Antivirus program with low RAM and CPU usage?

[ltwally]

Unfortunately, most businesses don't want to spend lots of money buying extra horsepower. They purchase the minimum amount that they can get by with. The same goes for lots of home users and college kids.

Whether or not you agree with that buying strategy does not negate this essential fact.

Game designers do not have to work with this constrant in mind, as their target audience will likely have the required hardware or be willing to upgrade.

For most of the rest of the software world, it is another case altogether. Innefficient and bloated antivirus can bring a machine that would be otherwise sufficient to its task to a halt.

Certainly one solution is to purchase a more powerful system. The other solution is to find antivirus solutions that do their job, and do them well, without grinding the machine to a halt.

Fully transparent AV might not exist, but there are shades of grey between the two. That is my entire point.

Products like Norton and McAffee are slow and bloated, and there is simply no excuse for that.

 

[Ojaser6]

Well, I don't bother to go BUY an AV. I usually just go out and look for trials, or free AVs like Avira AntiVir Free Edition or AVG Free Edition. Are there any other good free AVs that don't expire?

 

[ltwally]

Well, I don't bother to go BUY an AV. I usually just go out and look for trials, or free AVs like Avira AntiVir Free Edition or AVG Free Edition. Are there any other good free AVs that don't expire?

As is the case with most things in life: you get what you pay for.

So... No, not really. For the money, the freebies are quite nice. But they do not compete with a good commercial product.

 

[dk70]

There are also a big difference between a suite and an AV/Antispyware program, like Avast. Norton also make a lightweight version of their deluxe suite - or a regular AV. Same does Bitdefender, they all do dont they? Not everyone need all the gadgets, even goes for AV - some throw all kind of stuff in there to stand out. This is about simple solution and then I dont think it matters which. 2 cant a like but there wont be a world of difference. Probably more important to get one that is flexible with options. Which AV is so evil that "computer" come to a halt just by being installed? I like to test.

Ive been lurking around Avast forum for some years, cant count the times Norton users have come for rescue - often from some old bundle stuff they are being nagged to renew. Some will for good reason never learn to love Norton but it is 2009 and they have improved.

My sister use Avast on an old computer, 1 core Barton 2500, 512mb and XP. Does not speed things up but does not bother her either. In fact I doubt she know it is even running Simple computers mostly do simple tasks I guess. Avast is not a sprinter, why they are working on new version this year. If we forget about Antispyware (rely on WD) I would put some money on Avira Personal Ed. to be the lightest. Shades of grey on a high enough level There were other reasons why I installed Avast on that computer.

Problem could be that slower machines are not treated as slow but instead considered fast and so get bloated, like not using right OS to begin with!, like a gazillion user generated processes - and then comes AV and kill the fun? Im skeptical, may be more towards users than AV products in general.

Only slowdown Ive ever noticed with resident part of an AV is using Kaspersky, current version. There is like a 1 second delay starting any program up, might be issue no. 988332 for Kaspersky but I never god rid of it even with heavy tweaking.

None of the free AVs expire and they are easily enough for majority. You have to register Avast each 14 months or so but take 1 minute. Nag-screes from Avira, AVG can be "fixed". Focus on what they do and seek supplement for what they dont cover. Free Avira dont scan for malware for example, so dont disable WD just yet. Acutally I would not in any case. Just installing and thinking well that was it, why pay??? can be potentially risky. With correct setup you have very good protection. Correct setup includes much more than AV - like evaluating level of awareness, who uses computer and for what? etc. AV is just a tool in the big picture. I still dont know why I bought Kaspersky or Avira if I ask the big question, What do I actual need?

Microsoft will spit out new free AV program this year - so may be hold on to your wallet until then. I think they will get a huge marketshare within months.

 

[dk70]

So now I tried Mcafee and that is ugly and terrible. Their "lightest" product is a suite? Many services/processes, bad vibes from start to finish.

Try a real AV - like Norton Antivirus 2009 or even better the gaming AV "Protection for up to 3 PCs per household" and I think free upgrade to 2010 version. Not too bad for 40$ - but I would not suggest anyone to pay up for AV unless they have good reason to.

 

[ltwally]

I'm honestly not trying to start a flame war, here, but I stridently disagree with dk70 about Norton.

It may be better than the 2008 version, but it's still a steaming pile of **** compared to other antivirus products.

I help many small businesses with their IT needs. And I see problems with Norton, even Norton 2009 & the new versions of 360, far too often. In my professional opinion, it's a poor product and knowledgable IT folks stay away from it.

It also has one of the worst uninstallers around, frequently leaving parts of itself laying around afterwards. Ain't that cute.

