Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 88
  1. #31
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,229

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by SkaarjMaster
    Just ran Panda scanner today at work and it took forever and never completed. I had to continue working, so I stopped it. Why does it take so long?
    Generally, full scans are best performed overnight when the computer isn't being used as they'll thrash your disk scanning every file and soak up most of your CPU time making it very slow to use the computer during a full scan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soundforbjt
    I tried F-Secure on my system (fresh OS install) and had nothing but problems. It was a memory hog and slowed my internet to a crawl.
    Many of the new fully featured suites are the same. As they introdue more and more functionality to protect you the apps get bigger and bigger, and can bring even the fastest of systems to it's knees.

    Norton, Mcafee, F-Secure etc, I've seen them all do it on various machines. It's a problem for sure.

    One solution is to disable the parts you don't need, like firewall (if you have a hardware firewall - recommended), parental control features (if you don't have kids), etc.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    49
    Posts
    205

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    One nice antivirus program I've come across that is not bloated is ClamWin AV @ www.clamwin.com

    ...there's a linux version of it which is where it started, but it's nice to see a Windows port.....

  3. #33
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the world, But they sell pictures of it
    Posts
    6,430

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    I use Avast. While not rated highly in the above test, in conjunction with The Bat! email program and hardware firewall I use, The only way I can get a virus is if it's my own fault.
    The Heat 99-0-0

    Trading Post Rules

    Sound Familiar? "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."



  4. #34
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,229

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Some AV packages that I have heard (although not tested) that are supposed to be lighter on system rsources include NOD32, Dr Web, avast, F-Prot. The latest Kaspersky (version 6), currently in beta testing, is supposed to be improved too.

    I must admit, having used F-Secure myself for about 6-7 years, I've been disappointed at how bloated it's become in more recent releases in terms of the number and size of components sat in memory.

    Ned

  5. #35
    Joined
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    49
    Posts
    205

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Soundforbjt
    I use Avast. While not rated highly in the above test, in conjunction with The Bat! email program and hardware firewall I use, The only way I can get a virus is if it's my own fault.
    I use almost the exact same set-up....I used Avast up until I beta tested for Trend Micro and got a free 1 year license for PCCillin's latest AV/Security suite. It's not too bloated, but it sure catches most things....and along with "The Bat!", I feel pretty secure. I have ClanWin installed but only as a secondary scanner (i.e. not running constantly)....and am currently testing out a trial of AVK Antivirus (english version)....so far, so good.....

  6. #36
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Hi folks. This is my first post here, but I'm pretty well known on some other forums. I was linked into this thread because I had posted a similar thread on MURC (Matrox Users Resource Center).

    I have two topics to discuss. My reaction to Wai Wai's testing, and my own conclusions and recommendations. Bear in mind that I have actually run, for an extended period of time, each of the scanners I talk about. Y'know, on my OWN machine. That I play games on and do work on and surf the web with. I haven't got fancy charts, but I've used all of these programs recently, so this is ALL from personal experience.

    This Thread:

    There are multiple problems with this thread. First, Wai Wai admits that his charts and test results are 1-2 YEARS old. YEARS. Antivirus companies update their definitions DAILY, their engines WEEKLY, and release a new major revision every year, if not more often.

    Secondly, it is foolish in the extreme to focus only on how many viruses a program can catch. While it is of course very important, one has to consider other things. For example, Wai Wai rates McAfee as the best because it catches 100% of viruses. However, McAfee 7.x (which is what he would have been looking at using last year's charts) had several well-known issues whereby it could corrupt your WinXP/NTFS partitions and/or system files. OUCH! McAfee took great pains to correct this issue, but it was present in 7.0, 7.01, and 7.03 at least. McAfee 2005 fixes it, but has its own problems.

    Another area which MUST be considered is bloat. Norton and McAfee install hundreds of megabytes of garbage onto your system. They have gigantic disgusting web interfaces which run slowly and poorly. McAfee 2005 does, in fact, catch almost everything under the sun - AND it blocks some spyware which is important. It's great, right? Wrong. It sets a dozen processes running on your machine at any given time, and just getting the semi-weekly virus definition updates takes a major act of congress. It's also not consistent. Sometimes the definitions get downloaded in the background. Sometimes they fire off Internet Explorer - and if your default browser is NOT Internet Explorer, you often can't get the updates at all! This is extremely bad.

    A third area to consider is performance. An AV program's resident shield should be nearly invisible to the operation of the machine. It should NOT cause your machine to respond poorly. Sadly, the major companies which make AV programs often do not consider this. Norton and McAfee use up OBSCENE amounts of system resources, and their active scanners make disc accesses CRAWL. McAfee 7.x was very fast but of course it had the aforementioned "destroying your system" bugs. Ick.

    Last but not least, I would challenge many of the assertions made in this article. Many of them can be chalked up to using outdated tests as source material. For example, saying that Kaspersky catches almost everything but AVG doesn't... is just absurd. Kaspersky hasn't caught everything in... well... a long time.

