|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Avast!:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Awards/Reviews
- 3 x86-64
- 4 Move
- 5 False info
- 6 What about some criticism?
- 7 avast
- 8 um
- 9 origins of word "avast!"
- 10 Minor edits
- 11 Capitalization
- 12 Why is it free, what is the catch?
- 13 USB Keyboard and Pre-Boot Scanner
- 14 Question
- 15 Testing
- 16 Shouldn't we have that false positive wave in this article?
- 17 Awards need to be put in context
- 18 Botched updates
- 19 Avast! is also a name of a virus
- Cleanup. Remove sales elements
- Citate the article
I find the claim in Misc about avast being the first AV to run on x86-64 to be doubtful- usually Free AVs like ClamAV are the first to be ported, and the "fully functional" clauses makes me suspicious. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
When I was testing out Windows x64, Avast was the only AV product I could find that had x64 support, but I cannot say it was the first; Prehaps change it to something like "One of the first to incluse support for 64 bit editions of Windows, beating many of the industry heavyweights (Like Norton and McAfee)"
Excuse me, but avast! antivirus is not freeware. It's try before you buy. I don't know why you guys said it was freeware. RocketMaster 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WTF ? I use Avast! for a long time, and it's always been free. After some time, although, it will ask a (free) registration. =p WendelScardua 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Avast! home edition has always been free and still is. I have been using it for years and it works fine. The free registration is really FREE (as it hapens with other free programs)and I suppose they need it in order to know if the downloaders are users as well.
No.... Don't be silly RocketMaster - Use the program and you will find out. For HOME and NON CORPORATE users, the package is free to download and free to register every 12 months - this means it is free. Business and corporate users MUST pay, this is how ALWIL makes money from it. 18.104.22.168 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What about some criticism?
I've tried to use this software, but every time any program used a file it my computer froze for a second. Sure, I could disable the live monitor feature but what use is then for the program? Norton Antivirus had no such problem on the same computer. And all the modules - 7 or 8 different services+exe running in my task manager was almost as bad as Norton. I think you should add some criticism to the article, that is if enough people support me. (KeeperOfLogic)
- Such criticism would have to be backed-up by credible references. All anti-viruses cause problems for some people (As is true for most software) but the majority of users install and use it without a hitch. (Again, true for most software)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem with Norton is that it is one of the most neurotic programs I have used (aside from RealPlayer) and it seems to always need your attention for one thing or another. Avast runs silently only telling you it has been updated. It does not need to tell me a million things are working when I already know (see the spining ball). Also, after using Norton for so long, it failed to detect some major Malware I had on my drive such as variants of CoolWWWeb. Avast managed to quarantine every single dummy file associated with it so I could inspect it and delete it - Norton blatantly missed it - And that's after paying! - Norton used to be at the top of its game 10 years ago, but it has been quite slack lately, and it is a package that I wouldn't recommend if you are serious about internet security. 22.214.171.124 18:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No Kidding... The reason I stopped paying for Antivirus software (and switched to AVAST) is because I did get quite a few viruses. I am a pretty ruff internet surfer; meaning I go to a lot of high risk sites (like astalavista type sites). I have had a AVAST for a year and a half. I have not told it anything since my initial setup and config and still haven't had a virus stick. Avast has got this network technician's vote. Lancemurphy 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can disable all but the antivirus, if you want to. Heck, you can even uninstall them, or not even install them in the first place. If a computer actually "freezes" while using the program, that is a serious problem, and should be noted in the article. However, I've installed the latest version, and I've experienced no freezes. Files do take a little longer to load than if I it off, but that is to be expected, and is not "freezing", as the rest of the program loading the file still operates.
- -- trlkly 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Avast is a word is an english word of nautical origin which means 'stop'. As - "avast lowering".
- avast ye --NEMT 00:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC) see also Belay.
How should I go about creating a disambiguation page for the term "Avast!"? Apart from the nautical reference, I saw a band last night called Avast! who deserve to be recorded in this here fine repository of book learning words! Arrrrgh! Yo Ho Ho! Maybe someone could create a stub? - http://www.myspace.com/avastuk
- Avast seems to be available (it's only a redirect at the moment), and were it not, you'd use Avast (disambiguation). See WP:DAB for more details. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
origins of word "avast!"
