Simple and, as far as I can tell, effective. Does its job without considering you (the user) as a threat.
It doesnt provide realtime protection,
I use ClamWin on XP and W7 boxes as alternative to Malwarebytes free version and ad hoc use of online scanners like virustotal D0T com I find the (presumably shared?) virus database used by ClamWin still gives far, far too many false positives for it to be reliably used as sole or main scanner. Also scanning is very slow compared to the likes of malwarebytes free. That said, the ClamWin front end itself seems to be stable and to operate trouble-free (v.0.98.6). Also I like the absence of (i) a live / memory resident component and (ii) the overly intrusive o/s integration favoured by the big Windows personal antivrus programs which in my experience exhibit too much virus-like behaviour themselves, such as making the machine run as fast as treacle and screwing with the IP/TCP stack irreparably (so I have had to devise a shim which can only fix till next reboot). I would suggest that ClamWin consider reviewing with the underlying virus database maintainers a model under which virus signature updates after say, the first 28 days of program installation are permitted only to subscribers in good standing for an annual fee. Such fee should be nominal only e.g. U S D 10.00 per annum for an individual irrespective of number of installed copies (and some similarly low amount for commercial users) and not more than that cost, otherwise the commercial attractiveness and ethos might be lost. But a very low fee such as this magnified by the extensive user base should enable sufficient resources to be allocated to refining the signature database to eliminate nearly all false positives while at the same time keeping it current. As for ClamWin itself, imo work needs to focus on speeding up the scanning process. (Whether this is in part a function of the signature database - don't know). NOTE TO SOURCEFORGE: optional "Tell Us More" section of review template appears to demand all categories be given a value instead of selectively. This despite the 'Support' not being able to be given a value in this case since never used.