Kaspersky - do I need to upgrade from 6.0?

[newbino]

I use KAV (6.0.2.614) as on-demand only scanner, on top of my real-time Nod32.
Would I get any benefits upgrading to version 7.0?
:)

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I use KAV (6.0.2.614) as on-demand only scanner, on top of my real-time Nod32.
Would I get any benefits upgrading to version 7.0?
:) <-QUOTE}
yes, upgrade.

better detection.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> yes, upgrade.

better detection. <-QUOTE}


..and lighter...for me at least.I have kis7.

[Sjoeii]

It definately is a hugh improvement over version 6.
Please upgrade.

[quadrophonic]

{QUOTE-> ..and lighter...for me at least.I have kis7. <-QUOTE}


Can you tell me what the mem usage is for just the KAV exe's?
I see that a purchase of KAV 6 gets a free upgrade to KAV 7 and with all the offers of KAV free after rebate, I'm thinking of installing it once my six month trial of Avira expires.

The mem usage of the four Avira exe files (including mailguard) is about 12 mg.
Avira also installs four services (including the scheduler).

[mnosteele]

I have KIS 7 and using Vista Business, it has 2 processes and uses 7-8mb of RAM.

:)

[Sjoeii]

KIS 7 and Vista Home premium here. KIS does about 8 mb here

[Clweb]

There are 2 processes: on with 9MB and the other around 40MB.
So KIS is not super light. I would say average for today's software.Installed a trial to check, as the stated 8MB seemed "too light".

[fax]

{QUOTE-> There are 2 processes: on with 9MB and the other around 40MB.
So KIS is not super light. I would say average for today's software.Installed a trial to check, as the stated 8MB seemed "too light". <-QUOTE}


Most recent security tools are light if measured with task manager but generally heavy if you look behind the scene... i.e. kernel load.

Cheers,
Fax

[zapjb]

KIS7 on XP pro corp. 18MB.

[Sjoeii]

{QUOTE-> There are 2 processes: on with 9MB and the other around 40MB.
So KIS is not super light. I would say average for today's software.Installed a trial to check, as the stated 8MB seemed "too light". <-QUOTE}
I guess things are not going ok for you.
40mb is by far too much

[mike21]

Please note that actual ram usage (mine with trimmed KIS is about 15MB) has nothing to do with the impact on your system.

KIS 7 is so highly customizable that it can have an impact on your PC from slowing/lurking to unnoticed.

[Clweb]

{QUOTE-> I guess things are not going ok for you.
40mb is by far too much <-QUOTE}
No, it depends what you look for. I've learned that the real thing to look for are the 'Private Bytes'. My system is XP SP2 Home on a test partition. There are not much applications installed, I use it to test security software.
And here it is:
193494

[King Grub]

{QUOTE-> I guess things are not going ok for you.
40mb is by far too much <-QUOTE}

40 mb can be normal. It is for me, when I max my P2P-application speed. Then the second AVP hovers around the 40 mb level. If I stop the torrents, it quickly drops back to 9-10 mb.

[mike21]

{QUOTE-> No, it depends what you look for. I've learned that the real thing to look for are the 'Private Bytes'.
And here it is:
193494 <-QUOTE}

The real memory cons is the working set. If you add the working set of every process the sum will be the "System Cache" under Physical Memory

[Bls440]

As far as I know KAV 6 doesn't suffer from the chkdsk issue ... maybe that would be the one and only reason for you not to upgrade.
This arouses the question ; is there a way to prevent that issue ? Is it going to be solved in a near future ?

[fax]

{QUOTE-> As far as I know KAV 6 doesn't suffer from the chkdsk issue ... maybe that would be the one and only reason for you not to upgrade.
This arouses the question ; is there a way to prevent that issue ? Is it going to be solved in a near future ? <-QUOTE}

Nope, also KAV 6 suffers from the 'famous' chkdsk issue.
At least for some users...

Actually everything started with KAV5.

Cheers,
Fax

[Clweb]

{QUOTE-> The real memory cons is the working set. If you add the working set of every process the sum will be the "System Cache" under Physical Memory <-QUOTE}
The system cache is memory used to buffer system data and is not the sum of the working set of the processes.
A software developer in my job, told me the private byte have to be monitored (to detect memory leaks) and it is confirmed here:
http://www.itwriting.com/dotnetmem.php
See:
---
So what are these Private Bytes? This is memory allocated to the process that cannot be shared by other processes. It is probably the most useful single figure when you want to know “How much memory does my app use?” It still needs qualification. As we’ve seen, the Private Bytes may not all be in physical memory. If they are swapped to disk, and the user isn’t actively using the application, then they aren’t having much impact on other applications.
---

When you do a scan with KIS you will see the working set increasing and having near the value of the private bytes.

