Is there an antivirus that does not slow you down?

I wonder if anyone discovered an antivirus program, in this planet, that does not affect the speed of your system. Is there such a thing?

I used Norton, Mcafee, BitDefender and other less known progs.
They all slow down the computer.
BitDefenderwas the least of them, but recently their automatic updating are causing lot of trouble, due to incomplete download of updates, due to 'bandwidth overload' - they say.

All I need is a tiny liitle program that does a bare-bone job with no wistles or extras that clog and slow things down.

Any recommendations?

 

I use Norton Internet Security ( AV & Firewall running full time ) and don't see much slowdown.

Maybe I just am not looking either.

Slowdown may also be due to the settings of the AV software and maybe even what is running in the background along with AV software.

I do see a slowdown in E-Mail. But I am willing to accept that for the protection.

In order to protect our systems the best we can I think we must be willing to accept a little slowdown. If a little slower operation results in keeping just one Virus, Trojan or some HACKER off of the machine I will go for it with no questions asked.

BillyBob

 

F-Prot for DOS. But it isn't on-access!

 

Same here as well.

 

"use Norton Internet Security ( AV & Firewall running full time ) and don't see much slowdown "

Likewise and me either. And what little there is I can easily tolerate.

 

Norton and Macafee are the worst. They are too bulky, too fat, they exaust your system resources, and they cause unexpected errors in the system all the time. I've learned that, the hard way, over the years. I hope I never go back to them again. An AV should serve your computer, not otherwise. That's why I keep experimenting with other, less known programs, looking for a better, smooth and robust solution

BitDefender is much better than Norton and Macafee. But recently their updating service ******* things up, because they need a higher bandwidth. Unfortunately, their live update does not have a tool to ignore incomplete update downloads!

I've installed QuickHeal v6.07 recently. So far it looks great, and I noticed no system slowing down with it. Their auto-update service is neat too. And their e-mail support is friendly and responds promptly, which is very important. Anyone tried it before?

 

sallam

If you were using an older version of Norton System Works and allowed it to install using the default settings then I will 100% agree with you. It would not only slow up but at time would actually CRASH the machine. Especially if Norton Crash Creator ( oops, I mean Crash Gaurd ) which caused more problems than it prevented was installed.

I am told that the newer NSW is much better.

Many systems will not handle Norton when installed using the defaults. I can vouch for that. Especially Norton Utilities. Gotta be carefull there as it and Windows will fight like the proverbial cat & dog. In fact I have pretty much quit using NU. Gotta use one or the other not both Win & NU. If you try to use both you can look for ( and get ) problems.

But, the same as ANY software, Norton is not suitable for all systems or users. But I see that as a system or personal problem and not the software.

McAfee is a different story altogether.

BillyBob

 

Mcafee gave me the troubles I had with Norton, times 10!
I pety anyone who still use any of these 2 terrible products that left many mesirable users!

Now back to QuickHeal, I have made a check with system resource meter, which made me very impressed. It occupies only 3% of system resources for its on-access engin to work in the background. And only 2% while doing a system scan! (opening just a single IE browser window to display a simple google.com home page occupies a massive 5%)
This program is Indian, I guess they are pretty smart programmers out there!
I'll let you know more as I uncover more of this little smart AV (9.65mb)

 

An Independent opinion. I don't know anything about these people but apparently they have been testing AV softwares for quite some time.

 

Or maybe not! Here's some test results:

It would, therefore, appear that whilst resource usage is indeed good, detection rates are appalling.

I should point out that this comparative is ~ 12 months old and that the product may since have improved. That said, it also failed the most recent Virus Bulletin test.

 

Zephyr wrote:

They're a reliable bunch and the VB tests are certainly viewed as reliable within the industry.

 

Good grief - the XP results from June 2002 were so littered with FAIL notices the page looked positively bloody. Not only Quickheal but also AVG, Trend Micro PC-cillin, Panda and a few of other biggies.

And BTW - NAV passed and hasn't failed one of these tests since an NT failure in 1999.

 

Well....it would seem that the better AV software may use more resources. Since it's doing more work wouldn't you expect that? No surprise there.

Lookin' for a low resource impact AV is kinda' like looking for a car that gets the best gas mileage. There are trade offs involved. If you are driving it and hit a larger vehicle, you will likely suffer the most damage. If you use one of the "lite" version AV'S, you'll be open to damage also.

 

brett, thats an interesting test. Where is it published?

 

And then still we wonder...

Copied from http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=49466#post49466 which is a very recent thread.

Who/what can we trust?

 

Zephyr - Maybe NAV was configured in such a way as to exclude the "restore files" from scanning? I can think of no other explanation.

Newt - The VB test results are interesting from a "trend" perspective, but, due to the limited information VB make available regarding the actual testing process, viewing the results of a single month is not particularly informative. Developers weight the importance of various features differently and, therefore, products perform differently. For example, whilst some developers design their product to effectively scan within files compressed in almost any format, others feel that, as a virus is harmless whilst compressed, it’s only important to ensure detection during extraction and do not, therefore, implement such a feature. Accordingly, the fact that a product may have "failed" a test due to the non-detection compressed malware does not necessarily indicate that it is a bad product.

Sallam - I can’t remember. A newsletter, I think. Or maybe they were posted to a newsgroup

 

see
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2895333,00.html
Why I dumped Norton Antivirus for McAfee VirusScan
Robert Vamosi,
Senior Associate Editor,
CNET/ZDNet Reviews
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
for another view

 

Quicker Anti-virus

Been using Sophos Anti-Virus for a few months now, both in corp env & @home; very effective 'scan and remember' method; try here: Sophos Website

 

RE. Article that pbyk points to

Why I stick with Norton and opposing views.

#1--I have not paid for Deffinition or software updates for several years. I am good right now till 10/22/03 for Norton Internet Security.

#2-- How about only $39.95 for an upgrade to 2003 NIS Which I am running right now.

#3-- True. NAV is only the Anti-Virus software. Personl Firewall is the Firewall. NIS is both but still Separate. Other stuff does not need to be installed if not wanted. The Firewall only can be installed if desired. But I like to install them both as that keeps them both syncronized better.

#4--I much prefer to have the AV and Firewall Separate. A good many times when they are combined one Skrews up they both do.

#5--As to resource usage. Big deal. I see no problem.

#6-- System preformace hit. I say that is nonsense.

#7--Phone tech support I will not comment on as I have never had to use it.

#8--If just one Virus was to get to my machine it would surely cost me more in time and aggravation than the cost of a good AV/Firewall Software. No matter whose product I used.

#9-- I believe from what I have read and heard most of the problems with Norton stem from using Norton System Works and allowing it to install using the default setup.

#10-- Or installing a new version without removing the old first. Especiall if the first install goes bad. At which time both Norton and McAfee can be a REAL BIG PAIN IN THE Backside to get rid of. Neither one is nice in that respect. Both require considerable manuall regediting.

#11--No matter what product we refer to some like and some don't. And we have to use the product that work best for us and suits our personal preferences.

BillyBob

 

I use eTrust EZ Antivirus from California Associates. I originally went to it because McAfee was using up system resources so badly that I couldn't even play MP3s while it was running. Windows 98 was also crashing with a lot of invalid page faults (like 2 - 8 a day!) until I replaced McAfee.

http://www2.my-etrust.com/products/...=46ea8c9-000354c7-cc0e-1d59-ae5d-2f0eac14303f