Jump to content

Talk:AVG AntiVirus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:AVG Anti-Virus)

AVG Technologies

[edit]

It appears that the company is no longer called Grisoft, but AVG Technologies - perhaps this should be represented in the article title? - http://www.avg.co.uk/doc/811/uk/crp/6/ndi/89672 Раскольников/Raskolnikov (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

[edit]

Removed this: "None of AVG's competitors offer a full-featured antivirus program for free (others offer time-limited demos, akin to AVG's professional edition)." I know of two: avast! and AntiVir. Additionally, ClamAV/ClamWin certainly meets the "free" criterion, if not the "full-featured" one. - McCart42 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about, I've been using AVG Free for over a year. There wasa period where they discontinued use of the version 7.1 and you had to upgrade to 7.5, but that was an easy upgrade. Avast is solid as well, I use that one as well. AntyiVir has that daily popup that bugged me, so I stopped using it.
This has been a solid antivirus software. I load it on my computers and on my clients. It does a nice job catching viruses, and does not use up close to the amount of memory that McAfee and Norton use.
Dave

About Free Edition

[edit]

It is mentioned in the article : AVG Free Edition, a freeware program which allows home users unlimited use and unlimited updates (although it only receives the main updates, not all definitions).

I couldn't find any sources mentioning this (among the differences) and i don't think it is right, so i removed it... --Nikolas Karalis 15:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The free version does not receive updates as soon as the pro edition

database size

[edit]

Does anyone know how many viruses AVG detects?

- its always changing to keep up with new viruses everyday....

viral marketing in former versions?

[edit]

This was removed: Also, when scanning POP email, it inserts a line at the bottom of every email stating "No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition."

Doesn't it? I know it used to. If it doesn't anymore, when did this practice stop? I've still received messages from people that have the AVG tag in their signature. Perhaps the version/date when it stopped should be included in the article, as I know that'd bring a lot of former users back to the product who discarded it when they found out their antivirus client used their email for viral marketing. - McCart42 23:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have version 7.1.375 installed and it doesn't add any messages. The only change it makes it to add the following header:
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.375 [267.15.6/257]
When first installed, it was at version 7.0 and it didn't add any messages then either. As for earlier versions, I don't know what their behaviour was, so I cannot answer your question. I agree that the information would be useful for the article. If you still have any messages with the tagline, it might be worthwhile asking the sender what version they use, or looking at the headers. --TheParanoidOne 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's an option that you can toggle on/off that inserts this line. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any such option. Any further details on it? --TheParanoidOne 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've since un-installed AVG, let me try to re-install it and I'll look. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I knew I wasn't crazy. ;) I found it, all instructions are relevant to (at least) version 7.1.385, the version I used. If you're looking at the Control Center view, right click on E-mail Scanner and select properties. Then, on the Plugins tab, click the Configure button. Under the E-mail scanning section, the tick boxes labeled Certify mail refer to the phenomenon that you are describing. The Details button at the bottom of the same page allows you to choose the actual displayed text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see it now. I'm not surprised I didn't see it before, as it's a bit deeply buried. Nice to know. --TheParanoidOne 19:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an example of the viral marketing described in a recent email I received:

    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date:
    9/18/2007 11:53 AM

I don't believe someone would check this option voluntarily - is it actually off by default? It just seems like something which should be commented on, that an anti-virus program uses viral marketing to promote itself. - McCart42 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's isn't; about 70% of the mail I receive from Windows users has this kind of "scanned by X antivirus" tag attached, so this is in no way unique to AVG. If it had been specifically noted by some reliable source we could maybe include it, but not just because it annoys random Wikipedians. Chris Cunningham 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need active X to work

[edit]

Heard about the product today and came hear looking for its relation with active X. Yeah, from google search the product is far better than NAV, but is it possible to include that information in the article.

