Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
I am in need of an AV program but want one that uses the least
resources as possible. I've the term 'footprint', so I guess I am
asking for that.
I want one that works fairly well but also takes up a Small Footprint;

Thank you all,
good day

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'Pedro Sanchez' wrote:
| I am in need of an AV program but want one that uses the least
| resources as possible. I've the term 'footprint', so I guess I am
| asking for that.
| I want one that works fairly well but also takes up a Small Footprint;
_____

Get a grip.  Do you have a shortage of resources?  The 'footprint' of ANY
antivirus program is small compared to the resources available in a modern
IBM PC compatible system.  In other words, it is a non-issue.  It is at the
end of the list for consideration.  'Working fairly well' is a pretty stupid
criteria for picking an antivirus program.

Phil Weldon

|I am in need of an AV program but want one that uses the least
| resources as possible. I've the term 'footprint', so I guess I am
| asking for that.
| I want one that works fairly well but also takes up a Small Footprint;
|
| Thank you all,
| good day



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:37:55 GMT, "Phil Weldon"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

GEEZ, SORRRY


Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't worry Pedro...every once in a while one does find an A-hole here.
_What_ he says is true, but _how_ he says it make them the words of an
idiot.
--
Nomad



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'Nomad' wrote:
| Don't worry Pedro...every once in a while one does find an A-hole here.
| _What_ he says is true, but _how_ he says it make them the words of an
| idiot.
| --
| Nomad
_____

I chose the words carefully to make a point.
Which you missed.
You stooped to personal attack.
Try to make the distinction between the person and the idea.

Phil Weldon

| > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:37:55 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
| >
| >>'Pedro Sanchez' wrote:
| >>| I am in need of an AV program but want one that uses the least
| >>| resources as possible. I've the term 'footprint', so I guess I am
| >>| asking for that.
| >>| I want one that works fairly well but also takes up a Small Footprint;
| >>_____
| >>
| >>Get a grip.  Do you have a shortage of resources?  The 'footprint' of
ANY
| >>antivirus program is small compared to the resources available in a
modern
| >>IBM PC compatible system.  In other words, it is a non-issue.  It is at
| >>the
| >>end of the list for consideration.  'Working fairly well' is a pretty
| >>stupid
| >>criteria for picking an antivirus program.
|
| Don't worry Pedro...every once in a while one does find an A-hole here.
| _What_ he says is true, but _how_ he says it make them the words of an
| idiot.
| --
| Nomad
|
|



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

A non-issue? Don't you think there is something wrong with the notion that
a modern system should run av well, yet one not so modern shouldnt? They'll
both run the worms and viruses equally well. :)


--
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org
BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'Dustin Cook' wrote:
| A non-issue? Don't you think there is something wrong with the notion that
| a modern system should run av well, yet one not so modern shouldnt?
They'll
| both run the worms and viruses equally well. :)
_____

In fact, worms and viruses do not work equally well on not-so-modern
systems.  And even for not-so-modern systems, the foot print of anti-virus
solutions is a non-issue.  Especially compared to 'working fairly well.'

Phil Weldon

|
| > Get a grip.  Do you have a shortage of resources?  The 'footprint' of
| > ANY antivirus program is small compared to the resources available in
| > a modern IBM PC compatible system.  In other words, it is a non-issue.
| >  It is at the end of the list for consideration.  'Working fairly
| > well' is a pretty stupid criteria for picking an antivirus program.
| >
| > Phil Weldon
|
|
|
| --
| Dustin Cook
| http://bughunter.atspace.org
| BugHunter MalWare Removal Tool



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Phil Weldon wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm unaware of any specific worms or viruses which require a modern
system in order to function. I'm also unaware of any spyware
specifically which requires a modern system in order to take control of
it.

Do you have specific viruses and/or worms that you know of which do
require a modern system in order to work ?

The foot-print of any software is certainly an issue. Simply because
you have access to half a gig or more of ram these days does not mean
you should feel the need to use it, nor require a system have it in the
first place. Norton antivirus's footprint in terms of hard disk space
consumed and it's continued drag on system resources is a well known
fact. Many individuals have observed the performance hit of a Norton
package first hand.

In so far as working fairly well goes, if the antivirus program is
offering up to date protection, that's all thats required. Taking a
large performance hit for protection is not a fair bargain under any
terms.

--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org


Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'Dustin Cook' wrote:
| Do you have specific viruses and/or worms that you know of which do
| require a modern system in order to work ?
|
| The foot-print of any software is certainly an issue. Simply because
| you have access to half a gig or more of ram these days does not mean
| you should feel the need to use it, nor require a system have it in the
| first place. Norton antivirus's footprint in terms of hard disk space
| consumed and it's continued drag on system resources is a well known
| fact. Many individuals have observed the performance hit of a Norton
| package first hand.
|
| In so far as working fairly well goes, if the antivirus program is
| offering up to date protection, that's all thats required. Taking a
| large performance hit for protection is not a fair bargain under any
| terms.
_____

Worms and viruses do work on Windows XP platforms and do not work on Windows
XP platforms.  Look at any list of current worms and virus and see the
numbers to which Windows 9X platforms are not vulnerable.

Do you have specific information supporting the 'well known fact' that
'Norton AntiVirus has a continued drag' on system resources'?  Anecdotes
aren't enough.

'Small footprint' is a non issue for AntiVirus protection.
Hard drive space consumed?  In the day of 500 MByte OS installation hard
drive 'foot prints'?  And 13 MByte RAW digital camera images?

What else are hard drive space, RAM space, and CPU processing power FOR but
to use?
When 300 GByte hard drives go for $80 USD and 1 GByte RAM for the same, in
what direction should storage footprints be expected to go.  A small
footprint is a forced constraint that requires sacrifices in other
dimensions.  In the era when RAM was measured in tens of Kilobytes and I/O
bandwidth was measured in tenths of Kilobytes per second small code
footprints were forced by the former but the total effect was made
negligible by the latter restriction.

Why should 'working fairly well' be consider a virtue?  Desirable?  A
substitute for working well?  If taking advantage of otherwise unused
resources and convert to 'working fairly well' to 'working well', where is
the loss?  As for 'perfection', that's just something you threw in to
bolster your assertions.  I am sure that if you think about it for a while,
you can come up with a more precise post, some of which I may agree with.

Phil Weldon

|
| Phil Weldon wrote:
|
| > In fact, worms and viruses do not work equally well on not-so-modern
| > systems.  And even for not-so-modern systems, the foot print of
anti-virus
| > solutions is a non-issue.  Especially compared to 'working fairly well.'
|
| I'm unaware of any specific worms or viruses which require a modern
| system in order to function. I'm also unaware of any spyware
| specifically which requires a modern system in order to take control of
| it.
|
| Do you have specific viruses and/or worms that you know of which do
| require a modern system in order to work ?
|
| The foot-print of any software is certainly an issue. Simply because
| you have access to half a gig or more of ram these days does not mean
| you should feel the need to use it, nor require a system have it in the
| first place. Norton antivirus's footprint in terms of hard disk space
| consumed and it's continued drag on system resources is a well known
| fact. Many individuals have observed the performance hit of a Norton
| package first hand.
|
| In so far as working fairly well goes, if the antivirus program is
| offering up to date protection, that's all thats required. Taking a
| large performance hit for protection is not a fair bargain under any
| terms.
|
| --
| Regards,
| Dustin Cook
| http://bughunter.atspace.org
|



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Phil Weldon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



I have over 200 client machines with norton loaded, I have before/after
test results in terms of bootup and gui response times. ...I have...
lots of usenet posts of users all over with the same issues. Pc
Magazine posts, etc etc etc. You have to have a high end machine to run
Norton decently. If your asking do I have this in symantec's own words,
no.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's a bad idea to assume everyone is using a modern PC, by any
standards. It's further a bad idea to design your antivirus software
with that notion.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

For the user to use, not some resident antivirus application.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Their is a point in which bloated code is simply, bloated. Their is no
reason to code sloppy code simply because you have more room.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I didn't intend perfection, as that's impossible. I have no reason to
bolster anything. I do however work professionally in the IT field, so
I get to see many machines, some modern, many not so modern, some upto
the task of dedicating oodles of resources to an antivirus product, but
many however are not able to dedicate as much. Should they suffer
protection as a result?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can come up with all sorts of bloatware antivirus code examples sure,
but I don't think you'd agree with any of it. Bloatware seems to be
okay in your opinion.

--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
http://bughunter.atspace.org


Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'Dustin Cook' wrote, in part:
| I have over 200 client machines with norton loaded, I have before/after
| test results in terms of bootup and gui response times. ...I have...
| lots of usenet posts of users all over with the same issues. Pc
| Magazine posts, etc etc etc. You have to have a high end machine to run
| Norton decently. If your asking do I have this in symantec's own words,
| no.
| It's a bad idea to assume everyone is using a modern PC, by any
| standards. It's further a bad idea to design your antivirus software
| with that notion.
| Their is a point in which bloated code is simply, bloated. Their is no
| reason to code sloppy code simply because you have more room.
_____
Thanks for replying.
Unfortunately, your post includes no data.  No test results and analysis.
Evidently you could have provided at least some of that, but you did not.

I, and many others, would like to see the results of your before/after
tests.  This newsgroup needs to see more stuff like that.  (Though boot up
time is sort of a non-issue also, and I am at a loss as to what 'gui
response time' actually means.)

It is a 'bad idea' to design for the past rather than the present and
future.

What you call 'bloatware' (I'd guess) is a result of economic pressures
hardware is cheaper than software and wetware.

There are more important 'design faults' to worry about that 'footprint'.

Phil Weldon

|
| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > Worms and viruses do work on Windows XP platforms and do not work on
Windows
| > XP platforms.  Look at any list of current worms and virus and see the
| > numbers to which Windows 9X platforms are not vulnerable.
|
|
| > Do you have specific information supporting the 'well known fact' that
| > 'Norton AntiVirus has a continued drag' on system resources'?  Anecdotes
| > aren't enough.
|
| I have over 200 client machines with norton loaded, I have before/after
| test results in terms of bootup and gui response times. ...I have...
| lots of usenet posts of users all over with the same issues. Pc
| Magazine posts, etc etc etc. You have to have a high end machine to run
| Norton decently. If your asking do I have this in symantec's own words,
| no.
|
| > 'Small footprint' is a non issue for AntiVirus protection.
| > Hard drive space consumed?  In the day of 500 MByte OS installation hard
| > drive 'foot prints'?  And 13 MByte RAW digital camera images?
|
| It's a bad idea to assume everyone is using a modern PC, by any
| standards. It's further a bad idea to design your antivirus software
| with that notion.
|
| > What else are hard drive space, RAM space, and CPU processing power FOR
but
| > to use?
|
| For the user to use, not some resident antivirus application.
|
| > When 300 GByte hard drives go for $80 USD and 1 GByte RAM for the same,
in
| > what direction should storage footprints be expected to go.  A small
|
| Their is a point in which bloated code is simply, bloated. Their is no
| reason to code sloppy code simply because you have more room.
|
| > the loss?  As for 'perfection', that's just something you threw in to
| > bolster your assertions.  I am sure that if you think about it for a
while,
|
| I didn't intend perfection, as that's impossible. I have no reason to
| bolster anything. I do however work professionally in the IT field, so
| I get to see many machines, some modern, many not so modern, some upto
| the task of dedicating oodles of resources to an antivirus product, but
| many however are not able to dedicate as much. Should they suffer
| protection as a result?
|
| > you can come up with a more precise post, some of which I may agree
with.
|
| I can come up with all sorts of bloatware antivirus code examples sure,
| but I don't think you'd agree with any of it. Bloatware seems to be
| okay in your opinion.
|
| --
| Regards,
| Dustin Cook
| http://bughunter.atspace.org
|



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???



Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's the whole idea behind heuristics - working fairly well while significantly
reducing processing cost.



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'edgewalker' wrote:
| It's the whole idea behind heuristics - working fairly well while
significantly
| reducing processing cost.
_____

That turns out not to be the case.  Heuristic means 'rule based'.  In the
context of virus protection a set of rules allows detection of 'virus like'
behavior and chance to detect viruses that have not been identified.
Detection that would not occur otherwise because no virus 'definition' is
available.