[mike21]

{QUOTE-> The system cache is memory used to buffer system data and is not the sum of the working set of the processes.
A software developer in my job, told me the private byte have to be monitored (to detect memory leaks) and it is confirmed here:
http://www.itwriting.com/dotnetmem.php
See:
---
So what are these Private Bytes? This is memory allocated to the process that cannot be shared by other processes. It is probably the most useful single figure when you want to know “How much memory does my app use?” It still needs qualification. As we’ve seen, the Private Bytes may not all be in physical memory. If they are swapped to disk, and the user isn’t actively using the application, then they aren’t having much impact on other applications.
---

When you do a scan with KIS you will see the working set increasing and having near the value of the private bytes. <-QUOTE}

I agree with you in general terms but when other ppl refer to memory usage then its the working set that should be noted. I still insist that none of these two is so important for the impact that the app has on the system, unless the private bytes consumption keeps increasing without reason; in this case it may be a memory leak.

Nevertheless with a gig of ram these mbs consumption shouldn't concern anyone, its like paying for ram and keeping it in a draw without a reason.

The real slowdown on the system is caused by many factors like cpu usage, threads, memory leaks, in/outs and others. My personal opinion for the impact that have various antiviruses in the system is that the most important is that the AV doesn't continually scan the same files if these have not been modified (scan new or changed files only).

octogen I pm you

[octogen]

{QUOTE-> ...KIS 7 is so highly customizable that it can have an impact on your PC from slowing/lurking to unnoticed. <-QUOTE}

Just out of curiosity, what are some tweaks to KAV so that it has minimal impact? Is there a website like there was with KAV 5.0? Thanks.

Edit: Idiot me, I just noticed that you wrote KIS 7, not KAV 7. Tweaks may not be the same, but if there are tweaks common to both, I would like to know. Thanks.

[steve1955]

{QUOTE-> yes, upgrade.

better detection. <-QUOTE}


detection no different

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> detection no different <-QUOTE}
are you sure, what about the new heuristic engine?

[dawgg]

{QUOTE-> detection no different <-QUOTE}
Better detection, yes... look at AV-Comparatives if you dont believe me... v7 has same signatures, but stronger heuristics than v6... I think eScan uses Kaspersky's engine (but not the new heuristics), so eScan's on-demand detection rate will be equivalent to KAV6 (and the older AOL-AVS when it used to be Kaspersky) and KAV7's detection is higher than eScans (hence, KAV6).
... KAV7 = 98,46%... 795.924
... eScan = 97,53%... 726.481

[steve1955]

I was told by Kaspersky UK that detection for both products was the same,so just passing on the info I was told
I enquired because at time Kav7 didn't seem "finished" and was a bit dubious on "upgrading" from Kav6 as it worked well on my machine,but I suppose things may have changed in last couple of months,but as they know products better than most of us on here I took them at their word re detection
PS weren't they supposed to be incorperating "new heuristic engine" into Kav6? and are you sure they haven't?

[dawgg]

Understandable regarding taking their word. Maybe they understood incorrectly, but there is better heuristic detection in v7 than v6, signature detection exactly the same.
No, new Heuristic engine isnt included in v6... only old heuristics which were not as good.
Regardless of which you use, you'll still be protected by Kaspersky's signatures (what its renowned for)

[xandros]

kis7 kasperaky internet security 7.0.0.125 very light on my pc
see the pic plz i take it from my taskmanager
http://www.3tt3.net/up/uploads/AhK77032.jpg

my pc
xp pro sp2
processor 2800
ram 1.5G
vga 128

thank you kaspersky company

[steve1955]

"No, new Heuristic engine isnt included in v6... only old heuristics which were not as good."
I thought originally Kav6 had basically no heuristics only a pdm,the heuristics were being developed for 7 and would be intergrated into 6(in a standard update) as and when they were developed enough,one of threads at Kaspersky forum seemed to indicate this??was this not done?

[dawgg]

v6 has minimal heuristics, nothing special.
At first there was word that v6 will also get heuristics via normal updates, but then the plans were aborted.