Sorry, I can't test it from where I am sitting, I use another free OS, but do help friends with PC issue so, this is a handy information

It's a full featured program, so I doubt that they'd make it need active X. BioTube 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No, its all self supporting software, doesn't need ActiveX

Criticisms

[edit]

Would like to know if anyone knows of any criticisms that AVG has at all. I have to say i have used it for a long time and my opinion of it is very good. Any criticisms anyone has of it, both positive and negative, please put in. I feel the article is a little brief and lacks any personal views both for and against (so as to get NPOV). Any addition by anyone to the article in this respect would be appreciated! [anonymous comment] —The preceding unsigned comment

-- Finding faults --
My criticism is that I never invited them into my computer, but suddenly they appear as homepage, having corrupted the internet explorer so I cannot change my homepage entry. I would not trust a door to door salesman who kicks in the door. So beware, they do lack ethics and are not 'kosher' as the saying goes. 144.136.192.15 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC) There is no such thing as a perfect security program, therefore all have faults, as can be found for any AVG product by searching the web and the AVG Forum site.[reply]
This Wikipedia article on AVG should be an encyclopedic description of the company and products, not a support forum, and even this discussion page should be about the Wikipedia article rather than the AVG product.
That said, there is a "Problems" section of this article which should be re-structured to address the interests of visitors interested in dealing with known and documented problems with the software.

IE: At the AVG forum there is a typically thoughtless response:
You will fail to get a valid scan if you shut down your computer during AVG scan.

 Yes, reboot stops the scan without resume possibility.
Thanks, AVG Team

The 'AVG Team' declines to address the real problem in the question asked. For most users that is the program (stupidly) fails to take even the simplest step to indicate this failure, such as using the AVG status icon (which does indicate 'scan in progress' & other errors) to indicate if the last scan failed. Nor the better measure (as does Ms Outlook and other programs, to warn the user during shutdown, that an execution critical program needs a decision.
Elsewhere on the AVG forum, the 'AVG Team' has defensively removed such systemic, intractable/inconvenient criticism.
So, it would be nice if there were a free and independent site for such consumer issues, that AVG could address, but not suppress. Wikipedia might not be it, but it could be a reasonable path to such a site.
WoT is a domain trustworthyness tool, but not well suited to details.
Yelp seems devoted to 'brick & morter' companies. Suggestions?
--Wikidity (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism would be good as what I have written only really illustrates the good points of AVG, but i've never really had any problems with the software

Today, after updating AVG, it reported it had found a trojan, when in reality there was none. This only stopped after I uninstalled AVG, as it continously insisted my computer was infected. I'm now running Avast, and it does not report any trojans. I had heard AVG could cause false alarms, but this was quite annoying. 85.19.140.9 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what AVGs false positive rating is like, but every single anti-virus and anti-spyware program finds them [anonymous comment]

I did find a critical review on the PC Magazine website: Negative review --69.227.85.225 04:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good, but thats only a review of the free edition [anonymous comment]

I came here looking for criticisms. Most people use the Free edition so I think concern of its failings should be more widely publicised: A scan yesterday by Bitdefender found a number of viruses that AVG had not found. PC World reports it as being particularly bad at finding Trojans. [IanWorthington] 81.187.147.2 13:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Despite the awesomeness that this program is, I am very annoyed that the free edition refuses to run on a 64 bit processor (same with ewido (and Google pack but thats seperate)). I dont know what I will do with out it on my new Althon 64 computer. It feels like a chuck of my security is missing. --AGruntsJaggon 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It runs fine on my Athlon 64 on 32-bit Windows XP. Are you running a 32-bit or 64-bit OS? Daveharr 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also runs more than fine on my Turion64 with a 32bit OS.--Nikolas Karalis 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To AGruntsJaggon, I think the idea is there are supposed to be benefits to buying the full version, such as 64-bit support [anonymous comment] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.118.118.3 (talk • contribs).

I'd like to say that it bothers me that there is no criticisms section in the article. I've tried it and I don't like it. Yet everywhere I go online, people are saying, "Norton is junk, get AVG." Anyway, I think this article lacks NPOV. AVG has such a cult following, yet I see nothing to warrant this extreme loyalty. I wonder if spam, viral marketing, and brainwash aren't their primary marketing models. I don't have any links right now, but I believe there have been tests which put AVG at the very bottom in terms of false positives and false negatives.

