Avast Pro or Bit Defender

[legendary]

Hello all ive been reading these boards for about 3 months and really enjoy the information~
I bought a Vista ready PC yesterday and i need to know through opinions if i should use the Vista Firewall along with Avast Pro OR use BitDefender Internet Security.
I have only 1 gig of ram on my machine.
Also would i be better of buying TrendMicro ISecurity or CA ISecurity if my 2 choices are no good?

THANKS in advance.

Gil

[legendary]

Wow no advice?:'(

[C.S.J]

sorry, its late at night here. :D

id recommend bitdefender internet security 10 for sure,

if www.ebuyer.com delivers to your country, the OEM can be purchased very cheaply from there for bitdefender IS.

bitdefender IS is very low on ram, and if your using vista or planning to, your ram may struggle, id recommend using XP and bitdefender 10 out of your choices made.

add another 1gb if you plan on going to vista, bitdefender is already vista-ready too.

[ThunderZ]

Have to agree with C.S.J, if BitDefender 10 is as light on resources as has been stated and if you add one more Gig of ram when you upgrade to Vista.

[legendary]

Thanks all,! is CA lighter or trend Micro lighter? Also by disabling Windows fiewall and defender will it be lighter by using the bitdefender package? I will have only 1 GB of memory for at least 2 weeks untill i can upgrade.

[JerryM]

If it runs well on your system, of the two mentioned, BD would be my recommendation.

Jerry

[Legendkiller]

bitdefender is way ahead of ca and its very light on pc..so you won'y have to disable anything to make it run properly..

[suedehead]

definitely BitDefender! as previously mentioned, it doesnt eat up too much of the PC's resources, and it has yet to endanger our network by missing a virus or two. basically's its the easy-to-forget kind of application - which i think is a good criteria for a good antivirus.

[legendary]

Is it lighter then Avast Pro?

[lodore]

i dono if its lighter than BD but i would reccomend BD if it runs on your pc.
lodore

[legendary]

Thank u ! I'll see if it runs,what should i expect if it doesn't run? Also if it doesn't what should be choice 2?

[RejZoR]

Go with avast!. BitDefender has good detection rate but it's so damn slow...
And i'm using Athlon 3200+ and 1,5GB of RAM with 200GB ATA133 disk drive...

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> Go with avast!. BitDefender has good detection rate but it's so damn slow...
And i'm using Athlon 3200+ and 1,5GB of RAM with 200GB ATA133 disk drive... <-QUOTE}


What do you mean by slow? Does it slow my machine down?

[RejZoR]

It did mine. Badly. Very badly. avast! HE didn't on the other hand. Also BD10 works well under XP, but terribly under Vista...

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> It did mine. Badly. Very badly. avast! HE didn't on the other hand. Also BD10 works well under XP, but terribly under Vista... <-QUOTE}

Ok well is Avast better then CA & Trend internet Security? I just hear that Windows defender uses alot of memory, since i only have 1 gig of memory for vista that worries me?
What do u suggect i use for Vista that uses less resources then Windows Defender & Windows Firewall?

[EsoxLucius]

What it means is that the scanner is a little slow then Avast's, something xfiles/s slower. This doesn't mean that BitDefender is weaker in any way.
Also Avast isn't the fastest scanner according to the latest tests from AV-Comparative, BitDefender is slower in these test but you should check out the score that it pulls out on detecting compared to AVAST. Also BitDefender has higher response time than many other AV software and the updates are often enough to be sure you are protected.

[C.S.J]

legendary,

bitdefender will not slow down your machine, its low on ram and will secure you for sure, and be sure to add another GB of ram if you go to vista.

start > run > msconfig > selective startup > (Startup tab) > and change your start up programs, it will reduce your ram for programs booting or running in the background that you just dont need.

also, you can.....

start > run > services.msc

check your services that are on AUTOMATIC, if you dont need it to run automatically when boot-up, right click it, properties and select MANUAL.

do both and you will notice your available ram has increased ten-fold.

if you still have problems with your ram, which i dont think you will if you keep to XP and bitdefender IS, choose AVG, it would be your better choice if your struggling for ram and performance with your setup.

good luck and keep us posted.

[legendary]

~removed whole quote of post directly above~

Thanks for the info! The problem is Vista is already on the machine. Do you think the Bitdefender IS is more or less then Avast,windows defender and windows firewall?