    ---------------------------------------

    My Results and Recommendations:

    McAfee:
    Virus Scanning: 10/10
    Functionality: 5/10
    Weight: 5/10
    Overall: 20/30 = 66% = D

    McAfee finds everything, removes everything, but runs like a dog. Not as slow as Norton, but not fast either. Interface needs work - looks pretty but the backend is convoluted and bizarre web-based.

    Norton:
    Virus Scanning: 9/10
    Functionality: 6/10
    Weight: 4/10
    Overall: 19/30 = 65% = D

    Norton is a dog. Runs like molasses, makes your machine run like molasses. Still gets many/most of the viruses, but it has just gotten bulkier and bulkier since 2001. No slimdown in sight.

    Kaspersky:
    Virus Scanning: 7/10
    Functionality: 5/10
    Weight: 7/10
    Overall: 19/30 = 65% = D

    Kaspersky used to be the "best of the best" from Russia. It was weird, but that was ok because it was GREAT. Nowadays? It catches... y'know, most stuff. It cleans... y'know, most stuff. Its interface... is still weird. Weird is ok if you're the best. If you're just "y'know, ok" then weird is very bad. At least it isn't bulky.

    AVG Pro:
    Virus Scanning: 9/10
    Functionality: 7/10
    Weight: 8/10
    Overall: 24/30 = 80% = B

    AVG 6 was, last year, the BEST of the best. Last year I gave it a 9, 10, 10. This year, though... well viruses have gotten trickier, so you can't blame Grisoft. But AVG 7 is no longer the lean, mean speed demon AVG 6 was. In AVG 6 you could set it scanning, and then go play a game! Its footprint was VERY light. You didn't even know it was there except that all your e-mail had a "scanned by AVG" tag at the bottom. AVG 7, sadly, is heavier. Not BAD, better than the rest, but still heavier. Also, its interface has been revamped - and made more weird. When you scan for viruses, they aren't removed during the scan. Removing a virus after a scan involves running the command center, clicking "reports", then picking the report for the scan you wanted. Then scrolling down until you find the virus, then right-clicking it and picking to clean it. That's too many clicks for the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF A VIRUS SCANNER.

    Also of note is that AVG is available in a FREE version if you don't mind that the update server might be busy sometimes, or that you get limited scheduling capabilities.

    ---------------------------------

    So my top pick is AVG. Note that NONE of these scanners achieved an A grade. In fact, only AVG received more than a D! Perhaps a weighted scale would be better, with detection and removal ability rated higher.

    Note that I haven't PERSONALLY TESTED any other scanners. I'd love to, but I'm poor. Anyone that has a scanner they'd like me to beat up a little may feel free to PM me or add to this post. I'll be happy to run it.

  7. #37
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,229

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Hi Gurm,

    Welcome to PC Perspective

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurm
    Last but not least, I would challenge many of the assertions made in this article. Many of them can be chalked up to using outdated tests as source material. For example, saying that Kaspersky catches almost everything but AVG doesn't... is just absurd. Kaspersky hasn't caught everything in... well... a long time.
    I guess this is a subjective area that's bound to cause debate. However, I'd have to disagree with you regarding kaspersky (just my personal opinion). In my own personal experience, I've found, and still find, kaspersky to be a class leader in terms of detection. However, my experience is limited as I certainly don't encouter many 1000's of different viruses on a regular basis nor do I suspect any normal user does. Therefore, I feel we must also be guided by reputable virus review and testing sites that have access to many 1000's of virus samples to test against, and kaspersky always comes out top or very close to top on it's detection rates compared to other products (see AV-Comparatives for example). Obviously, as you correctly point out, detection rates is only part of the picture, but it is an important part that can be quantifiably measured unlike some of the other issues you raise.

    Unless you have a testbank of many thousands of viruses I don't believe it's possible to accurately judge the detection rates of viruses for a given product as it's far too easy easy to obtain skewed results with a small subset - all AV programs will miss some.

    I will agree with you that McAfee is also an excellent product in terms of detection rates and I agree with much of what you say about usability, bloat and resource usage etc.

    I think what's important is that by having such discussions, other readers/users are made aware of the issues and can hopefully make a more informed decision regarding the selection of their AV software rather than just buying Product X because that's all they'd previously heard of

    Ned

  8. #38
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    209

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Great topic. Not sure how to take the claims, except for the excellent manner Wai Wai prefaced the entire thread. For me, I'll have to look into all this more. I don't like N I S but I've been using it because I'm familiar with how it works. It seriously pissed me off right after sp2 when it totally disregarded how I told it to act. Even that didn't get me to look elsewhere `cause... ya know... I like my comfort zone. Change usually isn't welcome here.
    I'm going to give my a v a pop-quiz right after I submit this.

