Talk:Avast/Archive 1

Archive 1

x86-64

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)"

Move (2006)

The article gives the name as "avast! antivirus", yet this article is at "avast!". Should this be corrected? --maru (talk) Contribs 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

False info

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. 62.30.114.3 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

• Cleanup. Remove sales elements
• Expansion
• Citate the article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Retiono Virginian (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

avast

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.

um

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)

Minor edits

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)

Capitalization

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)

USB Keyboard and Pre-Boot Scanner

Was this fixed in later versions of Avast!, because whenever I did the pre-boot scan, the USB Keyboards would never respond during the scan. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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 122.148.97.86 (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)

Question

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.

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 122.148.97.86 (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)

Testing

Can anybody provide links to actual product testing? Most other major AVs seem to have this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.118.230 (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (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)

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. 62.30.114.3 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)

I myself got a few blue screens when I started using avast. Windows Problems and Solutions detected that is was a problem with an anti-virus program or a firewall (hint hint) Pgj1997 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Botched updates

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.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2356600,00.asp

Any google search about avast bad update will lead to various websites that confirm the incidence of faulty updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.240.254 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have that false positive wave in this article?

I know there are some sources, so I want to see what the community thinks. Should we have a mention of this wave in the article? ConCompS (Talk to me) 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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. 216.197.175.65 (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 24.55.163.36 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Avast! is also a name of a virus

i have a virus callled Avast! wikipedia needs a page on it Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it free, what is the catch?

explain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.242.250 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

The free version is also nagware. 83.142.1.201 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (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 83.142.1.201; 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.216.197.175.65 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

These days it is super naggy. Constant huge popups that can't be disabled, some of which are obvious fear-mongering to try and get the user to buy unnecessary products. 202.215.231.23 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this post and agree with the one it is trying to rebut. I use it, and if I get pop-ups, I don't recall them.I disagree with the ad-supported aspect in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:1470:5D46:71F6:451E:1CED (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing in progress

I am working through the tasks assigned to this page:

• Cleanup : Cleanup the article to remove any advertising or poor grammar
• Update : Seriously needs updating. Add new versions; Etc
• Verify : Go through the article and check that every fact is correct

My goal is to have the article cleaned up and all the facts cited so the multiple issues box can be removed. Will Wikipedia editors review it, then as they approve the content, can they remove the notices? --Debsalmi (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Real info

It's pretty sad that a person can not post about a topic on Wikipedia, with out getting bashed by the majority of users that have special "elevated privileges". I have seen other pages, that were perfectly fine on the onset.. just to get berated by "opinionated" users who have some sort of.. again.. "elevated" clout. Maybe.. just maybe.. if Wikipedia "watches the watchers", they would get more donations. Can I post my honest opinion here on this free "donation 'for the people' page? Or will that also get bashed and winged by the common dictators here on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.23.89 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Issues box removed

Sincerely, I think all the issues were addressed; citations have been provided for every fact, copy-pasted materials were deleted or rewritten, outdated information was discarded and replaced, marketing superlatives were removed and only straight-forward facts have been presented. All should be remedied, but I would appreciate if another editor(s) could have a look and make suggestions. Thank you. Debsalmi (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Major re-writing desperately needed

Right now the article still looks like a big Ad/promotional piece, with a lot of unsourced text and redundant info. Somebody should REALLY scrap the existing info (especially the uncited trivia) and completely re-write it, with proper links to proper sources like company's own site and sites like AV-Test and AV-Comparatives (not sure if randomly generated numbers from Virus Bulletin are still relevant, I rarely see anyone using these outside of marketing material). 100.37.65.157 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can type, you might be "somebody". This is a wiki: there is no customer service team to respond to your requests and suggestions. That would be YOU.Rags (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

New Infobox Proposal

I propose a change to the standard Template:Infobox company, Short version. Not all parameters are filled in, but could be in the future. In the current infobox, there are entries for software-related information like Stable release and Operating system. That seems to be important to some editors, so can I add those parameters in?

AVAST Software

Formerly	ALWIL Software a.s. and AVAST Software a.s.
Industry	Security software
Genre	Desktop antivirus software, Mobile security application
Founded	1988 (1988) in Prague, Czech Republic
Founders	Pavel Baudiš and Eduard Kučera
Headquarters	Trianon Office Building, Budejovicka 1518/13A, Prague , Czech Republic
Area served	Worldwide
Key people	John G. Schwarz (Chairman)Vincent Steckler (CEO) Eduard Kučera and Pavel Baudiš (founders, technology advisor)
Website	www.avast.com

Debsalmi (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Name

Product is now called just Avast, no exclamation point. It remain only on logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83AC:11D6:1C6F:1230:E0AD:7A87 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested, Avast (disambiguation) moved to Avast! per WP:MALPLACED Mike Cline (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Avast! → Avast Software – Official company name Jansirmer (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the article is about the company, not its main product. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support the current title should redirect to the disambiguation page, as the most likely topic is the nautical term, complete with the exclamation point. Not to mention that all three entries at the dab page can be likely perceived to use the exclamation point. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Avast (software company). Cúchullain ^t/c 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Avast Software → Avast – This is on behalf of Debsalmi, who requested it on my talk page.

