Author | Topic |
I Supported Toymods
Location: Sydney
Registered: December 2002
|
Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 10:58
|
|
Hey guys looking for a replacement to the bloated Norton Antivirus which comes in the Systemworks 2k5 package... could anyone who has an alternate antivirus solution post up the memory usage of all modules of the av software.
i.e. the total memory usage of the all (normally running) processes of the av software. (e.g. auto scan, auto updater, trojan scan, mail scan, bubbles scan etc.)
I'm currently looking at the following:
Kaspersky Personal Pro 5
McAfee VirusScan 10
Trend PC-Cillin
|
|
|
Location: Land of Oz
Registered: June 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 11:02
|
|
Hi,
You should add AVG antivirus to your list. I tossed out Semantec yonks ago and now run AVG. It's kept the PC clean and it's free.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location: Sydney
Registered: December 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 11:18
|
|
Whats the memory usage like river?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods Banned User
Location: Brisbane
Registered: May 2002
|
|
|
Location: Land of Oz
Registered: June 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 11:47
|
|
Hi,
avgupsvc.exe - 2,996k
avgamsvr.exe - 6,948k
avgemc.exe - 17,208k
avgcc.exe - 9,580k
Dunno if that's big compared to others AV software or not. However, my machine runs happier and quicker with AVG than it did with Semantec.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location: Sydney
Registered: December 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 12:10
|
|
I just installed Kaspersky AV Pro trial and it is currently doing a scan of my whole hdd and this is the memory usage:
kav.exe - 3272kb
kavsvc.exe - 18,692kb
pretty good I reckon... especially considering it is currently doing a full system scan!
My memory usage at the moment is the lowest it has ever been, however, this isn't all because of the av software... no office, no printer drivers, no nvidia drivers etc.
|
|
|
Location: NSW Engadine
Registered: June 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sat, 10 September 2005 23:25
|
|
AVG is free and it seems to pick most stuff up so long as you keep it updated...
|
|
|
Location: Melbourne
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 04:04
|
|
VET is the best anti virus software i have found, very well writen unlike norton/mcafee and only uses about 8meg of memory
|
|
|
Location: NSW
Registered: October 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Sun, 11 September 2005 05:34
|
|
Allan wrote on Sun, 11 September 2005 14:04 | VET is the best anti virus software i have found, very well writen unlike norton/mcafee and only uses about 8meg of memory
|
I'd recommend VET aswell, very low memory usage and have found it protects the best. I have regularly found viruses on machines that are using Nortons and even more so with AVG when running a VET scan over their HDD.
|
|
|
Location: syd- northen beaches
Registered: June 2005
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 12:53
|
|
i had norton pick up 1 virus but when i installed
some alternative anyi-spyware programs found out
that my computer had been raped
3 different programs picked up a total of 105
viruses
not sure bout the sizes but i can recommend
avg
microsoft anti-spyware
webroot spysweeper
good luck
|
|
|
Location: Adelaide, SA
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 13:02
|
|
AVG is good stuff, once you disable everything and just use it as a manual scanner. Just set it scanning at some odd hour that you don't use the computer and she'll be right mate!!
|
|
|
Location: Perth
Registered: April 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 13:47
|
|
Also quite happy with AVG.
Its kept the thing relatively clean.
|
|
|
Location: Sydney
Registered: September 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 13:47
|
|
Another tick for AVG, its free and it actually works always catches viruses on P2P download software like bearshare, morpheus etc...
|
|
|
Location: sydney
Registered: August 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Mon, 12 September 2005 23:29
|
|
norton 2003 corporate edition
so far its worked well
|
|
|
Location: Tamworth
Registered: October 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 00:30
|
|
Well i think vet is about the best there is around has low memory usage and seems to keep the nasties out well
|
|
|
Location: Gawler, SA
Registered: August 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 00:53
|
|
Lench wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 08:59 | norton 2003 corporate edition
so far its worked well
|
Do you mean Symantec antivirus corp? Ive got V10 and that appears to use about 30meg of memory. Definately the fastest antivirus Ive used.
|
|
|
Location: Adelaide, SA
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 01:48
|
|
In my experience anything norton/symantec just causes headaches and slow load times. I'm sure it's ok for someone who just types documents and checks their email, but I have found it's live scanning features slow. I know you can disable them but they just reenable themselves anyway, plus AVG is free
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location: Perth
Registered: July 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 02:08
|
|
VET is a consumer product. Its okay, its not that crash hot though.