[C.S.J]

ok, if its already on the machine, try bitdenfeder, its the lightest suite out there for ram usage, see how it runs.

dont use windows defender, you shouldnt need it, i dont know if vista will let you stop it or not, my vista has not arrived yet, and turn off windows firewall just to be safe from any conflicts with the firewall in bitdefender internet security.

if your behind a router with built in firewall, maybe you dont need a suite at all, just an av is all you would need.

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> ok, if its already on the machine, try bitdenfeder, its the lightest suite out there for ram usage, see how it runs.

dont use windows defender, you shouldnt need it, i dont know if vista will let you stop it or not, my vista has not arrived yet, and turn off windows firewall just to be safe from any conflicts with the firewall in bitdefender internet security.

if your behind a router with built in firewall, maybe you dont need a suite at all, just an av is all you would need. <-QUOTE}


They say Defender is realtime protection from malware? so turn it off?

[C.S.J]

yes turn it off......

only if ram is an issue and it conflicts with your bitdefender, it not, no reason not to keep it on.

[legendary]

Thanks c.s.j! i will test it when i get out of work and post the results! If it doesn't run well i'll be back for more help..! thanks ;D

[RejZoR]

{QUOTE-> What it means is that the scanner is a little slow then Avast's, something xfiles/s slower. This doesn't mean that BitDefender is weaker in any way.
Also Avast isn't the fastest scanner according to the latest tests from AV-Comparative, BitDefender is slower in these test but you should check out the score that it pulls out on detecting compared to AVAST. Also BitDefender has higher response time than many other AV software and the updates are often enough to be sure you are protected. <-QUOTE}

I like BitDefender on WinXP, works fast enough, but this under Vista is just plain ridiculous.

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> I like BitDefender on WinXP, works fast enough, but this under Vista is just plain ridiculous. <-QUOTE}


RejZoR ... Do you have Vista?

[RejZoR]

Yeah i have it.

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> Yeah i have it. <-QUOTE}


It has slowed down my PC :'( it slows it down for the first 10 minutes then it seems to runu OK. Avast didnt slow it down at all. Now i dont know what to do.

[JerryM]

I guess it is a case that the best detection rates do not always equate to the best AV on a particular system.

Best,
Jerry

[legendary]

{QUOTE-> I guess it is a case that the best detection rates do not always equate to the best AV on a particular system.

Best,
Jerry <-QUOTE}

Jerry, i guess your right, i may have to put Avast back on i just dont want to use windows Defender is there something better i can use or should i just use CA internet Security?

[C.S.J]

always say no to CA,

try avg internet security or panda internet security 2007, i think they are both vista ready aswell.

infact, try a few, see which runs best with your vista and your computer.

[legendary]

WELL after trying bitdefender 10 & TrendMicro 2007 i had to switch back to Avast Pro. It slowed vista to a craw.

[Nordiam]

I ran Vista Ultimate Retail and BitDefender AntiVirus 10 for the first week I had Vista.

I have an EVGA 680i,2.66GHz Core 2, 4GB, and SATA II drives... it was so slow...

It appears (to me) sockspy.dll is much less efficient in Vista than on XP. It seems to scan everything, being tied up in scanning log entries Vista is writing, or pausing in the middle of some file. It's the hard drive churning that tripled the load time of my applications...

I've went through sending BitDefender system reports, screen shots, stability charts, etc... they were very eager to obtain information from me, so I assume they are working on it and will get back to me one of these days.

Couldn't take it... uninstalled BitDefender 10... installed Avast 4.7... I have a smokin system again. At least 30% faster. The scanning engine seems way faster, and not as many irrelevant files are scanned. Not stoked on the car stereo for a UI... but hey.

Just my experience...
Nord

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> I ran Vista Ultimate Retail and BitDefender AntiVirus 10 for the first week I had Vista.

I have an EVGA 680i,2.66GHz Core 2, 4GB, and SATA II drives... it was so slow...

It appears (to me) sockspy.dll is much less efficient in Vista than on XP. It seems to scan everything, being tied up in scanning log entries Vista is writing, or pausing in the middle of some file. It's the hard drive churning that tripled the load time of my applications...

I've went through sending BitDefender system reports, screen shots, stability charts, etc... they were very eager to obtain information from me, so I assume they are working on it and will get back to me one of these days.

Couldn't take it... uninstalled BitDefender 10... installed Avast 4.7... I have a smokin system again. At least 30% faster. The scanning engine seems way faster, and not as many irrelevant files are scanned. Not stoked on the car stereo for a UI... but hey.

Just my experience...
Nord <-QUOTE}

no smoking unless you on fire;D