One problem I have with most anti-virus programs is that they give the users very little control. Most treat people like they are stupid. I don't know how many times I've had to redownload nuke.com because some over-protective and condescending AV program thought I shouldn't have it. It should be MY right to run my machine under a "risk" condition if I so desire. Afterall, it is MY computer. I prefer Nuke to Deltree, and I am the one who put it on my system. Why aren't the AV programs giving people choices with what to do with files anymore? Ignore is not an option for most, all you get is quarantine, disinfect, or delete. One AV program, forgot if it was AVG or not, deleted ALL my file-sharing programs, all my "security" tools, a library of files I was saving for my own AV research, nuke.com, etc. I consider this on par with breaching human rights. I should have the absolute say over what files are on my system, not everyone else.--65.190.103.147 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used AVG Free in all my 32-bit PCs. I don't really have any criticism except the lack of a 64-bit version. It doesn't delete file sharing programs, and it doesn't delete "nuke.com" alike programs if you don't want it to; it has an exception list. It also doesn't nag you to buy the commercial version. I've read a lot of reviews about it and came to the conclusion that it is not the "best" AV available, but it certainly does a good job. Detection rate is good and scanning speed is extremely fast. The virus database is the same as the paid version, though a few hours delayed. I guess this explains the "cult" following. You install it, and it works without nagging you to pay and is definitely not Crippleware since there are no disabled features after N days. Trojan detection is a bit weak, probably because of AVG Anti Spyware (former Ewido); a free version of it also available, btw.
On 64-bit Windows it won't run. On the other hand, 64-bit Windows is immune to 32-bit viruses, but I guess there are exceptions to this.
I guess it would be good to introduce a "Criticism" section, probably pointing out the lack of a 64-bit version and weak trojan detection. Other than that, I don't know what else to put in there. It's one of those applications that are not "outstanding", but on the other hand don't have any weaknesses; it "just works". Nikos 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a "Criticism" section. Please expand it as I only mention shortcomings that I personally came across; there might be more. Thanks. Nikos 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that there is now a criticism section, so thanks to Real NC. I can't recall any memorable problems I've had with the paid for version, but has anyone else that has already contributed had any problems so the secion can be expanded? Раскольников/Raskolnikov 12:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the F happened to the criticism section, it's gone now. There's plenty of fresh criticism to reference. -Avitor (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. I've got very limited access to this content right now due to my workplace's aggressive filters (blocks everything by default) but this article definitely conflicts with what I am seeing. It looks like some research is strongly needed to reconcile the two.Blaimjos (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) ... So far I've found: removed once in September for having no sources cited and removed a second time in January for original research. If reliable sources can be found it may be a good idea to restore this section with the proper citations.Blaimjos (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also me getting the "An error has occured while sending the message. Please try to send the message again." message when I try to send the uninstallation feedback. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: AVG 8 is enormously resource hungry. If you are using a slow computer, it may actually bring it to a halt (e.g. Celeron 1200 laptop needs 3 min. (!!) to boot. I tried it on a Pentium 600 and it constantly used 100% CPU.) You may not notice the drain on faster CPUs but it is nevertheless slowing your system down significantly. My opinion: Look out for an alternative, like avast for example.



You want criticism? WELL, started using it, it was scanning a folder I have for my music (I have all my CDs backed up as mp3's), and it was finding THOUSANDS of trojans in the folder!?!?!?! When there WERE NOT TOJANS in that folder - just mp3's.....

Grand total was 3,460 trojans found before I stopped it, in a folder containing 5,639 files. OBVIOUS bug.

99.67.155.93 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WHOA! AVG was right! there WERE 3,460 trojans in there, in a folder so well hidden that I only found it after disabling a bunch of setting and switching to show all files and folders! It had some really weird stuff in there, like.....

007 from russia with love.exe (there were 10 different ones like that, named after james bond movies)

18 wheels of steel - haulin.exe ???????

32bit email broadcaster v9.57.23.exe ?.... !!!!!!! (:O oh sh**....)


and lots more, mostly named after movies.


