![]() ![]() Definitely not a software I condone, for many good reasons.īut, if it's the best one you have available, go for it. Countless times I've seen Avast not catch an infection with it's "live protection," but catch it after the infection has taken root. ![]() I haven't seen too many in-depth reviews on this, as most reviews cover manual scans (which yields entirely different results). ![]() While Avast may catch a competitive amount of infections, catching infections is only part of the battle. Check out AV-Comparatives's False Alarm test that covers the false alarms I'm referring to (different from false positive results for viruses). That really isn't what I'm talking about. 21 mb for 95% vs 250 mb for 97% is a big difference overall. such as "it caught 95% of the viruses but _ caught 97%" so yah it was not as good but the difference is not that much if resource usage is a concern. as i skimmed review after review for ideas to try out, avast was just a step behind the top rated ones. As for false alarms and vulnerabilities, it's little worse than the other top rated programs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |