B
BillW
This is a question about the overhead of antivirus-like background
applications running under XP.
I'm not a computer novice, so I ask this question more from a more detailed
technical/performance perspective. This is a question for those who are
very much aware of the affect processes can have on the overall performance
of a system. With that said, my question is related to a system like the
one I have at home - 2+ghz, 1gb memory on a "home system" running XP SP2.
What is the general opinion of when a background application (like Norton
Antivirus) will impact the overall performance of a system. "When" meaning
at some memory or processor power threshold. If home applications such as
Office and email are running on the computer, what is considered not enough
resources where something like Norton is a factor or enough resources where
Norton is not a factor at all. I can see a concern with a server servicing
hundreds of computers, but is the impact significant in a single PC running
home application? I have my opinion, but was interested in what other
knowledgeable computer users might know or think. I'm having a friendly
debate with another IT friend of mine and other opinions would be
interesting in this very open-minded discussion. I'm sure some of you have
run performance measuring tools at the office that might shed a more
objective light on this subject, so that information would be very
interesting. Thanks again.
applications running under XP.
I'm not a computer novice, so I ask this question more from a more detailed
technical/performance perspective. This is a question for those who are
very much aware of the affect processes can have on the overall performance
of a system. With that said, my question is related to a system like the
one I have at home - 2+ghz, 1gb memory on a "home system" running XP SP2.
What is the general opinion of when a background application (like Norton
Antivirus) will impact the overall performance of a system. "When" meaning
at some memory or processor power threshold. If home applications such as
Office and email are running on the computer, what is considered not enough
resources where something like Norton is a factor or enough resources where
Norton is not a factor at all. I can see a concern with a server servicing
hundreds of computers, but is the impact significant in a single PC running
home application? I have my opinion, but was interested in what other
knowledgeable computer users might know or think. I'm having a friendly
debate with another IT friend of mine and other opinions would be
interesting in this very open-minded discussion. I'm sure some of you have
run performance measuring tools at the office that might shed a more
objective light on this subject, so that information would be very
interesting. Thanks again.