Which AV has the Smallest Footprint??? - Page 2

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

Threaded View

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



--
----------------------------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 8963 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: http://www.spamfighter.com/lda



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

OMG :-)) Whilst these are good products there are a lot of others
which are equally as good... and according to independant testing
there are some which are better. NOD32 is excellent, AntiVir is
excellent.... there are lots more. F-Prot 6 is awesome so far :)

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

NO! I meant what I wrote. I've tried over 20 different AV products and
in MY opinion, NOD32 works the best for me. I haven't tried the latest
version of Kaspersky yet but all of the reports that I seen rate version
6 very highly.

I stopped using the Windows versions of Kaspersky a number of years ago
because the kept releasing buggy products!

F-secure is more suited for enterprise use.

Chas.



Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

KAV and KIS 6 have plenty of bugs. Really annoying ones too!

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:28:09 +0100, Ian Kenefick

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oh? No problems here at all.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

Art wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I'm using KIS 6 too and don't have any bugs I'm aware of; in fact I'd
say it's the most trouble-free and effective security program I've ever
used.

Ma

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well - my previous statement refers only to the release ie. build 299.
There is problems with AIC (thats why its not enabled by default) &
AVP.exe jumps to 100% cpu usage. These are the main two. It's worth
mentioning that these issues are all fixed in the latest beta builds.
It looks liek MP1 will be a much more stable release.

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???



Quoted text here. Click to load it

What bugs are talking about because I have been using since it came out and
have not had one problem with it yet.

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hi Gary,

There have been many bugs throughout the program in all of the various
modules. You can find a more complete answer to your question by
visiting the beta forum at http://forum.kaspersky.com . I myself have
mentioned some bugs in a previous follow up post.

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:28:30 -0400, Pedro Sanchez

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Nod32 or  E-trust

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 19:28:30 -0400, Pedro Sanchez

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello Pedro,

We have a number of recommended AV's on our website
www.ik-cs.com/a-safe-pc.htm - Where applicable the words 'lite on
resources' are used to denote software which has minimal impact system
performance.

-NOD32 (€39)
-AntiVir 7 (€20)
-Dr.Web (~€17 if you are migrating from a previous vendor solution see
www.drweb.com)

All have excellent detection, speedy reaction to new threats and
coincidentally they all have pretty good proactive detection. As was
already mentioned a good place to look is www.av-comparatives.org.
Note: Detection is only a single metric on which to choose the right
AV solution. Usability, Customer Support and Price is also a factor.

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:02:33 +0100, Ian Kenefick

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Avg Free and F-prot both use less resources.

Avg Free I think will still support windows 98se for awhile.  It still
support 95 with dcom.

Greg Rozelle


Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

avoid typing the same text again and again (ID, password, phone,
homepage link, address, ...) in the messages, documents, web forms
stop wasting your time on mouse movements searching for an application
in a cascade of menus and folders
keep your desktop clean (photo of your dog looks better than 100 icons)

control computer sounds instantly from any app (somebody's calling?
mute music!)
open favorite web pages with a single hotkey press
build a sequence of actions and execute it with a shortcut
record keystrokes and play them back with a single hotkey press
keep the same hotkeys on different computers with import/export feature

shut down the computer at the specified time (Windows
95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP are supported)
http://www30.webSamba.com/SmartStudio
------------------------------
EnergyKey   Save yourself from repetitive tasks


Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:02:59 GMT, Greg Rozelle

Quoted text here. Click to load it

incorrect. They dont.

--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:20:39 +0100, Ian Kenefick

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Try running Norton Or Mcafee on a windows98se computer with 64mb ram.

I can till you from experience it Avg uses less resource


http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/win/index.html#system

 system requirements
    * Because F-Prot Antivirus for Windows is designed to use the
absolute minimum of your system's resources, the program runs on any
computer running the Windows 98 Operating system or later.

    * F-Prot Antivirus for Windows requires Microsoft Internet
Explorer version 4.0 or later for successful installation and updating
of virus signature files.


Greg Rozelle

Re: Which AV has the Smallest Footprint???

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:59:37 GMT, Greg Rozelle

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You didn't read my post at all. Where do I mention Norton or McAfee?


--
Regards, Ian Kenefick
http://www.IK-CS.com

Re: you may note from my thread here, AVG lets in viruses, adaware, and spyware

May I chime in here, although I freely agree I haven't got the faintest idea
what I am talking about: I agree AVG uses very little in the way of
resources.

But as you may note from my thread here, AVG has recently let in what seems
to be a disastrous number of viruses, adaware, and spyware into my computer
since I changed from NIS.

All of which have slowed my PC to a treackly crawl until David told me here
how to get rid of them.  Now I am really wondering whether to go back to
NIS, the 2006 version of which I have lying around but which I didn't
install because I thought that AVG used less resources????????

Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: you may note from my thread here, AVG lets in viruses, adaware, and spyware


"news.rcn.com" <news.rnc.com> wrote in message
Quoted text here. Click to load it


What you may have missed is the fact that AVG does NOT pretend to protect
against adware and such - you need to use specialist protection for that (or
better still, change your surfing habits!)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's


Re: AVG does NOT pretend to protect against adware and such

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I suppose you are right but it DID seem to let in some viruses while all the
time updating itself regularly? And then not find them when it ran
background full-scans. Which occupied not a whole lot of resources.  Even
worse, it didnt find these things in the system restore cache which means TO
ME that whatever was there was lurking to reveal itself in all its glory at
some time in the future?

And I DO use regularly-updated Adaware and Spybot which is supposed to be
all things to all people but which failed to find these 'things' either.  I
am beginning to wonder whether I should adopt the 'prevention of these
things from coming in' rather than 'find them once they are here and slowing
everything up' approach?And I am using a newish over-400 KB hosts file which
should provide some protection against the sort of surfing to which you
refer?  But i am not sure about your careful surfing approach: AVG is still
finding about 15 trojan dialers a day and suspiciously while some are
relegated to the windows\temp directory (possibly by AVG itself as part of
what it calls its healing process?), some are being found in my Temporary
Internet folder while IE isnt even open and while I am not surfing!  And
this is still  going on AFTER I have cleaned out everything according to the
instructions here!

[I have posted my logs to show all this in lurid detail]

I am still trying to figure out whether David's recommendation of McAfee
means that it DOES protect you better than the other things on AV-CLS which
couldn't find them.  McAfee has the largest footprint and I have never
(since it first gained its reputation and started trading on it) heard of a
sysadmin who uses them.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: AVG does NOT pretend to protect against adware and such

<news.rnc.com>
says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No av can watch every point of entry. Do you have passwords on all usernames,
including
the hidden Administrator name? Do you have all unnecessary ports closed? Do you
have
remote login ability disabled? Remote assistance requests? etc.

  Even
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't use AVG, but I know it's not bad. Unless you access the restore area,
the on-
access component isn't going to see anything. An on-demand scan may not have
access to
it in normal Windows mode.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 No, they're not. They spot a good % of adware and spyware. They don't spot all
of it,
and they don't even look for viruses, worms, trojans, or rootkits.


but which failed to find these 'things' either.  I
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 well duh


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, here's one. But then our licence is for the Enterprise edition. It's a bit
better.

--
News: use seven bits;
or accept you cannot know
how it looks elsewhere.

Site Timeline