Hi, I found in this interview with Alwil Software CEO http://www.zive.cz/default.aspx?section=21&server=1&article=132820 , that the name "avast" originally came from "AntiVirus Advanced SeT", because it was designed in the year 1988 as a tool made from many utilities. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:28:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
I made some minor edits including removing one small part that made it sound like a favorable review, while awards info seems fine that part about its "easy to use" interface is extremely biased (I do use the program and it is easy to use but its not wikis job to advertise software based on features) Atomic1fire (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia's Manual of Style on trademarks requires that trademarked names that are normally presented entirely in lower-case be capitalized as normal proper nouns on Wikipedia. I have converted all occurrences of "avast!" to "Avast!".--Srleffler (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it free, what is the catch?
- It is explained in the article. The program is free for home or non-commercial use but you have to re-register for a (free) license key every 14 months. Businesses or users that want more features have to pay for avast! Professional Edition. There isn't really a big difference in the anti-malware capabilities of the two except that the Professional version has a script blocker that scans all scripts being executed both on your computer and on webpages. This can allow the detection of malicious webpages etc. It also has a command line scanner. Other features found only in the Professional Edition include the Enhanced User Interface, PUSH updates, scheduling of scans, and the option to have avast! automatically take action (Move to Chest, Repair, Move and Rename, Delete, etc) when malware is detected. None of the above listed features are found in the free Home Edition.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Nagware? Says who? Not me, and I've run Avast for a very long time... more than five years. It's never "nagged" me to do anything. Do yourself a favor, unnamed user from 188.8.131.52; Go learn the definition of the word "nagware" and then come back here and re-evaluate what you wrote above. Look: The Free Edition of Avast is is Freeware, plain and simple. The 5.x version does include a few in-program "upgrade" ads offering it's users a chance to upgrade to pay-to-use editions of Avast, but they're not nags; They don't pop up, they don't get in your way, and they're certainly not nagging you to do anything by any stretch of the imagination. They're just text-and-picture ads for the step-up editions of Avast Antivirus built into a few pages in the main Avast screens. Really now, there's not much to complain about with that level of ad placement. It would be nice if there were no ads at all, but the Avast company isn't a charity; They have expenses to pay, and they have to get revenue somehow. You can't seriously begrudge them asking you to pay for a license for a version of the software that has more features than the free set, especially when they not insisting that you buy anything. In my humble opinion, they are doing the world a service by offering a free, no-stings-attached anti-virus program that does a very good job of protecting PCs from viruses. They could very easily choose to offer no free software, but they chose to offer a free anti-virus solution because they see it as a public service that is in their own best interests. The more people who have unprotected, virus-infested PCs, the less secure the internet as a whole is, and the harder the job of anti-virus developers becomes. By offering a free solution, the Avast people are doing themselves (and dare I say it, the whole world?) a favor. I'll go see if I can find an article that quoted some Avast developers on their rationale behind ofering a free program, but I don't know if I can find anything current. I'll see what I can do. Peace, out.184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
USB Keyboard and Pre-Boot Scanner
Yes, the article says its free, but why and how can a major company survive-financially? Does avast make their money through the hopes of people upgrading to avast Professional? It seems like Avast would make alot more money if it wasn't free because I don't suspect many people to upgrade to Professional just for a few extra features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. :-) avast! Professional is for users who want the extra features, however it is also the version offered to businesses as the free Home edition of avast! is for non-commercial home use only. ALWIL software also offers many other products for other operating systems and purposes. Hope this answers your question. :)--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Kind of a continuation of a previous section that wasn't answered:
If I have to register Avast! once a year, do I have to pay for anything? As much as I want my PC protected, I don't want that much of a price tag (if any)
~~NaN 22:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to pay for the Home version, it's free for private/personal use. --Denniss (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Nor do you have to provide a credit card number. Just an email address.
Shouldn't we have that false positive wave in this article?
I vote no. False positives plague EVERY anti-virus program. It's an industry-wide phenomenon, and it's not worth mentioning. This is an encyclopedia, not an error log. If you're going to include a section on false positives, you better be prepared to offer a balanced, NPOV way of presenting that. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
But those problems are listed on the AVG Wikipedia Entry. Why Avast is exempt from the problems section? All AV have their problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Awards need to be put in context
The article says what awards it has won, but it doesn't say what the awards actually mean. If it said "Scored 3 out of 5 stars" that would be one thing, but to simply say that it scored an Advance+ from such and such AV tester doesn't tell the reader much. Maybe an Advance+ is the lowest possible score? or maybe its the highest? The reader could go to the source and look, but that sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. A clarification on what the scores actually mean is needed, I think. Canine virtuoso (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Although rare, sometimes Avast does release a bad update which causes computer problems. I remember in late 2009, Avast once released a faulty update which led to harmless files on computer being detected as virus.
Any google search about avast bad update will lead to various websites that confirm the incidence of faulty updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)