99.67.155.93 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False Positives

[edit]

The latest free version of AVG Antivirus insists there's a virus called Obfustat.AWH in the fr-048 "Precision" demo by Farb-Rausch. http://www.scene.org/file.php?file=/parties/2006/assembly06/in64/fr-048_precision_by_farbrausch.zip&fileinfo A big criticism I have of AVG is there's no way at all for users of the free version to report false positives so they can be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.250.240 (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had problems with all the versions of AVG I have ever used, including 8.0, thinking the drivers for my wireless keyboard and mouse is a virus. I ended up switching to Avast, because when using AVG, it would quaranteen my drivers, and my keyboard and mouse would stop working.12.152.160.239 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AVG is notorious for false positives. Apparently, AVG also marks some programs as malware even though they are obviously aren't to scare away the user. For example, I experimented with two keygens. AVG marked them as Trojan horses (Generic5.HMA and Generic5.IUP, respectively), however, after I disabled AVG, ran the keygens, enabled AVG and ran a full scan, I didn't have an infection. It is obvious this was a false positive made on purpose. And this is an example that AVG is programmed to mark it's own keygen as a (non-existent) trojan to prevent it's usage. So in my opinion, AVG is programmed to attack all recognized keygens to prevent people from using pirated software. Crafty.--89.147.67.118 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grisoft have announced the free version of AVG Anti-Virus 7.1 to expire in January 2007.

[edit]
Upgrade to 7.5. For those with 7.1, a window will come up which provides details of what to do. --TheParanoidOne 16:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct then to add "Instructions for upgrading to AVG Free Edition version 7.5 will be provided before version 7.1 expires"? (Or similar wording.) I don't want to put the "free" word out there if that's not going to be so. --CliffC 04:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at http://free.grisoft.com . As before, AVG is offering both a paid-for and free version. So, yes, it can contnue to be marked as Free. --TheParanoidOne 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Now it's telling me that the update will be in February... not January.

Advert?

[edit]

I'm not sure, but does this article sounds like an advert to anyone? I was going to add Template:Advert but decides to pend. Feureau 20:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the terms "lightweight" and "Light memory footprint" do set off a faint alarm, but maybe these can be fixed. I think the problem is similar to that of Jones Soda, where nobody doesn't like the product, so there's no criticism. --CliffC 21:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but if you can reword it it would be a good idea. I think its quite an important factor though. Raskolnikov 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who flagged this as an advertisement could point out which elements particulalry caught their attention so they can be corrected, it would be appreciated, thank you Raskolnikov 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Free trial" - some features not unlocked until license purchased?

[edit]

I notice that the "free trial" download offered for every AVG product is the same file (avg75f_431a848.exe, today). This leads me to speculate that some magic in the license number, once paid for, unlocks the appropriate features for whichever product the user pays for. If so, this would solve the mystery that prompted me to post the following on newsgroup alt.comp.ant-virus:

AVG "Internet Security" - are all the pieces there yet?

I installed AVG Internet Security 7.5, the 30-day free trial, over AVG Free 7.1. I'm looking for a product I can install and forget for a non-technical family member, with anti-virus, anti-spy/malware, and a firewall. The AVG Internet Security manual at http://www.grisoft.cz/softw/70/filedir/doc/AVG_7.5/AVG_Internet%20Security/User_manual/avg_isw_uma_en_75_5.pdf shows control center selections I do not have, including Anti-Spyware, Anti-Spam, and Firewall.
Does the "free trial" of AVG Internet Security 7.5 have limited capabilities until I pay for the product? I don't want to pay until I see what it can do.
Or, was the product released before all the parts were integrated? My version seemed to be an early release - although the screen layout is slightly different, it still says "AVG Anti-Virus" (not "Internet Security") up in the corner. I can't ask AVG about any of this because I'm not a

licensed user. Thanks for any advice.

