Light Resource Antivirus

Sharky Forums


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Light Resource Antivirus

  1. #1
    Reef Shark Sty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Anthony, TX
    Posts
    295

    Light Resource Antivirus

    Howdy, guys. I did some searching and reading through the forums, especially the 5 page topic about Norton. But it didn't really answer the question. What's a good antivirus that is light on Resources? I likewise consider Norton heavy on uses however, I'm unsure what to switch to. So, are there some programs I should look at? Thanks in advance.
    ~Sty

  2. #2
    8 Wheels Move The Soul Ashpool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,174
    McAfee Virus Scan Enterprise.

    I also hear that Norton Corporate is as well.
    #1) Big Box
    Core 2 Quad Q9550 - Asus P5Q3 - 8GB DDR3 1333 - GeForce 550Ti - Win 7 Pro
    #2) IBM Thinkpad R51
    Pentium M 1.6GHz - 1GB PC2700 - 80GB - Win 7 Pro

    #3) Macbook Pro
    2.4GHz Core i5 - 4GB - OS X Lion

    #4) Rollerskates
    Bont Quad Racer Carbon - Sure-Grip Avengers - Qube 8-Balls

    Now Playing: Forza 4, Wipeout HD, Dead Space 2 (again!)

  3. #3
    Zoom-Zoom! soupnazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    15,097
    I've been using Symantec (Norton) Corporate and highly recommend it. It isn't a resource hog like Norton's Home version.
    Spoiler

  4. #4
    Hammerhead Shark
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,579
    I 2nd Symantec Corporate. Currently using 9.x

  5. #5
    Reef Shark Sty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Anthony, TX
    Posts
    295
    Where can I get it from? Is there a link that shows the differences and all?
    ~Sty

  6. #6
    Reef Shark
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    274
    I'm not sure about commercial versions since I've only used norton 2002 and 2003, as well as mcafee viruscan 9.

    I actually fin da couple of freeware virus scanners to be light on resources. Antivir from www.free-av.com and grisoft avg free edition (www.girsoft.com).

    I personally like Antivir much better because I think it has a better detection and removal rate than AVG. Recently it helped clear off about 70 trojans on a PC I was working on. I recommend it.

    I hope that helps.
    Kevin B.

    HP Pavilion a530n
    Motherboard: ASUS K8N8V-LA PES (Diablo-UL6E)
    Processor: AMD Athalon 64 3200+ (2.0ghz), Socket 754
    Chipset: nVidia nForce3 150
    Memory: 512MB DDR PC2700
    Hard drive: 200 GB Ultra DMA, 7200 RPM
    CD Rom 1: DVD+RW/CD-RW combo drive
    CD Rom 2: CD-ROM
    Audio: (on motherboard) AC97 (Realtek ALC650 Chipset)
    Video: NVIDIA GeForce FX5200XT AGP 8X graphics card with 128MB DDR video memory
    Modem: ItU V.92 K56flex
    Network: Integrated 10/100Base-T network interface

  7. #7
    Snarky Quorums MrDigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    8,224
    What the hell? Are you kids on crack or something? The guy is asking for something LIGHT on resources and you guys are offering McAfee and Symantec! Seriously, put the pipe down for a second and try to peer through the bong smoke.

    Dude, anything except the garbage put out by McAfee and Symantec will be lighter on resources. Don't bother listening to these people offering up "enterprise" versions. They've obviously never used anything else. eTrust kills in resource friendliness. BitDefender is wicked fast. Kaspersky seems pretty sweet as well. PC-Cillin is alright but could be better.

    Anyone who suggests McAfee or Symantec needs to think about trying something else for once. You'd all be surprised just how much faster your PCs really are.

    -MrD
    There is the theory of the moebius. A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop.

  8. #8
    8 Wheels Move The Soul Ashpool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,174
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDigital
    What the hell? Are you kids on crack or something? The guy is asking for something LIGHT on resources and you guys are offering McAfee and Symantec! Seriously, put the pipe down for a second and try to peer through the bong smoke.