The notion here is that, according to Debsalmi:

According to our new style guide, we should be referred to as Avast, when referring to the products or company, or AVAST Software s.r.o., when referring to the legal entity.

The style guide Debsalmi is talking about is the Avast style guide [1]. Note that I do not support or oppose this move. Pinging Jansirmer, In ictu oculi, Mike Cline, and tb-ing 65.94.43.89 from previous move. (Jansirmer may not be active.) —George8211 / T 11:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Edited —George8211 / T 12:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, no - there's a template for moves, see WP:RM, and Avast can't be covered up, it's a dab page In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Still no, for same reason. - please close In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – I'm not sure whose new style guide this is referring to, but I don't think it's Wikipedia's. Per IIO, the suggested destination name is occupied by an appropriate (redirect to a) disambiguation page. The suggested destination name is also ambiguous, which is probably something the company is doing deliberately and should be avoided here (e.g., WP:SURPRISE). The suggestion seems contrary to the outcome of a recent RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Debsalmi is an Avast employee, and she is referring to their internal style guide.[2] Under Wikipedia rules, this article belongs at either Avast Software or Avast (software), but not at Avast because it's not the primary topic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Avast (software company). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• 'Oppose what guideline are you talking about? WP:ADVERTISEMENT Wikipedia does not follow corporate advertising guidelines, it follows its own guidelines. Avast (software company) is possible, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Avast (software company). Seems like the best way to reflect both the company's wishes and the common name. ONR (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Avast (software company). Agreeing with Naval's rationale. DasReichenz (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Avast (software company). Avast is a common term which should stay as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Disambiguation (again)

Hi, I have read the previous chats about renaming this <Avast> article, but I just find a major problem.
In several other languages wiki there is 2 different articles :

• - One about the < Avast (software company) >
• - and another dedicated to the < Avast antivirus programme > .

Also, the interwiki links cannot redirect one page toward 2 different URL (as 2 different articles cannot link to the same URL).
The Avast (software company) shows only 11 languages links, while on other languages articles there is an average of 35 links !
See here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avast!

So, it makes sense to create (on this english wiki) a new article dedicated to the < Avast program > itself, and adjust the language's links according to this.

Doing this will also allow to lighten the reading of the present article.
Who agrees ?
--Millot (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (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 89.176.40.127 (talk) 14:28:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

No "Controversy" section? Have they really kept their noses that clean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.8.10 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Awards/Reviews

Sounds like an advert. TechOutsider (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

I agree, this is nowhere near a balanced article, it reads far too much like an advertisement. Kealan124 (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet most of it was written by someone in the companies marketing department.--68.94.89.29 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The section "Awards and certifications" is juste a ads, the source are "av-comparatives.org" "AV-TEST.com". The section have a lot of not pertinent information. It is so typical of ads, that I don't understand the reverts... --Nouill (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Were the tests performed by Avast Software or by independent labs? I'm no expert, but they appear to be independent to me. I don't see what the problem is.

I noticed you didn't complain about Intel Security#Product reviews (just picked a company at random from Category:Computer security software companies). Is that because the reviews were mixed? Is your complaint that Avast's products are too good?

We have "Reviews" or "Reception" sections in almost every developed article about a musical album. Will you delete those as advertising as well?

It would be helpful if you could cite a policy or guideline that supports your removal of the section. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Avast SafeZone Browser – A web browser that in installed with each Avast Antivirus product

Please correct to: that is installed

Kittichai (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Keri (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Products section

The current Products section contains a list of more than 20 Avast products. While WP: NOTCATALOG (#5) does not expressly forbid listing products, generally speaking a comprehensive list of products is considered too akin to a product catalog or product brochure (promotional & impossible to maintain), whereas a prose-style paragraph summary is preferred. I'd like to propose that for now, we replace this long list of products with a short summary paragraph (see below).