Anyone here know? This is something that perhaps should be mentioned in the article if so. --CliffC 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the trials aren't limited in any way, other than the fact that they have a duration of 30 days and by the way, you can ask AVG as the trial is fully supported (just give them your trial licence number). The download page - http://www.avguk.com/doc/downloads-results/lng/uk/tpl/tpl01?prd=triisw You do need an appropriate trial licence for Internet Security, contact grisoft for an internet security trial licence Raskolnikov 11:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in answer to your question, the downloaded file is the same for all products (excluding Linux) and the licence number unlocks the appropriate featuresRaskolnikov 16:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I confirmed that yesterday after paying $100 for three 2-year licenses. The license number I received unlocked all the "missing" features noted above, and after 24+ hours I am very happy with the product. I did not contact Grisoft for a trial license number as you suggested, I just figured it would be too much of a hassle. If the 30-day trial was full-featured it would make for a better trial, but I'm sure Grisoft has considered that freeloaders could take advantage of serial multiple trials for their non-free products. --CliffC 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or legitimate?

[edit]

I don't really understand Grisoft's business model, but maybe someone who does can look at these changes made by a new account and offer an opinion as to whether they are legitimate. --CliffC 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the way that Grisoft works this is correct. Grisoft products are provided and supported by partner comapnies, to allow a higher level of local support. Raskolnikov 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a link to the Grisoft International Partners so it is clear which companies are Official Partners Raskolnikov 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a similar question - what is the new link just added, to AVG Antivirus, with extension .biz? How can users be expected to select one of these many links based on the limited information provided? --CliffC 13:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CliffC, what are your suggestions? Raskolnikov 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Grisoft

[edit]

I don't think that it should be merged with Grisoft since this articles contains a lot of information on the program. Stephenchou0722 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, however this article contains information on Grisoft's other products as well as just AVG Anti-Virus. So it may be an idea to rename the article AVG. Any thoughts or suggestions on this?

I oppose this merger as Norton also has different pages for its products on Wikipedia. AVG is a well respected free anitivirus and anti-malware product, it deserves its own page.

-RadicalSatDude 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this, but the point I was making is that this article now covers more than AVG Anti-Virus, so at least should be renamed (i.e. shortened to AVG). What are your opinions? Although the Norton page is still Norton Anti-Virus also. Raskolnikov 08:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista and Help Section - pease verify

[edit]

Can anyone please verify that the latest edit including this line "However, users of Windows Vista cannot access the help section included with AVG as of March 22, 2007." is the case? Raskolnikov 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be WP:OR, I'll remove it. TayquanhollaMy work 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

[edit]

"Since AVG stands for Anti Virus Guard, this product should properly be referred to as AVG, as the use of the term AVG Anti-Virus would be redundant."

Can I remove this from the article? The term "AVG Anti-Virus is not redundant because AVG also have Anti-Spyware now. If a person just mention "AVG", how can we know that the "AVG" he meant is Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware? Not only that, even the official Grisoft website also call their "AVG Anti-Virus" as "AVG Anti-Virus", not "AVG" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan pang (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original single product name "AVG" originally indicated 'Anti-Virus Grisoft', in recognition of the developer & authoring company. When sold, they could have (I could not find) changed the 'meaning' to '... Guard', or just ignored the issue by dropping any such references (my presumption). Since then, to improve funding streams, the product has been modularized into a dozen different licensed product lines & classes (AVG, AVG-IS, ... and Personal, Business, Mobile, .... --Wikidity (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

64-bit support

[edit]

The article claims that the free version is not compatible with 64-bit Windows. Anyone know this for sure? (I'm running it on 64-bit Vista, no issues.) --129.62.113.93 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It works on x86 or x64... but there is no support for utilizing the 64 bits over the old 32... that's what people do not get I think. I'm running it on 64 bit Vista too. 68.57.224.147 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Avgantispywarefree.jpg

[edit]

Image:Avgantispywarefree.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any advantage in making a copy (or even debating the issue) when instant access to an original is only a [click] away?
--Wikidity (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal from AfD

[edit]

This is being moved here from the AfD, which was closed as withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you think that we can maybe move this page to something along the lines of "Grisoft Security Software." Since Grisoft has expanded their products to include firewalls, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc it makes more sense to change the name of the article rather than including all of the other products in the article titled "AVG Anti-Virus". will381796 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Avglogo.PNG

[edit]

Image:Avglogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is out of date

[edit]

This article reads like an ad for AVG. It is out of date. There has been a lot of recent criticism of AVG's new version 8 with the LinkScanner component:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/13/avg_scanner_skews_web_traffic_numbers/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/19/avg_linkscanner_and_adwords/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/26/avg_disguises_fake_traffic_as_ie6/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/02/linkscanner_fake_traffic_temporary_fix/

http://www.avg-watch.org/

Soother62 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

updated version number Also - yes there were issues with the link scanner, but I read recently (nov / dec of 08) that the process was changed to resolve the issues. If and when I find a verifiable source I'll update that info on the article page.

