrees with you. I've had excellent results with Norton, which comcast provides for "free".
 
Microsoft Security Essentials is our recommendation for a good free AV solution. The thing I hate about all the other "free" products is that they are continually trying to get you to upgrade to the paid-for version. Or make the free product obnoxious enough to eventually wear you down to buy the "pro" version.

Protection from malware and viruses should be at the core of the OS. I view it as Microsoft's responsibility, hence I have switched to MS Security Essentials. I think they've started to recognize it is something they should be doing, which is why they're providing it at no charge. If they didn't do something, Windows would continue to take hits from its detractors. I've been quite satisfied with MSSE.
 
Protection from malware and viruses should be at the core of the OS. I view it as Microsoft's responsibility, hence I have switched to MS Security Essentials. I think they've started to recognize it is something they should be doing, which is why they're providing it at no charge. If they didn't do something, Windows would continue to take hits from its detractors. I've been quite satisfied with MSSE.

I've had mixed results with MSSE. I don't think it's horrible, but when I was testing it several years ago, it did miss a lot of malware. Maybe it's gotten better since then.

It's been my experience that every antivirus program has its "golden age." My current favorite is ESET NOD-32. But I also have great respect for MBAM and Bit Defender, and I think Avast and AVG have always been very good.

McAfee I swore off years ago because it was about as effective as a sieve, and I swore off Norton (and all things Symantec) because it was too fat, resource-hungry, and generally obnoxious.

Trend I used to love and swear by, but then it got too fat and clunky for my liking, so I stopped using it. But I'm told it's slimmed down again, and it's always been effective. I think Tim still swears by it.

I tried CA for a while many years ago, and it was among the most unstable software I'd ever installed. I didn't even get through the free trial before I ditched it.

The rest that I've used or tested over the years fall into the "OK" category, meaning that I wouldn't recommend them to clients if I were still in that end of the business, but if they already had paid subscriptions, I wouldn't talk them into something else, either.

-Rich
 
Back
Top