Replacement Products section

Avast provides IT security products for desktops and servers, as well as VPN software and hard rive cleanup tools. The Avast antivirus product includes a password manager, browser security, and network security features. As of 2017, the Avast and AVG (acquired in 2016) antivirus products are expected to be kept separate. The AVG antivirus product has four main components: antivirus, PC tuneup, VPN, and Web Tuneup. References

Disclosure: I am affiliated with Avast.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I've replaced the products section with your version above. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, JJMC89. I had meant to make the change but it slipped my mind. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Updates to Infobox and 1 misspelling

Hello, My name is Charlotte Empey and I work for Avast. We would like to update our Infobox to include the following:

1 - Revenues $700M (here is a press release with this info: https://press.avast.com/record-revenue-puts-avast-in-second-among-security-industry-leaders)

2 - We are now 1,000+ employees

3 - Our industry is listed as: Security Softwares . I don't know if that is a standard wording or if it could be singular: Security Software .

Thank you. Charlotteempey (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Charlotteempey. I updated the revenue and added operating income from the press release. (In general, a secondary source is preferable to a press release, but Avast isn't a public company and I wasn't able to find information about its revenue reported elsewhere.) I also corrected "softwares" to "software".

I didn't change the number of employees, however, because we currently cite a 2016 source that supports 650+. I tried to find a more recent source to update the number of employees, including Avast's website, but I wasn't able. If you can cite a source that mentions how many employees Avast currently has, I (or another editor) will update the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Malik. I am also affiliated with Avast. It looks like Avast had 650 employees as of January 2016 based on the currently used sourced, but that September Avast acquired competitor AVG(source) for $1.4 billion, who reported having 1,486 employees in their latest annual report (2015) before being acquired. (source). In other words, just a few months after that source was published the company's employee-count jumped from about 650 to about 2,100. I couldn't find any more recent sources with newer headcounts, but I am wondering if the best solution is to either combine the numbers under WP:CALC and put ~2,100 employees there, or just remove it until new sources are available, or put both employee counts in there. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding the workforces of the two companies seems like a good solution until a better source becomes available. Thank you, CorporateM. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Malik Shabazz:. After all that, Avast just updated their website with an employee count (1,000+) here. I also noticed the Lead s ays "has over 650 employees based in the Czech Republic, which I think should read, "has more than 1,000 employees worldwide." Sorry I keep bugging you. CorporateM (Talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, CorporateM. I was looking for something like that two weeks ago, but "better late than never". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Awards section

I would like to revisit the discussion about the Awards section.

Typically a section like this is considered an indiscriminate list of information and a non-neutral article-structure. WP:CRITS discusses how dedicated "controversy" sections should be avoided in most cases, but a similar principle applies to dedicated accolades sections.

Plus many of these "awards" are frivelous. This download.com article doesn't really look like a real review. Softpedia is crowd-sourced and should not be used. This is just silly. Certifications are more relevant to customers than they are to a historical encyclopedia. About 10-20 of these are all from AV-Test, creating an indiscriminate list of every test they do.

I would suggest renaming the section "Reception" and cutting everything but these two (see below). The Avast products do get very positive reviews and a more legitimate Reception section could be expanded, but for now this would provide some immediate cleanup.

Proposed replacement

• Avast Free Antivirus 2016 is PCMag.com's Editor's Choice for free antivirus protection.
• Avast Free Antivirus 2016 received the highest rating for malware detection accuracy from SE Labs.

References

CorporateM (Talk) 12:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the section. The PCMag.com item was also updated for 2017, which is what the above linked to. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @JJMC89:! CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft of improved article

Hi. My name is Charlotte Empey and I work in Avast’s marketing department. I would like to transparently improve the page in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia’s content policies. In that spirit, I would like to share a draft page here as a greatly improved version of the current article with the following improvements:

• a greatly expanded and balanced Reception section that includes praise and criticism (rather than just awards)
• a larger, more up-to-date, Products section
• an improved history section with less promotion/awards, stronger sources, better organization, etc.
• a shorter Lead more in-keeping with Wikipedia’s standards for an article of this size

I wanted to share the draft here in hopes that disinterested editors may take a look, provide feedback, or provide any other guidance.

Empey at Avast (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

“:I wanted to follow up to see if any editors normally involved in this page, such as @Malik Shabazz: or @JJMC89:, have an interest in reviewing the proposed draft? I know it’s a lot of content to review/compare and there is no rush, but wanted to check-in with editors that have been active here before asking anyone else. Empey at Avast (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC) “

Hi Empey at Avast. I've been meaning to look at your draft, but I've had heavy work demands recently. They should lift very soon, so I expect to review your draft within the next week. Thank you for your patience. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Empey at Avast, and happy new year. I reviewed your draft, and overall it looks fine. If you'd like to replace the current article with your draft, I have no objection. I have a few thoughts:

• You might want to start the third sentence (about the number of software users) with "As of 2017," which can be coded using {{asof|2017}}. The template puts the article in a maintenance category (hidden from readers) of articles with statements from 2017 that may need to be updated.
• I'm not sure why you removed the link from Pavel Baudiš, but his name should link to his article on first mention.
• In the first paragraph of "Corporate history", I think it would be better to write "they studied math and computer science" instead of "they were studying math and computer science". In the next two sentences, it's part of our style manual to use full names on first mention, then use last names only (unless there's some ambiguity, such as people with the same last name). See MOS:SURNAME.
• Consider adding links to other articles when you mention concepts or companies with which the reader may not be familiar. Examples in the "Corporate history" section include freemium, Symantec, iYogi, CVC Capital Partners, and AVG Technologies. (I see that you linked to freemium when you discuss it in more detail, but our guideline says to link it on first mention.) In the "Reception" section, you may wish to link to the articles about the publications and sites that have reviewed Avast's products.

