Norton Antivirus 2004 bad choice, history shows they were better then.

[Wim Hamhuis]

I have a celeron 400 Mhz. I used to run Norton Antivir in the good old days
on a standard PC with 8 Mhz. Then it was fast. Now it is too slow even for a
400 Mhz processor.

Why do they simply give the choice with installation simply to choose the
correct microprocessor.

Then they could use the apropriate machine language in the install procedure
for the right computer. This would make their antivirus program even faster
, but why they don't do this ???

It seems they want too much from computers nowadays, while i have proof it
can be done better, and i encourage them to challenge me, writing programs
much faster for the correct microprocessor.

The programs i describe over here are free and *MUCH* much much faster, but
they don't have a microprocessor choice in their install eighter.

www.free-av.com Free Antivirus Program, Free Updates ! (For Private use
only)

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html Free spyware shield, free
Updates ! (Donation ware)

Keep your computer protected, never startup with an unknown CD/R or bootable
floppy, never open e-mail attachements to avoid computervirus infection.
(Antivir will notify and prevent infection if it's already a known
computervirus)

For all the sceptics over here : I saw a game in which you could choose
between a x86, 286 a 386 or a 486 processor. They would install different
programs, adapted for the right microprocessor, to let the game run
properly. I assume this is also possible for antiviral programs.

For this reason i think Norton Antivirus 2004 slows down the computer too
much, it looks like a computer virus itself if they don't change this !

With friendly greetings
Wim Hamhuis

 

[Pop Rivet]

This poster had a good point, actually. I know machine
language is impossible to write anything of any size
anymore, but there certainly are ways to get much improved
code execution speed than all these higher level languages
provide. I have to agree that in most cases today's
programs are incredibly slow and handling disk i/o and
graphics just isn't most designer's forte anymore. It's
too bad, really: I still have a couple of DOS (real MSDOS)
programs I use simply b ecuase they are so blazingly fast
and efficient, especially for entire disk operations.
Actually I was pretty surprised they still ran under XP!
I wonder if anyone ever had the bright idea to mostly
un-gui their apps and write in lower level languages. Lots
tougher to do, takes a little longer, and involves more asm
times, but ... results would be spectacular with the right
people behind the keyboards.

Oh well; ain't gonna happen, so back to the real world I
guess.

Pop



"Wim Hamhuis"

 

[Richard S. Westmoreland]

"Wim Hamhuis"

change this !

This poster had a good point, actually. I know machine
language is impossible to write anything of any size
anymore, but there certainly are ways to get much improved
code execution speed than all these higher level languages
provide. I have to agree that in most cases today's
programs are incredibly slow and handling disk i/o and
graphics just isn't most designer's forte anymore. It's
too bad, really: I still have a couple of DOS (real MSDOS)
programs I use simply b ecuase they are so blazingly fast
and efficient, especially for entire disk operations.
Actually I was pretty surprised they still ran under XP!
I wonder if anyone ever had the bright idea to mostly
un-gui their apps and write in lower level languages. Lots
tougher to do, takes a little longer, and involves more asm
times, but ... results would be spectacular with the right
people behind the keyboards.

Oh well; ain't gonna happen, so back to the real world I
guess.

Oh sure, it will happen some day. I guarantee it. Because I'm going to
make it happen.

My ultimate goal is to develop a programming language specifically made for
writing antivirus software. It is going to take a few years...

 

[NonDisputandum.com]

I have a celeron 400 Mhz. I used to run Norton Antivir in the good old days
on a standard PC with 8 Mhz. Then it was fast. Now it is too slow even for a
400 Mhz processor.

Why do they simply give the choice with installation simply to choose the
correct microprocessor.

With friendly greetings
Wim Hamhuis

Running Norton on a celeron 400 could be possible if you had enough
ram. I suppose that you only have limited ram.

If 128 mr ram and less than win XP,.. imho use Pandasoftware avir.
I still run it on one of my kids' pc which is a p2 266 with 128 ram on
winME. The platinum (avis & firewall) runs smooth.

I do have Norton on my p4 - 2gig,.. runs smooth ;-)

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

This poster had a good point, actually. I know machine
language is impossible to write anything of any size
anymore,

Define "size". If size = bloat and gimmicks, then assembly language may
not be entirely appropriate. But some larger projects have been written
in assembly in the past, Borland's Pascal compiler for example, and even
such an old compiler is still a pretty large project even by today's
standards.