  9. #39
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Long Island N.Y.
    Posts
    1,423

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    I guess this is a subjective area that's bound to cause debate. However, I'd have to disagree with you regarding kaspersky (just my personal opinion). In my own personal experience, I've found, and still find, kaspersky to be a class leader in terms of detection.
    I agree 100% with you ned regarding choice of anti virus programs.There are strong and weaker points with all of them,
    but after using many and testing,i have come to like and use Kaspersky.
    This is not fodder for a who's best war,just my findings.

    Teerex20
    Teerex20:Heatware

  10. #40
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    For those of you using the latest Kaspersky - how is its active scanner in terms of bloat and system slowdown?

    And for everyone - I welcome personal experiences on this matter, I am always willing to try something new if someone else has had a very positive experience with it.

  11. #41
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Charlotte
    Posts
    209

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Well I just tried the Kaspersky online scan and it took 50 minutes!! I didn't turn off N I S that could have had something to do with it. NAVAPSVC was at 1500k, CCAPP was at about 25000K mem usage. CPU was at 98%. KAVSS was at 11500K memory usage. I've only got about 10G on C right now too. I tried that zip file test, Norton took care of it quickly.
    Last edited by johnjv; 06-07-2005 at 09:38 PM.

  12. #42
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,229

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Gurm
    For those of you using the latest Kaspersky - how is its active scanner in terms of bloat and system slowdown?
    I currently have Kaspersky 5 Personal running on one box and it's not too bad - It's better than mcafee and norton IMHO but I do find this varies from box to box. I've also used F-Secure (based on kaspersky engine) and find that a litle more bloated than kaspersky 5 personal. It also depends how many of the features you activate or turn off for any given product. Not everyone may want parental control or a firewall for example, that are included in some appliaction suites. Again, some may not want or need e-mail scanning if their e-mail server does this too.

    It's a little difficult for me to be too subjective about bloat and speed as my test machine is fast. I find you get a far better feel for these things on a slightly older slower machine where some AV packages will bring such machines to their knees.

    Ned

  13. #43
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    14,223

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Slider
    I currently have Kaspersky 5 Personal running on one box and it's not too bad - It's better than mcafee and norton IMHO but I do find this varies from box to box.
    Just a heads up - there are two versions of Kaspersky AV. Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal and Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Pro. The Personal Pro version is the one which is responsible for all of Kaspersky's positive feedback and is supposedly more effective than the Personal version according to a bunch of studies that I've seen. I don't know how old those studies are. I saw them earlier this year...

    Just another note, it's impossible to objectively decide which AV scanner is better at catching viruses than another without having a sizeable collection (thousands, more likely tens of thousands) of viruses covering various types for each scanner to have a go at. I'd like to know how many viruses were used in these tests. Of course on top of that, other considerations include the amount of resources the thing uses and the user-friendliness of the UI. From the choices we have now, there's not really much option but to hit and hope. As long as we're all happy with what we're running, eh?

  14. #44
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,229

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Personal and Personal Pro use identical virus definitions so detection rates between the two will be identical. The differences are in the features provided and the amount of customization available through the user interface. The Pro version allows more control of settings etc. The Pro version is also almost twice the price.

    Personally, I find the non-Pro version does everything I need. For anyone unsure, they offer a 1 month trial so prospective buyers may trial each version before deciding

    Ned

  15. #45
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    206

    Re: My Anti-virus Program Comparison Analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by Susquehannock
    Awesome thread here Wai Wai. Many will benefit from it I'm sure.

    Have you ever used Panda Scan? On two occasions it was able to find malicious
    entries that Norton, AVG, and Trend Micro did not. Free Panda doesn't
    delete them, but it does give you the locations so you can seach with RegEdit
    and do it manually.

    Seems I read recently that some estimates say many as 40% of all the personal
    computers on the net are infected and don't even know it. Scary stuff!
    Good to hear that Panda can catch malware on 2 occassions.
    But did you check whether they are false positives or not at that time?

    As to anti-virus protection of Panda, I post this result as a starter (don't treat the result absolutely):

    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%
    11. Panda Platinum 2005 version 9.01.02 - 87.75%
    12. Arcavir - 87.73%
    13. MKS_VIR 2005 - 87.70%
    14. RAV version 8.6.105 - 87.26%
    15. F-Prot version 3.16b - 87.07%
    16. Panda Titanium version 4.01.02 - 86.27%
    17. PC-Cillin 2005 version 12.1.1034 - 85.98%
    18. Nod32 version 2.12.4 - 85.66%
    19. Command version 4.92.7 - 84.92%
    20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50%
    21. Avast version 4.6.623 - 79.65%
    22. Dr. Web version 4.32b - 78.71%
    23. Sophos Sweep version 3.91 - 73.79%
    24. UNA version 1.83 - 73.49%
    25. BullGuard version 4.5 - 70.24%
    26. Norman version 5.80.05 - 65.32%
    27. Ikarus version 5.16 - 60.97%
    28. AVG version 7.0.308 - 54.07%
    29. E-Trust version 7.0.5.3 - 52.35%
    30. ZoneAlarm with VET Antivirus version 5.5.062.011 - 52.32%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •