aquaboy
Apr 30 2005, 11:34
I am looking for a good AV program/software that do NOT hog resources. Have tried Symantec, and Mcafee, but these slowed down my system
I would appreciate some help with this query
TIA guys
Moffett
Apr 30 2005, 12:04
nothon antivirus 2005 in my estimation uses significantly less resources than 2004 and is very protective...
godcha
Apr 30 2005, 12:42
QUOTE(aquaboy @ Apr 30 2005, 13:34)
I am looking for a good AV program/software that do NOT hog resources. Have tried Symantec, and Mcafee, but these slowed down my system
All A|V programs that have realtime scan enabled slows down your system. If you want a file to be virus checked then it must be scanned, yes?
You'll be seeing all kind of posts saying which A|V program is the 'best' and each piece of software will have it's pros and cons however all of them will to some degree slow down your system, if realtime scan is enabled.
All I can say is that I use KAV, realtime scan enabled [using the recommended level setting] and scheduled scan also enabled [using the maximum level setting - 1x p/week]. Again my system notices the realtime scan since it's a wee bit slower than when that feature is turned off. According to my Task Manager KAV uses in total approx. 10MB of my [1GB] memory which is fine with me.
Before KAV I used Symantec's AVCE.
Yeah, I would recommend either KAV or AVG. AVG has a free version, too.
strgalt
Apr 30 2005, 15:31
trend micro pc-cillin
canonassasin
Apr 30 2005, 15:54
Here is an old thread that I found with some good info on AVP's.
http://board.iexbeta.com/index.php?showtop...91&hl=antivirusI use AvgFree and it works fine. But once in a while I scan for viruses online.
Heart_Attack
Apr 30 2005, 19:00
I use AVG. Have been for almost two years and every virus that I have gotten (less than 10) has gotten cleaned or deleted, so I would recomend AVGFree.
PS: I had bad experiences with both Norton AV and Mcaffe AV, so AVG is (in my oppinion) the best bet out there.
Jarhead Jay
Apr 30 2005, 19:50
Ya I use AVG also... good AV program
Quactaur
Apr 30 2005, 21:03
I used to use avg but switched to sav. Avg is good, and there really is no big reason to switch to sav, but i figure i paid for it, why not us it?

You said you tried symantec above, i assume you mean Nav, because symantec antivirus (corporate) is one of the lightest antivirus programs available, and catches most virus'. It also lets you repair more files than avg, which is another reason i switched
Singh400
Apr 30 2005, 22:57
McAfee's Virus Scan Enterprise 7.1.0
Used to be a Norton fanboy, but then I wanted to try something else and after serveral recommendations I chose McAfee's Virus Scan Enterprise 7.1.0 - and haven't looked back since.
BadMofo
May 1 2005, 02:19
I'm a big fan of PC-Cillin.
busman401
May 1 2005, 04:29
Nod32. Nothing else to say.
DarkJedi
May 1 2005, 09:05
symantec corporate antivirus is by far the best antivirus out there, and barely makes a dent in system resources, but then again i do have 2 gigs of ram, so i really don't care about that
dennisbp
May 2 2005, 07:47
I use Eset NOD32 as well. I uninstalled my company-paid NIS 2004 and bought Eset NOD32 instead.
I love that program. I hardly ever notice it.
I use Sygate Firewall Personal Firewall.
master_blaster2000
May 2 2005, 11:31
Try and get your hands on Symantec Antivirus Corporate edition, very light on the resources typically 10-15mb ram and works perfectly.
Avast is in my oppinion the best. it found things that NOD32 didn't.
Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition!
No SAV and NAV - no matter which product from Symantec . . . IT DOES NOT CATCH viruses as was writen above. Lets take virus - Netsky . . . ! Symantec totaly fall on it. I sold many licences - and many angry calls received for it :0( Even AVG free version 7 works better - and slows PC more less. I like KAV v5, but it hangs up in % more then other AV's.
So, I do not want recomend 100% some of AV. But depending on situation - if viruses are totaly eating up system - use AVP (same KAV), if just for ordinary working AVG, NOD32 - the first one is also free version.
Singh400
May 3 2005, 13:51
@alex,

Did you miss the

button? lol
Anyway we all have our favourites, but if you still can't decide the
latest report from virus.gr should help you.
QUOTE(Top 10)
1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28%
2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%
3. F-Secure 2005 version 5.10.450 - 97.55%
4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.518.8 - 96.75%
5. Norton Corporate version 9.0.3.1000 - 91.64%
6. Norton Professional version 2005 - 91.57%
7. McAfee version 9.0.10 - 89.75%
8. Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31%
9. BitDefender version 8.0.137 - 88.13%
10. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 87.87%
aquaboy
May 4 2005, 10:17
thanks guys, I decided on KAV personal pro 5.0.20 I like it, seems to work ok (i have no viruses) and it snot full of bloatware and dose not seem to take all my resources.
thanks all your advices
soldier1st
May 10 2005, 19:46
avast is no good,it takes a good 50-60 ram and pc is slowed a bit,use norton 2003 or 2002,symantec antivirus is very good,haven't used it in along while.
Microshit
May 10 2005, 20:14
Trend Micro does the job just fine.. or in my current case, NAV Mac 10.o Beta 2
Dutch2005
May 13 2005, 09:18
is that test updated yet?? cuz i now run sav 10 win64 wanted to see if ir went any better??....
zxybgsyxz
May 14 2005, 19:12
QUOTE(soldier1st @ May 10 2005, 15:46)
avast is no good,it takes a good 50-60 ram and pc is slowed a bit,use norton 2003 or 2002,symantec antivirus is very good,haven't used it in along while.
It's a shame that you say that, proving you don't do any research before you post. It had the best results of any AV program I tested against a zipfile full of viruses. It detected every single virus in that zipfile, while the big name AV programs missed a few. I believe it was in the high 400s.
tint_professor
May 15 2005, 08:29
Symantec AV Corporate+Norton Internet Security+ Microsoft Antispyware, been using that for a while and not a single virus or spyware.
zxybgsyxz
May 18 2005, 01:38
QUOTE(tint_professor @ May 15 2005, 04:29)
Symantec AV Corporate+Norton Internet Security+ Microsoft Antispyware, been using that for a while and not a single virus or spyware.
Wow, you guys seriously use far too much. I use Windows Firewall and the occasional (once a month maybe) run of Ad Aware.
stealth
May 18 2005, 01:43
QUOTE(zxybgsyxz @ May 17 2005, 20:38)
QUOTE(tint_professor @ May 15 2005, 04:29)
Symantec AV Corporate+Norton Internet Security+ Microsoft Antispyware, been using that for a while and not a single virus or spyware.
Wow, you guys seriously use far too much. I use Windows Firewall and the occasional (once a month maybe) run of Ad Aware.

same
tint_professor
May 18 2005, 11:43
QUOTE(stealth @ May 18 2005, 12:43)
QUOTE(zxybgsyxz @ May 17 2005, 20:38)
QUOTE(tint_professor @ May 15 2005, 04:29)
Symantec AV Corporate+Norton Internet Security+ Microsoft Antispyware, been using that for a while and not a single virus or spyware.
Wow, you guys seriously use far too much. I use Windows Firewall and the occasional (once a month maybe) run of Ad Aware.

same
well security is very important for me, because I hate it when I have to spend hours getting rid of spyware and viruses that refuse to die.
zxybgsyxz - If I understod wright - talking was about memory load, not about how many viruses it katches...
QUOTE(master_blaster2000 @ May 2 2005, 06:31)
Try and get your hands on Symantec Antivirus Corporate edition, very light on the resources typically 10-15mb ram and works perfectly.
the corp 10 uses much more system resources, and about to leave nortan. thinking of going to avast, uses 15megs of ram, has great active forums, good information about virus, and 1st in alot of rankings, and it works on my xp x64 edition, about to find out if it runs in 64bit mode, havent gotten it yet but I'll let you know if it works well
OracleDBA
May 19 2005, 19:45
There seems to be great interest in how much ram an antivirus product uses. I'm sure there's a reason for this benchmak but it eludes me. For me the performance issue or test is the perceived (and/or measured) notion that the AV's presence is dragging you slow.
For what its worth I have Kasersky workstation edition (v5.0.200).
I have watched the "processes" tab found in task manager, the product will float between 9 and 25 meg with most times being apx 12M.
By enlarge I do NOT notice the products presence. The notable exception is when retriving e-mail (outlook express) I perceive (and can measure) a second(s) delay.
I accept the above because I appreciate the product throughness, including awesome diligence in keeping its AV signature files current. The company publishes updates almost hourly and the product automatically looks for and installs these updates every 3 hours.
I own 6 licenses of them all purchased from the american reseller www.ice-kav.com
Their support forum has lots of activity and answered all my questions in a timely manner. I did have use the american phone support for them once, they called back within the hour and worked with me over the phone until the issue was resolved. I will certainly renew when the time comes.
Quactaur
May 24 2005, 15:53
The ram usage is quite significant on some applications, kasersky uses up the normal level, but some a/v apps use over 25mb, which is ridiculous when you are using editing programs/games that demand masses of ram. In addition, these ram hungry antivirus applications tend to be slow in their interfaces too (thinking of norton antivirus2005, and an old build of pccillin), which seems to hint at them being poorly optimized, rather than being more "busy"
aron7awol
May 29 2005, 23:10
I use TrendMicro and their online scan is useful in some cases as well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.