Thank you for your careful sourcing, and for inviting comments from other editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Malik Shabazz:! I appreciate you taking the time to review, especially during the holiday season. I was wondering if I could ask you to do the honors of moving the draft into article-space? My understanding is that marketing staff from the article-subject are expected to ask a crowd-sourced editor make the edits for them. Empey at Avast (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Empey at Avast. I wasn't aware of that. I've moved the text. Thank you once again, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. DAB moved. Consensus emerged to just move to the title Avast. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 05:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Avast (software company) → Avast Software – The company is registered as "Avast Software s.r.o." in the Czech Republic (ref) and has been recently also incorporated as "Avast Software, Inc." in the US (ref). A move consensus to from 2015 (in the talk archive) to change the title to Avast (software company) was based on a the company's corporate guideline about how the company and its products should be referred to. The company is referred to as both "Avast" and "Avast Software" (fortune and reuters use both "Avast Software" and "Avast") by the media (WP:COMMON NAME). Using a shortened name with details in brackets, rather than the actual company name is non-standard on Wikipedia: Apple Inc. is not "Apple (company)", SoftBank Group is not "SoftBank (company)", Tesla Inc. is not "Tesla ("insert details" company)" etc. Details in brackets that make the title more complicated are unnecessary when more simple common name is available. Concus Cretus (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Why not just Avast? Looking at it, the software company is much higher profile than Avast! Recording Company, and the nautical WP:DICDEF "Avast" has no article. I'd think this would fulfill WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and allow us to avoid both forms of disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an option that I agree with, even preferable to a move to Avast Software. I believe the basis given by Cuchullain is reasonable. In that case we would talk about:

Avast → Avast (disambiguation) and Avast (software company) → Avast

In either case, no brackets are needed--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Support a move to Avast and moving the dab page to Avast (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Rename : the official company name is Avast Software. --Niridya (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, I support both renaming, Concus Cretus explained it well. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - that's it's full name, and it certainly looks better than Avast (Software Company) Attack Ramon (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Perfect natural disambiguation, so there's a valid case for the move IMO. But I must also express the opinion that most if not all of the above !votes seem to miss the point completely. Less convinced that it's the primary topic, although I'm a long-time AVG user and enthusiast. Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Move Result Discussion

Greetings!

Andrewa has requested I revert this discussion close and undo the move. As this was a complicated move (with multiple renames/retargets), I'd like to offer an informal survey regarding the current title. Should the title remain Avast or should it move to the original proposed target of Avast Software. Pinging Concus Cretus, Cuchullain, Niridya, Attack Ramon, and Jirka.h23 as well to give input on this. Thanks! -- Dane ^talk 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remain: Unlike Apple, which is a major article so Apple Inc. is a natural disambiguation for the tech company, "Avast" as a dictionary term is secondary, so the tech company is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by far "more likely to be sought than all other topics combined"; and as per sources given in the move discussion, it is routinely referred to as "Avast" by publications.--Concus Cretus (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think this was the right call. Nothing on the dab page is as significant as the tech company, and it has the majority of page views. I’d call that a primary topic.—Cúchullain ^t/c 02:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My concern is the close. Consensus emerged to just move to the title Avast. And yet it seems to me the last two !votes that's it's full name, and it certainly looks better than Avast (Software Company) and mine supported the move as initially proposed rather than as later modified by nom. No big deal, but that doesn't look like an emerging consensus for what happened to me. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The statement could have been worded better, but I think it was a reasonable decision. Consensus also takes into account the consensus in the policies and guidelines, which support the move IMO.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No of users

I read somewhere it was 500 million licences they have out. scope_creep (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: According to the Avast Fact Sheet, Avast currently has 435 million users. I haven’t seen 500 million reported anywhere, but you may have seen 400 million, which is commonly reported as a rounded number. Empey at Avast (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Avast Antivirus into Avast. I think that the content in the Avast Antivirus article can easily be explained in the context of Avast, and the Avast article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Avast Antivirus will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Taram (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose The Avast article is quite well-written and my concern is that merging in a pile of product information would make it look like an advert for the company. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)