But why would you pay $100 for VET which is really a Hyundai of Antivirus Software when you can get McAfee for like half that price which is the Rolls Royce of AV Products?
Go to http://www.yourasap.com and download the trial of McAfee Managed VirusScan ASAP. Its 30 Days free, If you like it then pay for the Subscription. Its like $50 per year for VScan + Desktop Firewall in a bundle. VET would still cost you $45 a year to renew as it is.
Just to give an indication of the overhead, MVS runs three processes, which for mine are also running the following memory bandwidth. McShield.exe (21,944kb), myAgtSvc.exe (5224kb),
myAgtTry.exe (3016kb). Total about 30MB. It does all that from one System tray agent icon though unlike Norton which sparks up 3 or 4 different tray icons.
I had VET, I converted after i saw the difference. There was so much crap VET didnt pick up i.e.
- VET Doesnt touch System Volume Information or any of your System Restore Files. Anything Locked, VET Wont Touch.
- VET Doesnt block malicious ActiveX and Javascript in realtime. It does sometimes, but not every time.
- McAfee DAT's are daily and pushed to you automatically, wheras VET sometimes takes up to a week to get a DAT downloaded and in place.
- VET has very limited customer support. Sure McAfee is deep in the wonderful outsourcing world of helpdesks to India like every other vendor, but at least there is a helpdesk.
- VET Doesnt give status reports based on virus activity and has no internal reporting function other than a log.
Give it a go, you wont be sorry!
|
|
|
Location: Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 03:40
|
|
Save mucking around, get the one that is the only one to score 100% all the time - www.nod32.com.au
|
|
|
Location: Forster NSW
Registered: September 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 03:46
|
|
Callifo wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 10:53 |
Lench wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 08:59 | norton 2003 corporate edition
so far its worked well
|
Do you mean Symantec antivirus corp? Ive got V10 and that appears to use about 30meg of memory. Definately the fastest antivirus Ive used.
|
I'll jump on the Symantec bandwagon. Mainly I use it because I get it for free, but it's also the best I've used to date. The corporate version has me very pleased.
rtvscan.exe 6088K
VPDN_LU.exe 3308K
defwatch 40K
I don't think I missed any there...
|
|
|
Location: sydney
Registered: August 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 04:54
|
|
Callifo wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 10:53 |
Lench wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 08:59 | norton 2003 corporate edition
so far its worked well
|
Do you mean Symantec antivirus corp? Ive got V10 and that appears to use about 30meg of memory. Definately the fastest antivirus Ive used.
|
yep i just get used to calling it norton
i got the cd for free and havnt had any probs at all with it
|
|
|
Registered: November 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 06:37
|
|
Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 11:40 | Save mucking around, get the one that is the only one to score 100% all the time - www.nod32.com.au
|
Amen.
You can get it free off the PC User cover CD's, I've been using it for about a year now and it's great.
- Vee
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location: Sutho/Hills NSW
Registered: September 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:28
|
|
Panda Antivirus i use
4mb memory usage, has inbuilt firewall and outlook scanning features
|
|
|
Location: NSW
Registered: October 2003
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 08:32
|
|
hamgatan wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 12:08 | VET is a consumer product. Its okay, its not that crash hot though.
But why would you pay $100 for VET which is really a Hyundai of Antivirus Software when you can get McAfee for like half that price which is the Rolls Royce of AV Products?