  • I wonder what current estimates are of users?
  • I have run into several (older) machines in which AVG would not install (believe 8 needs xp sp2 now), in those cases Avast WAS able to run on the older machines.

Ched Davis (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VERSION 7.5 still update supported

[edit]

How is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.51.202 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tengo problemas con mi computadora al bajar su proteccion tenia el 7.5 pero al mandar mensajes del 8.5 se blokeo el sistema y solo me deja trabajar el internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.50.103 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

itunes problem

[edit]

probably worth keeping an eye on RS's as the latest versions of iTunes and AVG8.5 seem to be incompatible and AVG throws up a Small.BOG trojan error. I have experienced this myself and was the final straw for AVG for me, worth seeing if the problem escalates and becomes like the problems with AVG8.0 http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2092831&tstart=0 I know this isn't a forum but its a massive error that if not sorted will become encyclopaedic chocobogamer mine 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVG 9 Beta

[edit]

Avg has made a beta of version 9 available. 189.4.243.124 (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put AVG Safe Search in article

[edit]

AVG Free 8.5 includes an optional addon for install in Firefox, called AVG Safe Search 8.5. It has not been updated since the release of Firefox 3.5.3 and is incompatible with this and since released versions of Firefox. Where should it be put? --Auric (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AVG 9, Windows Defender controversy

[edit]

There appears to be controversy with AVGs latest version in that it turns off windows defender with out user knowledge, examples of this can be found here, and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.43.183 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this is affecting alot of AVG & Windows Defender users. Some may be still struggling to find out the cause. I reckon we should put this out into the article. One thing to inform this fact to the masses and other to maintain NPOV of this article. How about that? TL T 14:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance vs references?

[edit]

It would seem the Article should present useful non-advertalk about the software, with carefully selected links to authorative data about the products rather than just cut and paste. On the other hand, perhaps it is worth the effort to require that such information be extracted and digested, or not at all. Is this a policy question?
Wikidity (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

avg 8.5

[edit]

The word "Currently" is meaningless once written! The same is true for all contemporary words like "New", "Latest", ... unless they are known to be reliably updated in a timely fashion. {Perhaps this comment should also be posted elsewhere.
Wikidity (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My avg 8.5 antivirus download contained 3 viruses and now i cannot remove the software - help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.128.52 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have downloaded it from the official site! (@Others: what's the rules on these kinds of talk-page entries? Can these be simply deleted?) --DanielPharos (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVG 10% owned by Intel???

[edit]

I thought I read somewhere that Intel had bought a 10% interest in AVG??? Or is that an urban myth??? The article makes no mention of it, and says that AVG is a private company. Can somebody who knows answer this? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.27.14 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AVG Internet Security 2011

[edit]

This version of AVG Internet Security has "You're about to lose your AVG protection!" as the initial screen and a cluttered Overview screen with an "Extend your protection in less than 3 minutes:". I believe this screams of the scareware realm of software and has diverged from the clean cut image that AVG have usually had. Can anyone quantify this or identify any facts supporting this divergence?


Been using it for a while, can't say I've seen anything like that.148.197.117.250 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AVG-internet-Security-2012-Screenshot.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:AVG-internet-Security-2012-Screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AVG-internet-Security-2012-Screenshot.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AVG Professional 8.0.81.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:AVG Professional 8.0.81.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AVG Professional 8.0.81.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Sales Tactics

[edit]

I keep getting emails saying:

Invoice, Order Confirmation & License

Dear Forrest Johnson,

Thank you for choosing AVG.

You'll find the details of your order listed below. We've also attached a PDF of your invoice which we recommend you keep in a safe place for future reference.

Product Delivery Unit Price QtyItem Price

Renewal AVG Internet Security 1 computer (12 months) USD 46.99

I never ordered this product, so why are they spamming with bills confirming my "order"? My computer is already well protected by three different security systems, and I certainly don't need another one. Anyway, how can I possibly trust a security company that promotes itself through fraudulent sales tactics?

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Even though this doesn't have anything to do with the article itself, which is what this talk page is for, I will briefly comment that AVG does not send invoices as requests for payment. The "invoices" it sends are actually acknowledgements of a receipt of payment. If you are receiving those receipts and you did not purchase the software yourself, it is likely that an actual purchaser of the software has mis-typed their email address and you are receiving their order confirmation. You can safely delete the email as the license number that it contains is not intended for you. As a separate aside, I will note that generally, antivirus/security software does not follow the "more is better" model. Instead of the three different security systems you brag of, as someone who knows what they are talking about, I suggest you spend some time identifying and testing just one product that you are comfortable with and that can provide the security that you seek. Your computer will thank you. Really. Neil916 (Talk) 08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More likely just a spam email disguising itself as antivirus software — a fairly recent trend. I wouldn't open that pdf (though it's probably way too late now) Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Controversy section

[edit]

A user is blanking this section with no reason given in the edit summary. The section about the AVG Safeguard toolbar has many sources, but they don't appear to be very good ones (online forums and tech blogs). It looks like there is (or possible was) a concern with this toolbar and how it was installed. Is the concern enough to warrant keeping the section, and can we find better sources? Meters (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AVG is malware

[edit]

The AVG toolbar installed without my permission and it is very difficult to remove. Isn't this the definition of malware? Surely this qualifies it unambiguously as malware? Why is there even any discussion? Why are so many people apologists for this?

The following seems reliable:

http://nojesusnopeas.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/sorry-but-avg-secure-search-is-malware.html

https://www.getintopces.com

Robinh (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the mozilla's bug tracking system (following a frustrating episode trying, and failing, to remove the AVG toolbar from firefox after it installed without my permission), and my own and similar issues crop up there too. The most germane are:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=912741

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=773514

Both of which are, I would say, pretty much clinching evidence that the AVG toolbar is malware. Robinh (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)https://wikimediafoundation.org/[reply]

It's unacceptably aggressive behaviour, yes, but that does not warrant calling the entire AVG product malware, especially in the lead. I don't doubt that there was a problem, and perhaps it has come back. I think the existing "Controversy" section deals with the problem well enough, although some of the existing references don't appear to be WP:RS in my opinion. In any case, your first ref is useless since it is a blog and hence not a reliable source) and the third ref is too dated (two and one-half years old) to justify its use. That bug was converted to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=774436 which petered out not long after. There were two messages one and one-half year later, and then one year after that (just days ago) one Robin Hankin threw in a comment. Just a coincidence that name, User:Robinh, or are you trying to use usergenerated material (generated by you) to bolster your argument here that AVG is malware? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 03:32, February 7, 2015‎
Not a coincidence, I did indeed comment on the bug. I didn't mean to use my own comment to bolster my position; sorry if it gave that impression. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that! I have spent hours trying to get rid of this AVG thing, without success, from firefox, and one thing I did the other day was to file a bug report (although this ended up with me just commenting on an existing thread). I am having difficulty reconciling AVG's "unacceptably aggressive behaviour" with it not being described as malware. It is frustrating for me. How bad does something have to be to qualify as malware? Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of how bad the problem has to be. It's a question of whether reliable sources are currently and justifiably calling this major anti-virus software package malware. Your experience with the package is original research and cannot be used. This is a good example of why user-generated sources such as blogs and Bugzilla are questionable. We don't know how widespread or reliable the issues are or even if they are real to start with. It's not unheard of for competitors' employees or others with an axe to grind to enter malicious reports (I'm not suggesting that you did this). Meters (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Meters; understood. I wasn't aware of user-generated but it seems perfectly reasonable. I guess bugzilla comes under this classification too. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This software is clearly malware that must be avoided or removed since there are many independent websites where this software is classified as a bug. To say that this legitimate software to be downloaded is to be working with these crooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.120 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linux version no longer available

[edit]

While the last version was from 2013, it still worked. You can still download the old installer, but it now seems to be non-functional. I called the Dutch AVG distributor who confirmed that AVG for Linux is no longer available. 156.83.1.4 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AVG (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avast is acquiring AVG?

