Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
anything else he has.

Any comments?

--
tommy

Tommy McClure wrote:

> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
> anything else he has.

Faster than .. what else does he have?

> Any comments?

Search these groups for articles with "AVG8" in the subject line. That
should tell you a lot about the product.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Tommy McClure wrote:
>
>> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
>> anything else he has.
>
> Faster than .. what else does he have?
>
>> Any comments?
>
> Search these groups for articles with "AVG8" in the subject line. That
> should tell you a lot about the product.

I think he's pulling my leg. He has been using AVG 7.5 free.

Tommy McClure wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Tommy McClure wrote:
>>> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
>>> anything else he has.
>>
>> Faster than .. what else does he have?
>>
>>> Any comments?
>>
>> Search these groups for articles with "AVG8" in the subject line.
>> That should tell you a lot about the product.
>
> I think he's pulling my leg. He has been using AVG 7.5 free.

From what I've read, I'd guess so, too. Some of the postings were
complaining about how AVG8 has slowed their Windows to a crawl.

Tell him to get Avast .. or switch to an OS that doesn't need anti-virus
applications. (That would certainly improve the speed, eh?)

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:g2u4dk$ihb$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tommy McClure wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Tommy McClure wrote:
>>>> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
>>>> anything else he has.
>>>
>>> Faster than .. what else does he have?
>>>
>>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> Search these groups for articles with "AVG8" in the subject line.
>>> That should tell you a lot about the product.
>>
>> I think he's pulling my leg. He has been using AVG 7.5 free.
>
> From what I've read, I'd guess so, too. Some of the postings were
> complaining about how AVG8 has slowed their Windows to a crawl.
>
> Tell him to get Avast .. or switch to an OS that doesn't need anti-virus
> applications. (That would certainly improve the speed, eh?)
>

I tried Avast and thought it was extremely slow. I went instead to NOD32
and AVG on my various machines.

Tommy McClure wrote:
> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
> anything else he has.
>
> Any comments?
>
> --
> tommy
>
>
I have AVG 8.0 running on XP MCE 2005 SP3.
It works fine. I opted not to load the email scanner and the
linkscanner is disabled.
If you don't turn off the link scanner, when you open IE and do
something like a google, every link gets scanned and checked for
validity. A nice feature but that takes time. If you have a
horrendously fast PC and a great internet, then leave it enabled.

Other than that AVG works. Both versions have been altered in the past
months to be a bit more sensitive to viruses, which is good, but, I've
had some old programs (old old) that are not considered virus. You can
mark them as an exception, but it points out that both 7.5 and 8.0 are
more sensitive.

In article <g36mpo$jbb$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

> If you don't turn off the link scanner, when you open IE and do
> something like a google, every link gets scanned and checked for
> validity. A nice feature but that takes time. If you have a
> horrendously fast PC and a great internet, then leave it enabled.

I have good Comcast cable connection and beefy enough PC. The link
scanner slowed my surfing by 2/3. Made it into DSL :-)
I nuked that feature in a hurry.

MM

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:51:10 -0500 sherwindu wrote:

> Programs like this are scary. Now I have
> to search
> for a new replacement for AVG. I am running an 1.3 gig cpu with 500 meg
> of
> ram and windows 2000. Certainly enough horse power to handle a anti-virus
>
> program.
>
Try Avast, <http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html>
--
Ernie B.

Communication: The art of moving an idea from one mind to another, hopefully
without distortion.

sherwindu wrote:
> Tommy McClure wrote:
>
>> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster than
>> anything else he has.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> --
>> tommy
>
> I don't know about your buddy, but after installing AVG 8, my
> computer slowed
>
> down to a crawl. It was using close to 100 per cent cpu, with no
> other processes
> loaded. I did not have this problem with AVG 7.5 and I am sorry
> I upgraded.
>
> Of course Grisoft is going to pull the plug on 7.5 in a few
> months anyways.
>
> What made me more frustrated was that using either the AVG
> uninstaller or Windows Add/Delete program software, I was
> getting errors preventing me from unloading the AVG 8.0. I
> just took a hammer to it and stripped out
> all
> file and registry references. Programs like this are scary.
> Now I have to search
> for a new replacement for AVG. I am running an 1.3 gig cpu
> with 500 meg of
> ram and windows 2000. Certainly enough horse power to handle a
> anti-virus
>
> program.