The point is that modern optimizing compilers produce better code than
amateur assembly programmers, so they have somewhat reduced the need for
assembly language. The problem is that their availability also entices
high-level programmers into adding more bloat to their programs in the
belief that it will be magically optimized away.

but there certainly are ways to get much improved
code execution speed than all these higher level languages
provide. I have to agree that in most cases today's
programs are incredibly slow and handling disk i/o and
graphics just isn't most designer's forte anymore.

Indeed. :-(

I wonder if anyone ever had the bright idea to mostly
un-gui their apps and write in lower level languages. Lots
tougher to do, takes a little longer, and involves more asm
times, but ... results would be spectacular with the right
people behind the keyboards.

Windows assembly programming, even with a GUI, is easier than you may
think. But indeed it's not going to happen.

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

I have a celeron 400 Mhz. I used to run Norton Antivir in the good old days
on a standard PC with 8 Mhz. Then it was fast. Now it is too slow even for a
400 Mhz processor.

Why do they simply give the choice with installation simply to choose the
correct microprocessor.

Then they could use the apropriate machine language in the install procedure
for the right computer. This would make their antivirus program even faster
, but why they don't do this ???

Because optimizing code for one processor is hard enough already (and
time-consuming). Different processors are compatible on the surface, but
they have different internal architectures so code that is optimal on
one processor will not necessarily be optimal on another. The solution
is to do general optimizations and to produce code that can be expected
to run (reasonably) fast across all processors, and that is what
compilers do.

It seems they want too much from computers nowadays, while i have proof it
can be done better, and i encourage them to challenge me, writing programs
much faster for the correct microprocessor.

The programs i describe over here are free and *MUCH* much much faster, but
they don't have a microprocessor choice in their install eighter.

It's not a matter of choosing a processor. It's about reasonable,
"low-fat" programming. The best compiler or assembly programmer cannot
magially optimize away huge amounts of bloat in the form of images,
sounds, and whatever else.

For all the sceptics over here : I saw a game in which you could choose
between a x86, 286 a 386 or a 486 processor. They would install different
programs, adapted for the right microprocessor, to let the game run
properly. I assume this is also possible for antiviral programs.

Modern processors and optimization techniques are much more complex
today than they were in the past.

 

[Dudhorse]

Oh sure, it will happen some day. I guarantee it. Because I'm going to
make it happen.

My ultimate goal is to develop a programming language specifically made for
writing antivirus software. It is going to take a few years...

anti-virus with future versions of Windows to make it "bulletproof and more
secure." Afterall if you want anything done right do it your self right?
Their thinking not mine! Personally I think a total rewrite of Windows will
be about the only way to make it secure and that ain't going to happen
unless they start losing market share bigtime in the U.S.
If Micro$oft does get into AV business bigtime any future specialized
programming language for AV may become moot.

 

[Wim Hamhuis]

Because optimizing code for one processor is hard enough already (and
time-consuming).

Each effort could be chosen in a user friendly menu, when you go to the
first time install. For example you can put a truckload behind a small
convertible, but it will not pull it fast enough. When you put a truckload
behind a bulldozer it will probably possible to pull the load.

Different processors are compatible on the surface, but
they have different internal architectures so code that is optimal on
one processor will not necessarily be optimal on another.

They could include those codes all in the install to choose from. But the
appropriate code gets installed, leaving you with a fast antiviral program.

The solution
is to do general optimizations and to produce code that can be expected
to run (reasonably) fast across all processors, and that is what
compilers do.

But a program for a 400 Mhz celeron processor will run faster on a pentium
4. Instead a program written for a pentium 4 WILL NOT WORK on a celeron 400
Mhz because it's architecture is too different.

Modern processors and optimization techniques are much more complex
today than they were in the past.

That's true. It could be adapted right, leaving us all with faster programs
for the appropriate computers..

with friendly greetings,
Wim Hamhuis

 

[Frederic Bonroy]

They could include those codes all in the install to choose from. But the
appropriate code gets installed, leaving you with a fast antiviral program.

The best solution to obtain fast code is to use good algorithms and
avoid bloat. That could significantly speed up some notoriously bloated
AV programs like Norton.
You can optimize your program down to the last clock cycle if you wish:
the bottleneck will always be somewhere else, for example disk I/O if
you need to load tons of images from disk. So basically you would
optimize the routine that waits for the disk. :-D

But a program for a 400 Mhz celeron processor will run faster on a pentium
4. Instead a program written for a pentium 4 WILL NOT WORK on a celeron 400
Mhz because it's architecture is too different.

Depends. A program written for a Pentium 4 will work just fine on a
Celeron provided you don't use any instructions that are known only to
the Pentium 4.