Go to http://www.yourasap.com and download the trial of McAfee Managed VirusScan ASAP. Its 30 Days free, If you like it then pay for the Subscription. Its like $50 per year for VScan + Desktop Firewall in a bundle. VET would still cost you $45 a year to renew as it is.
Just to give an indication of the overhead, MVS runs three processes, which for mine are also running the following memory bandwidth. McShield.exe (21,944kb), myAgtSvc.exe (5224kb),
myAgtTry.exe (3016kb). Total about 30MB. It does all that from one System tray agent icon though unlike Norton which sparks up 3 or 4 different tray icons.
I had VET, I converted after i saw the difference. There was so much crap VET didnt pick up i.e.
- VET Doesnt touch System Volume Information or any of your System Restore Files. Anything Locked, VET Wont Touch.
- VET Doesnt block malicious ActiveX and Javascript in realtime. It does sometimes, but not every time.
- McAfee DAT's are daily and pushed to you automatically, wheras VET sometimes takes up to a week to get a DAT downloaded and in place.
- VET has very limited customer support. Sure McAfee is deep in the wonderful outsourcing world of helpdesks to India like every other vendor, but at least there is a helpdesk.
- VET Doesnt give status reports based on virus activity and has no internal reporting function other than a log.
Give it a go, you wont be sorry!
|
Disagree with a lot of what you said there...
VET isnt worth $100, if you paid that for it...you got ripped. We sell it for $50-$70 instore.
VET isnt the Hyundai of antivirus products, got voted no. 1 ahead of Nortons etc. in APC magazine as the best antivirus.
I regularly use VET at work to scan HDD's for viruses, it does scan system restore files and system volume information. VET does block Active scripts in realtime, VETs definitions are also automatic, although not sure how often they come out....I couldnt see it being a week.
Not sure about VET customer support...in all the time I have used VET (keeping in mind I use it on 100's of customer machines) I have never had to call customer support.
I also dont see a problem with having a log as a reporting function.
But anyway, VET still has my vote
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location: Perth
Registered: July 2004
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 10:11
|
|
Net Surfer RRP is 99.95.. u can sell it cheaper if you like of course. I think Saratoga do it for crap all if you buy in volume. Same with the OEM's. like $16 a pop i think they were.
However i liase daily with CA, Symantec, Trend, McAfee and F-Secure and i have vendors pushing their products down my throat all the time.
Keep in mind, APC is a consumer magazine, written by consumers, not IT professionals that actually have a clue. VET is a Consumer box product, Norton is a consumer box product (and a crap one to boot), McAfee VirusScan 10 is a consumer box product (also rather crap), PC-Cillin is a consumer box product (worst of the lot)
My suggestion is based on a product for a Consumer price point, thats based on the architecture of an enterprise product (VirusScan ASAP uses a VirusScan Enterprise 8.0i engine which is tied in with ePO for centralised control at our end).
VET, no matter which way you look is not eTrust (which runs more of the Inoculate engine than VET..)..
VET DAT's are up to a week.. most of the time 3-4 days. But have been known to go up to a week. They are automatic, but only check when you tell it to check rather than immediately pushed out the second the vendor releases it.
I know it scans System Volume Info, but it doesnt remove stuff from there. It just tells you its there. ISTbar is one javascript exploit that VET doesnt block for example and is present on about half a dozen crack sites.
For the average home user, yeah its not such a bad product.. but its far from bulletproof
|
|
|
Location: NSW
Registered: October 2003
|
|
|
Location: Adelaide
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: Low overhead antivirus software.
|
Tue, 13 September 2005 15:51
|
|
Bill Sherwood wrote on Tue, 13 September 2005 13:10 | Save mucking around, get the one that is the only one to score 100% all the time - www.nod32.com.au
|
yah.. a useful suggestion.
best AV program ever. i have tested many over the years and everytime i have had a suspicous i had a virus on my pc that the AV didnt detect i head back to nod32 and it finds it.
i ran it all the time now. worth every cent.
|
|
|