    Dude, anything except the garbage put out by McAfee and Symantec will be lighter on resources. Don't bother listening to these people offering up "enterprise" versions. They've obviously never used anything else. eTrust kills in resource friendliness. BitDefender is wicked fast. Kaspersky seems pretty sweet as well. PC-Cillin is alright but could be better.

    Anyone who suggests McAfee or Symantec needs to think about trying something else for once. You'd all be surprised just how much faster your PCs really are.

    -MrD
    I think you're the one disallusioned here. I've used Avast! before and it was a massive resource hog compared to McAfee Corporate, and it didn't do as good of a job.
    #1) Big Box
    Core 2 Quad Q9550 - Asus P5Q3 - 8GB DDR3 1333 - GeForce 550Ti - Win 7 Pro
    #2) IBM Thinkpad R51
    Pentium M 1.6GHz - 1GB PC2700 - 80GB - Win 7 Pro

    #3) Macbook Pro
    2.4GHz Core i5 - 4GB - OS X Lion

    #4) Rollerskates
    Bont Quad Racer Carbon - Sure-Grip Avengers - Qube 8-Balls

    Now Playing: Forza 4, Wipeout HD, Dead Space 2 (again!)

  9. #9
    Snarky Quorums MrDigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    8,224
    I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule. But recommending McAfee as "light"?? Come on. If you wanted to recommend it as "the best" then that's your opinion. But it's by no means light.

    OP: This might help: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...39,pg,4,00.asp

    Sluggishness was the biggest drawback to Norton's suite. In informal tests, system startups and shutdowns took about twice as long with Norton installed as with PC-cillin or NOD32, which had the least-discernible performance impact. Norton was the slowest at running a full disk scan, too, requiring about 12 minutes on a Windows XP Pro system equipped with an 800-MHz Pentium III processor, 256MB of RAM, and a 5400-rpm hard drive with 575MB of data. NOD32 was the fastest program, at only 52 seconds. (Norton had better detection rates than NOD32, however.) PC-cillin was the next fastest at just over 2.5 minutes.
    -MrD
    Last edited by MrDigital; 10-16-2005 at 01:35 PM.
    There is the theory of the moebius. A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop.

  10. #10
    Hammerhead Shark
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDigital
    I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule. But recommending McAfee as "light"?? Come on. If you wanted to recommend it as "the best" then that's your opinion. But it's by no means light.

    OP: This might help: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...39,pg,4,00.asp



    -MrD
    Mrd - Relax man. It's one thing to make suggestions and post your comments, it's another to rip apart everyone else. Calm down.

    Secondly, that link you posted is referencing Norton, as in Home version. I have absolutely no performance issues or complaints running Symantec Corp on my home machine and my laptop.

  11. #11
    Tiger Shark Asrale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    805
    MrDigital, no offense but clearly you don't have personal experience with the corporate versions of Norton and McAfee, which are practically completely different products from the consumer ones. They ARE resource light and are actually very good AV products. I've used them both at previous jobs.

    So please do not make uninformed blanket statements based on assumption and your experience with the consumer versions (whatever it may be).
    Desktop: Core i7 920 | 6GB DDR3 SDRAM | 750GB SATA-2 7200RPM HDD | Dell 1908FP 19" LCD | Radeon 4850 512MB | Yamaha YSTMS50 2.1 | SB X-Fi Xtreme Audio | Vista x64
    Laptop: Core i7-2720QM | 8GB DDR3 SDRAM | 750GB 7200RPM HDD | 15.6" HD LED | nVidia GT540M 1GB | Win7 x64

  12. #12
    Snarky Quorums MrDigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    8,224
    Quote Originally Posted by LaValva
    Mrd - Relax man. It's one thing to make suggestions and post your comments, it's another to rip apart everyone else. Calm down.

