New version of Avast released
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Puran Defrag
Next: {UPDATE} VLC media player 1.0.5
From: philo on 1 Feb 2010 18:31 Max Wachtel wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:50 -0500, s|b <me(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: > >> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0000, Steve Terry wrote: >> >>> Same here, prefer 4.8 home >>> >>> Unless 5 is shown to catch more viruses, or some other advantage >>> I'll stick to 4.8 >> >> Any idea how long 4.8 will be supported? >> > > I read in the avast forums that 4.8 will be supported for a few months > then it will be necessary to upgrade. > http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54532.0 FWIW: The last machine I installed it on was an AMD-450 with 256 megs of RAM and I did not notice any slowdown Of course the OS was Win2k which is pretty light as compared to XP , Vista or Win7 There are some simple OS tweaks to speed up general performance if that becomes a problem
From: Max Wachtel on 1 Feb 2010 19:10 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:31:39 -0500, philo <philo(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: > Max Wachtel wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:50 -0500, s|b <me(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0000, Steve Terry wrote: >>> >>>> Same here, prefer 4.8 home >>>> >>>> Unless 5 is shown to catch more viruses, or some other advantage >>>> I'll stick to 4.8 >>> >>> Any idea how long 4.8 will be supported? >>> >> I read in the avast forums that 4.8 will be supported for a few months >> then it will be necessary to upgrade. >> http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54532.0 > > > > FWIW: > > The last machine I installed it on was an AMD-450 with 256 megs of RAM > and I did not notice any slowdown > > Of course the OS was Win2k which is pretty light as compared to XP , > Vista or Win7 > > > There are some simple OS tweaks to speed up general performance > if that becomes a problem hey,I am still using w2k! -- Max Wachtel This post was created using Opera(a)USB: http://www.opera-usb.com Virus Removal Instructions http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home Max's Favorite Freeware http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
From: Olivier on 1 Feb 2010 19:20 Bear Bottoms wrote: > Rod <abc(a)zyz.net> wrote in > news:1dj1ao4ksaa9.1r1fu1i6zdplb.dlg(a)40tude.net: > >> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:05:21 -0600, philo wrote: >> >>> Rod wrote: >>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:35:52 -0600, philo wrote: >>>> >>>>> tried it on a few machine's I've got in for repair >>>>> >>>>> looks like it's pretty good >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> scanned 140 gigs of data (in full scan mode) >>>>> in about 30 minutes >>>> >>>> I've been running 5.0 for about a week now. Much better interface >>>> now. Also scans quite a bit faster. So far no other problems with >>>> this version. Also registration is handled over the net within the >>>> program. No need to obtain an email and then posting the code into >>>> the program. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yep >>> a bit easier to deal with >>> >>> >>> BTW: I do a lot of computer repair work >>> and am amazed at how much better the *free* version of Avast is >>> as compared to McAfee or Norton. >>> >>> Most of the infected machines I get in for repair have one of the two >> >> I repair a lot of machines also. I usually uninstall Norton or McAfee >> because they are always running scans,etc in the background and >> usually bring the machines to a crawl. I then install Avast and just >> use the built-in Windo$ firewall. A more complex firewall is more than >> most of these people can handle, and all they do is click allow for >> everything. Might just as well have nothing. Avast does seem to catch >> more than Norton or McAfee from my view of the infected machines that >> I clean up. > > And it isn't even the best. > The best one would be the one that removes all software from the Chinese company that you like to promote here in this ng.
From: Daniel Mandic on 1 Feb 2010 19:32 Max Wachtel wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:31:39 -0500, philo <philo(a)privacy.invalid> > wrote: > > > Max Wachtel wrote: > >>On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:50 -0500, s|b <me(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0000, Steve Terry wrote: > > > > > > > > > Same here, prefer 4.8 home > > > > > > > > > > Unless 5 is shown to catch more viruses, or some other > > > > > advantage I'll stick to 4.8 > > > > > > > > Any idea how long 4.8 will be supported? > > > > > > > I read in the avast forums that 4.8 will be supported for a few > > > months then it will be necessary to upgrade. > > > http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54532.0 > > > > > > > > FWIW: > > > > The last machine I installed it on was an AMD-450 with 256 megs of > > RAM and I did not notice any slowdown > > > > Of course the OS was Win2k which is pretty light as compared to XP > > , Vista or Win7 > > > > > > There are some simple OS tweaks to speed up general performance > > if that becomes a problem > > hey,I am still using w2k! What is w2k? I have NT 5.1.2600. Dolby Surround five point one, fast.... games! :) What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? Anyone!? -- Daniel Mandic
From: Johnw on 1 Feb 2010 19:57
baynole2(a)yahoo.com laid this down on his screen : > Well, I tried it & it slowed surfing down. Went back to v4.8. I installed it on my spare comp last week. XP pro SP3, 367 mhz intel cpu, 512 ram. No speed problems. |