 

[dk70]

Why not try it and explain why it is so bad you have to be ignorant to like it? Should be easy enough to show. I cant see much wrong with AV2009. I know there are problems with any AV, just check out forums or Google but this is on a higher level I take it.

Think you should be glad the millions getting Norton bundled now get much better product than earlier versions and have chance to upgrade without getting more of the same. That alone is reason enough to be happy for improvements.

May be cool it with the "less knowledgeable"? Not an argument for anything. Most who make such statements have their own little kingdom and dont want to be disturbed, I could be wrong of course - just how it seems. Ive seen many professional IT people not being able to figure out the most obvious, often because they dont want to since whatever clashes with what they are used to or have preached for ages. Sometimes they are completely wrong. Titles or your experience means nothing - now why is Norton 2009 so much worse? I dont want to put on approved list for false reasons.

 

[ltwally]

I never said you were ignorant.

But I will say that I work in IT for a living. It isn't a hobby, and I'm not just another home user. That doesn't make me an expert in all things IT, by any stretch... but I do end up helping clients with their virus/antivirus problems on a regular basis. It comes with the territory.

And I see Norton as a regular problem, both in its inability to catch nasties and in the way it drags down systems.

I'm not saying your viewpoint and experiences are invalidated by my own. I'm merely giving a little info on where I'm coming from and why I think Norton is pooey.

I do not seek to offend anyone other than Symantec.

 

[dk70]

Your customers are going to get it anyway so dig in. I have never paid money to Symantec so have no problems not caring of the past but get over it. Brand loyalty or the opposite is mostly stupid but all have some of it. The reason I probably will never buy Intel cpu is based on how cpu market was years ago - dont make sense but how it is. Not a reason to thrash Intel today though.

Im not surprised people have "problems" with Norton. Or any AV because their funtion is often misunderstood. Could say Windows/computers in general... Does not tell much of a story other than some make money fixing problems Norton almost have a Windows like position, "market leaders" by far, Mcafee 2nd?, so of course you see many broken computers with Norton installed. No excuse for real problems but it give some logic to Nortons bad name.

Their uninstaller have also improved. You dont have to use Removal tool any more so test away.

 

[ltwally]

Ok. So... let's review:

*Problem: Norton is slow. Your Resolution: Everyone should just buy faster machines.
*Problem: It doesn't catch nasties as well as the competition. Your Resolution: So what since you'd catch them anyways.
*Problem: Customers complain about it, but are very happy with Bitdefender and Trend... Your Reasoning: That's only because of Norton's market-share.


Look.. if you're happy with Norton: fine.

But I haven't heard you profer an actual counter to any of my (and my clients') observations.

So, baring any actual discourse, I'm going to drop this. 'Cause I simply have no interest in a flame-war.

 

[dk70]

I have explained why invisible "customers" dont matter. Im interested in you testing Norton AV2009, like to hear your facts. How is that asking for a flame-war?

 

[stormy13]

Seeing as no one commented on this,

Where can I buy foolproof safety which let me do what I want?

if running Windows there is no such thing. You want foolproof either don't connect to the internet, or install the Linux flavor of your choice (and even it isn't 100%).

 

[dk70]

That was sort of my point by asking that question but may be not clear. Some think that because they use "the best" AV available they are safe, as in being allowed free access and use of cracks/warez etc. Or become click-happy and not making an effort in understanding threats. Why I dont like babysitting "suites", "security packages", think they remove responsibility from where it is really is - between chair and keyboard.

Dont know why it should not be impossible to run Windows for years without getting infected. Mostly a matter of keeping stuff updated, not just legal Windows also 3rd party programs/plugins, and not seek sources where infections come from. Not like they are unknown or fall from the sky. This should be stating the obvious but not so and why conditions for infections remain in good shape.

I just read MS claims only 1/3 of all Windows machines are updated with a security fix out for IE released October last year. The one fixing Downadup/conficker something worm Conficker computer worm infections soar - Wikinews, the free news source Seems to me there is always good reason for problems. Is this not typical for every attack hitting headlines? Whatever base spreading on failure somewhere along the chain. In this case lazy SysAdmins apparently, so what to expect from regular users? Anyway, if problem could have been avoided by proper maintenance infection is not inevitable.

 

[Tstright]

Dont know why it should not be impossible to run Windows for years without getting infected.

I do just that and I use AVG.

I just read MS claims only 1/3 of all Windows machines still are not updated with a security fix out for IE released October last year.

Maybe the other 2/3 use Firefox.

 

[dk70]

You just proved good AV is not a must

Firefox can do many things but closing security holes in Windows is not one of them. That 2/3 share of all Windows owners should be slapped silly.