    Secondly, that link you posted is referencing Norton, as in Home version. I have absolutely no performance issues or complaints running Symantec Corp on my home machine and my laptop.
    That link also points out that NOD32 and PC-Cillin are notably light on resources, thus my posting.

    It's great that you have no performance issues, but have you ever tried anything else? Have you ever done any sort of performance testing?

    Try moving gigabytes of files around on a network and see if you're still happy with it's performance. When I've tested it I haven't been impressed. It slowed network transfers pretty noticeably and dragged down the machines.

    Try installing it on older machines as well. If you have a 4000+ and 2GB of RAM and a Raptor you're probably not going to notice much performance difference. If you have a P3 you most likely will. I don't know what the OPs machine specs are, but if he's concerned about a light antivirus solution, I'll assume he has an older machine.

    Usage patterns also make a difference. If you use your machine to surf the net and check email then the antivirus software doesn't make a difference because it's barely working. If you're doing some pretty intensive I/O stuff, like modifying files on your hard drive or moving data in and out (like multiple high speed downloads for instance), you will probably notice a difference, if you do some tests.

    Like I said, saying that Symantec or McAfee corporate editions are the best antivirus around is one thing, but saying they're light on resources is like saying that a Hummer H2 is light because you're comparing it to a Hummer H1. There are dozens of antivirus tools out there and some are notably light. Anything by Symantec and McAfee isn't on the short list.

    And I'm sorry for ranting. It just feels like the blind leading the blind sometimes around here. It's frustrating.

    -MrD
    There is the theory of the moebius. A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop.

  13. #13
    Snarky Quorums MrDigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    8,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Asrale
    MrDigital, no offense but clearly you don't have personal experience with the corporate versions of Norton and McAfee, which are practically completely different products from the consumer ones. They ARE resource light and are actually very good AV products. I've used them both at previous jobs.

    So please do not make uninformed blanket statements based on assumption and your experience with the consumer versions (whatever it may be).
    I guess I'll have to tell the 3 clients I have who have Symantec Enterprise antivirus server/clients that I'm unfamiliar with their system despite the fact that I set it up for them a couple of years ago.

    Fortunately I don't have any more McAfee clients since I've successfully migrated them to CA.

    The one part of your statement that IS correct is that they are very good AV products. That much is true. They just aren't "light" compared to a number of others, which I keep trying to point out.

    -MrD
    There is the theory of the moebius. A twist in the fabric of space where time becomes a loop.

  14. #14
    Reef Shark Sty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Anthony, TX
    Posts
    295
    I know I was a bit vague in my post asking about acquiring the corporate editions. I did not mean to imply downloading them, but I am curious as to a way to obtain these. Is there a way to try them out before downing $60+ on them? How much do corporates even cost anyway?

    I've heard that AVG and AntiVir are light on resources, but how do they stack up compared to the others?

    Mr. D, I've come to respect your analysis over the time that I've viewed these forums, perhaps it's our common bias towards intel, and I'll take your posts under consideration.

    The main reason I dislike Norton is that it's just sluggish. Also, has some quirks that get on my nerves. My Machine isn't all that old, a P4 3GHz Northwood with a Gig of RAM and a 36 GB Raptor. However, I do have noticable boot differences and a few other things when Norton is running. Nearly doubles the time it takes. As the saying goes, time is money lets not waste it.
    ~Sty

  15. #15
    Hammerhead Shark SoSo09's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,122
    I've been using Symantec Corporate for the longest time now. I've never had a virus and SAMCE catches viruses from those "questionable" sites every time.

    The processes ccEvtMgr, ccSetMgr, and ccApp use about 1,600K memory in all, very little.
    ____________________________________
    |::P4 3.0C:::::::::::256x2 Corsair XMS C2::|
    |::Abit IC7-G:::::::::::::eVGA GF4 Ti4200::|
    |::Creative T5400::::::::::::::::HD212Pro::|
    |::160GB WD 8Meg::::::::::::::::::MX510::|
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """

Posting Permissions

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