I
Ian Kenefick
incorrect. They dont.
incorrect. They dont.
G
Greg Rozelle
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
I
Ian Kenefick
Neither AVG nor F-Prot are 'lighter' on resources than NOD32. There is
data pertaining to this on www.virusbtn.com and
www.av-comparatives.org.
I
Ian Kenefick
You didn't read my post at all. Where do I mention Norton or McAfee?
E
edgewalker
Phil Weldon said:
....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.
S
Starman
You mean awfull ? right ?
F-secure an Kaspersky makes the only real AV
F-secure an Kaspersky makes the only real AV
S
Starman
You mean awfull ? right ?
F-secure an Kaspersky makes the only real AV
--
F-secure an Kaspersky makes the only real AV
* * Chas said:
--
S
Starman
I don't know what to trust, if you look here the result is completely
differnt:
(and maybe more like real world, based on my knowledge about many of them
for many years]
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72
snip>
differnt:
(and maybe more like real world, based on my knowledge about many of them
for many years]
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72
snip>
S
Starman
I don't know what to trust, if you look here the result is completely
differnt:
(and maybe more like real world, based on my knowledge about many of them
for many years]
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72
snip>
--
differnt:
(and maybe more like real world, based on my knowledge about many of them
for many years]
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72
snip>
--
G
Greg Rozelle
Avg may depend on what you have corporate, professional, or free.
F-Prot may depend on what you have Corporate or Home User
On F-prot home version website it say's this
http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/win/index.html#system
F-Prot Anti virus for Windows is designed to use the absolute minimum
of your system's resources
I can definitely tell you AVG FREE does use less resources from my
experience.
Greg Rozelle
I
Ian Kenefick
Benchmark? Comparative Data? Proof?
I
Ian Kenefick
This website is a lot of bullshit. Trust www.av-comparative.org
www.virusbtn.com and www.av-test.org
I
Ian Kenefick
OMG
) Whilst these are good products there are a lot of otherswhich 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
P
Phil Weldon
'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.
|
|
| ...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.
|
|
N
news.rcn.com
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????????
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????????
C
* * Chas
Starman said:
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.
C
* * Chas
Greg Rozelle said:
How much does AVG use on your system? Let's see some figures....
On my primary PC running Win98SE, NOD32 uses the following:
NOD32KRN.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
NOD32KUI.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
I have NOD32 Automatic Updates disabled.
On an almost mirror image Win98SE system F-Prot uses the following:
F-STOPW.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
I have F-Prot Automatic Updates disabled.
Chas.
P
Phil Weldon
'* * Chas' wrote, in part:
| On my primary PC running Win98SE, NOD32 uses the following:
|
| NOD32KRN.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
| NOD32KUI.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
_____
Unfortunately your numbers are not useful. 'Conventional Memory' is the
first 640 KBytes of memory, a legacy of DOS and the first IBM PCs. Your
'288 bytes' is only the tiniest part of the code. Were you not curious that
the numbers were all the same?
Phil Weldon
|
| | > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:38:24 +0100, Ian Kenefick
| >
| > >Neither AVG nor F-Prot are 'lighter' on resources than NOD32. There
| is
| > >data pertaining to this on www.virusbtn.com and
| > >www.av-comparatives.org.
| >
| > Avg may depend on what you have corporate, professional, or free.
| > F-Prot may depend on what you have Corporate or Home User
| >
| > On F-prot home version website it say's this
| > http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/win/index.html#system
| >
| > F-Prot Anti virus for Windows is designed to use the absolute minimum
| > of your system's resources
| >
| >
| > I can definitely tell you AVG FREE does use less resources from my
| > experience.
| >
| > Greg Rozelle
|
| How much does AVG use on your system? Let's see some figures....
|
| On my primary PC running Win98SE, NOD32 uses the following:
|
| NOD32KRN.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
| NOD32KUI.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
| I have NOD32 Automatic Updates disabled.
|
| On an almost mirror image Win98SE system F-Prot uses the following:
|
| F-STOPW.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
| I have F-Prot Automatic Updates disabled.
|
| Chas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On my primary PC running Win98SE, NOD32 uses the following:
|
| NOD32KRN.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
| NOD32KUI.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
_____
Unfortunately your numbers are not useful. 'Conventional Memory' is the
first 640 KBytes of memory, a legacy of DOS and the first IBM PCs. Your
'288 bytes' is only the tiniest part of the code. Were you not curious that
the numbers were all the same?
Phil Weldon
|
| | > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:38:24 +0100, Ian Kenefick
| >
| > >Neither AVG nor F-Prot are 'lighter' on resources than NOD32. There
| is
| > >data pertaining to this on www.virusbtn.com and
| > >www.av-comparatives.org.
| >
| > Avg may depend on what you have corporate, professional, or free.
| > F-Prot may depend on what you have Corporate or Home User
| >
| > On F-prot home version website it say's this
| > http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/win/index.html#system
| >
| > F-Prot Anti virus for Windows is designed to use the absolute minimum
| > of your system's resources
| >
| >
| > I can definitely tell you AVG FREE does use less resources from my
| > experience.
| >
| > Greg Rozelle
|
| How much does AVG use on your system? Let's see some figures....
|
| On my primary PC running Win98SE, NOD32 uses the following:
|
| NOD32KRN.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
| NOD32KUI.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
| I have NOD32 Automatic Updates disabled.
|
| On an almost mirror image Win98SE system F-Prot uses the following:
|
| F-STOPW.EXE 288 bytes of Conventional Memory
|
| I have F-Prot Automatic Updates disabled.
|
| Chas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N
Noel Paton
news.rcn.com said:
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 on how to post messages to NG's
N
news.rcn.com
Noel Paton said:
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.