[edit]

Was reading news and didn't see anything about that on the article. Is this already happened, or is about to be? -Nrautava (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unfair Controversy: AVG announced that it would start tracking users

[edit]

Calling this controversy seems unfair. It implies a blanket statement suggesting that probably a majority of software and/or websites today contain the "functions of spyware"; including but not limited to: Microsoft Windows, Search Engines- most notably Google with Google Analytics, your Smart Phone and perhaps the majority of software and websites out there today! I would argue that it is no exaggeration to say practically -everything- is tracking you today!

The controversy in question reads: "In September 2015, AVG announced that it would start tracking users for profit, analyzing their data for sale to the advertising industry. This measure received criticism from consumers, the press and security industry, as many users intended to use the software in order to protect themselves from spyware and would not expect the functions of spyware to be "hidden" in security software.[20]"

This behavior is practiced by practically all website and arguably a majority of software today, with varying degrees. Tracking user behavior is not a "function of spyware", it has become perfectly acceptable practice (even if you don't like it) and there is little reason AVG, much like others, shouldn't be collecting tracking data. In addition - if you think other Security Suites are not collecting tracking data...you got some homework to do.


Also: In AVG's defense (because it should be noted) AVG made this publicly known in a few ways. There was no sneaky implementation of this tracking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamTheSim (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://press.avast.com/avast-announces-agreement-to-acquire-avg-for-13b. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

[edit]
182.186.172.199 (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018

[edit]

sir plz allow me to edit some source Topsop12 (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 August 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 23:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVG AntiVirus → AVG Software – Hi. My name is Charlotte Empey and I work for Avast, which now owns AVG.

I wanted to start a discussion about potentially renaming the page to "AVG Software." When the page was created in 2004, "AVG Antivirus" was AVG's main product, brand, and basically the only thing it sold. Although there is still a product called "AVG Antivirus" there are lots of other AVG software products that are not notable enough for stand-alone pages that could be consolidated here. Empey at Avast (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Empey at Avast (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@BD2412: and @Davey2010: suggested “AVG Software” be a separate Wikipedia page above. I wanted to share a draft AVG Software page here as a proposed separate article. Empey at Avast (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Empey at Avast that is excellent!, I wasn't expecting much tbh so very surprised to see a whole new in-depth article, Looks great! :), –Davey2010Talk 17:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's a very good start. bd2412 T 20:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words regarding the proposed draft “AVG Software” page @Davey2010: and @BD2412:. Would either of you be willing to do the honors of making it live? I’m not sure I am supposed to do it myself with a conflict of interest. Empey at Avast (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVG AntiVirus and firewall

[edit]

Hi. I came here to remove the link "See also" "Comparison of firewalls" because "AVG AntiVirus" don't have a firewall but I changed my mind. The 'current' name of AVG products with antivirus are 

'AVG AntiVirus' - free without a firewall
'AVG Internet Security' antivirus firewall etc (redirected)

This page doesn't mention firewall, ransomware. And i'm not sure if the Android version is included in 'AVG AntiVirus' frree or just in 'AVG Internet Security' So i agree with Charlotte Empey (above) from Avast that there should be a page for all AVG programs. There is also a page AVG PC TuneUp 213.65.156.52 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between AVG AntiVirus and Avast AntiVirus?

[edit]

According to this Wikipedia article, AVG AntiVirus was developed by AVG Technologies, a subsidiary of Avast. Of course, Avast also makes an antivirus software called Avast AntiVirus. So what's the difference between these 2 pieces of antivirus software, which are in effect developed by the same company? Are they the same software, with just different logos and names attached? Do they have the same features, just arranged differently in menus? Or is there some fundamental difference, like one actually being better at detecting viruses than the other?

Benhut1 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:AVG_AntiVirus&oldid=1213426077"