see this thread : news:48581a48$0$9836$(E-Mail Removed)

here are the processes for AVG 7.5 running on my box:
avgamsvr.exe 192k
avgcc.exe 1,320k
avgemc.exe 556k
avgupsvc.exe 528k
total ~ 2,500k

my comparable for Avast 4 free home version
ashDisp. 2,156k
ashMaiSv.exe 2,448k
ashServ.exe 28,300k
ashWebSv.exe 32,356k
aswUpdSv.exe 292k
total ~65,000k

Ernie's number's for same thing
<quote>
Check your settings. I just installed avast
ashWebSv.exe 1,652k
ashDisp.exe 1,300k
ashMaiSv.exe 1,908k
ashServ.exe 11,516k
doesn't even come close to 45mb.<unquote>
total 14,000k

I don't know why there was a difference in his numbers. I run W2K Pro dual
PIIs @500mhz 768mb ram. It is very slow. I am afraid to even try AVG 8 free.
My theory is that the new pcs all have about 2gb ram , 3ghz cpus and the
programmers have left folks with older systems behind. The commercial
security suites are even worse.

--
tommy

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> Tommy McClure wrote:
>> sherwindu wrote:
>>> Tommy McClure wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have a buddy in the business, claims AVG 8 free is much faster
>>>> than anything else he has.
>>>>
>>>> Any comments?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> tommy
>>> I don't know about your buddy, but after installing AVG 8, my
>>> computer slowed
>>>
>>> down to a crawl. It was using close to 100 per cent cpu, with no
>>> other processes
>>> loaded. I did not have this problem with AVG 7.5 and I am sorry
>>> I upgraded.
>>>
>>> Of course Grisoft is going to pull the plug on 7.5 in a few
>>> months anyways.
>>>
>>> What made me more frustrated was that using either the AVG
>>> uninstaller or Windows Add/Delete program software, I was
>>> getting errors preventing me from unloading the AVG 8.0. I
>>> just took a hammer to it and stripped out
>>> all
>>> file and registry references. Programs like this are scary.
>>> Now I have to search
>>> for a new replacement for AVG. I am running an 1.3 gig cpu
>>> with 500 meg of
>>> ram and windows 2000. Certainly enough horse power to handle
>>> a anti-virus
>>>
>>> program.
>>
>> see this thread : news:48581a48$0$9836$(E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> here are the processes for AVG 7.5 running on my box:
>> avgamsvr.exe 192k
>> avgcc.exe 1,320k
>> avgemc.exe 556k
>> avgupsvc.exe 528k
>> total ~ 2,500k
>>
>> my comparable for Avast 4 free home version
>> ashDisp. 2,156k
>> ashMaiSv.exe 2,448k
>> ashServ.exe 28,300k
>> ashWebSv.exe 32,356k
>> aswUpdSv.exe 292k
>> total ~65,000k
>>
>> Ernie's number's for same thing
>> <quote>
>> Check your settings. I just installed avast
>> ashWebSv.exe 1,652k
>> ashDisp.exe 1,300k
>> ashMaiSv.exe 1,908k
>> ashServ.exe 11,516k
>> doesn't even come close to 45mb.<unquote>
>> total 14,000k
>>
>> I don't know why there was a difference in his numbers. I run W2K
>> Pro dual PIIs @500mhz 768mb ram. It is very slow. I am afraid to
>> even try AVG 8 free. My theory is that the new pcs all have about
>> 2gb ram , 3ghz cpus and the programmers have left folks with older
>> systems behind. The commercial security suites are even worse.
>>
>> --
>> tommy
>>
>
> Well, I don't think W2K is suited to dual processors, and it isn't
> exactly happy running on PIIs either. PIIs were made for DOS/Windows
> (and they had problems, which is why most everybody who had a PII
> machine went to PIII as soon as soon as they were available.) PIIs
> lack a number of features that modern CPUs include (starting with
> larger command sets.) IMO that's the main reason Avast is using more
> RAM on your machine: on a modern CPU a lot of stuff that Avast is
> doing on your machine is done by the OS.
>
> OTOH, it's true that modern programmers don't try to tweak their code
> the way people did when 64K of RAM was all that was available. All
> modern programs are much larger than they need to be, but with RAM and
> HD space so cheap nowadays it's not worth the effort to make programs
> smaller. Human labour is much more expensive than silicon.
>
> HTH

Interesting theory. I think I agree with you. I wonder if anybody else has
seen this. [ I haven't seen anybody else on this group post any process /
memory use info (except Ernie B.) , no details ] I wonder why AVG works out
so efficiently and streamlined compared to AVAST and V8/0 free?

--
tommy