Phil Weldon

|
|
| > Why should 'working fairly well' be consider a virtue?
|
| It's the whole idea behind heuristics - working fairly well while
significantly
| reducing processing cost.
|
|



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

...and sacrifices the low FP rate obtainable with more thorough
detection/verification
methods.

So it works fairly well - and is usually attenuated because of this. It is a
good thing
to have the pro-active detection ot offers, but it IS a compromise between
processing
cost and accuracy for the overall old and new virus detection.



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

'edgewalker' wrote, in part:
| ...and sacrifices the low FP rate obtainable with more thorough
detection/verification
| methods.
_____

Please explain the methods of detecting a new virus for which there can be
no signatures.
What are the possible choices?

Phil Weldon

|
| > 'edgewalker' wrote:
| > | It's the whole idea behind heuristics - working fairly well while
| > significantly
| > | reducing processing cost.
| > _____
| >
| > That turns out not to be the case.  Heuristic means 'rule based'.  In
the
| > context of virus protection a set of rules allows detection of 'virus
like'
| > behavior and chance to detect viruses that have not been identified.
| > Detection that would not occur otherwise because no virus 'definition'
is
| > available.
|
| ...and sacrifices the low FP rate obtainable with more thorough
detection/verification
| methods.
|
| So it works fairly well - and is usually attenuated because of this. It is
a good thing
| to have the pro-active detection ot offers, but it IS a compromise between
processing
| cost and accuracy for the overall old and new virus detection.
|
|



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

We're not discussing only new virus (proactive) detection methods. Sure, for
new viruses not yet having signatures developed - heuristic detection by far
outweighs signature based detection. For the overall (old and new) virus set,
heuristics sacrifices too much accuracy (high FP rate) for the sake of processing
cost - it is a fairly good method overall.

The detection of new malware is a side effect of the heuristic method. Some new
malware will exhibit old behaviors (or other characteristics) and thus be
detected.
Unfortunately, some legit programs may also match suspect
behaviors/characteristics
and be FP detections.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Those are the top contenders it seems. Most good AVs offer both methods as part
of their package.

A chess program could gather data about positions and past outcomes resulting
from
previous moves and keep it in a lookup. When it is the computer's turn to make a
move
it could look up the current position and given enough time and data make the
"best"
move under those conditions. Heuristics would be more general like "a piece has
more
influence if it is positioned closer to the center of the board", "control of
the center of
the board allows you to support positioning powerful pieces in more powerful
places",
and "when in doubt - push a pawn". Less time used trying to find the "best" move
and
in return gets you a reasonably good move. The relation in viruses/new viruses
in your
argument is like the advantage in heuristics in speed chess where you don't have
the
time for exhaustive searches for the "best" moves.

- it works fairly well.



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

Phil Weldon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I  DON'T AGREE with that. I shall give you tow exemples. For 3 weeks I
installed Mc Afee virusscan 10 on a Pentium III 500 Mhz with 256 MB
memory running Win 98 SE, with default options configured. Before that I
used Norton AV 2044 on the same machine with the same software
configuration (exept for the AV solution) and all my task performed
fine. Since I installed Mc Afee the machine is remarkable slow. The
first 5 minutes (or even a couple of minutes more) after (re)booting the
machine is not even useable for other task than starting up. Disk-IO
intensive processes (like scanning for spyware with AdAware) barely
perform anymore.
Before I intstalled Mc Afee on a Pentium I 166 Mhz with 128 MB memory
running Win 98 SE. This machine was unable to perform any thing else
than running Mc Afee. I was barely unable to uninstall Mc Afee because
Mc Afee took almost all resources.

--
regards,
Gerrit



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


| I am in need of an AV program but want one that uses the least
| resources as possible. I've the term 'footprint', so I guess I am
| asking for that.
| I want one that works fairly well but also takes up a Small Footprint;
|
| Thank you all,
| good day

NOD32 is an excellent contender.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it
Footprint;
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree on NOD32.

F-Prot is a good second choice also AVG and avast!.

Chas.



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

You mean awfull ? right ?
F-secure an Kaspersky makes the only real AV

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Site Timeline