Which antivirus

[kloshar]

Is good for home use on slow computer (p233 mhz, 160mb/ram, 2gb disk) with an inexperienced user?

[rdsu]

Hi kloshar,

Try the AVG Free Edition (http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php).
It require very low resources... ;)

[wizard]

-{ Quote: " quoting: VaMPiRiC_CRoW link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129404 date=1076361371]
It require very low resources... ;)
" }-

...and has a low detection rate. ;) I think there are better programs out there on the market. Even free one's. :)

wizard

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: " quoting: wizard link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129409 date=1076361898]
-{ Quote: " quoting: VaMPiRiC_CRoW link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129404 date=1076361371]
It require very low resources... ;)
" }-

...and has a low detection rate. ;) I think there are better programs out there on the market. Even free one's. :)

wizard
" }-

I agree with you. I prefer AntiVir Personal Edition, but the updates is bigger that AVG and have a little more recources...

Or try F-Prot...

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129376 date=1076355594]
Is good for home use on slow computer (p233 mhz, 160mb/ram, 2gb disk) with an inexperienced user?
" }-

1.DrWeb32 ( with Heuristics off)
2.F-Prot
3.EZ Antivirus
4. KAV 3.5 Swiss edition (not supported by kaspersy lab)


tECHNODROME

[kloshar]

Or try F-Prot...

Oh, please, don't ...

[wizard]

-{ Quote: " quoting: VaMPiRiC_CRoW link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129422 date=1076364406]

I prefer AntiVir Personal Edition, but the updates is bigger that AVG and have a little more recources..." }-

So far AntiVirPE never won a VB Award (okay this might change hopefully in the near future ;)) but anyhow from this perspective even AVG looks better than AntiVirPE at the moment

-{ Quote: "Or try F-Prot...
" }-

I think this one is at the moment even the better choice out of this three. :)

wizard

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129604 date=1076393240]
Oh, please, don't ...
" }-

Why?


tECHNODROME

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: " quoting: wizard link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129612 date=1076397444]
-{ Quote: " quoting: VaMPiRiC_CRoW link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129422 date=1076364406]

I prefer AntiVir Personal Edition, but the updates is bigger that AVG and have a little more recources..." }-

So far AntiVirPE never won a VB Award (okay this might change hopefully in the near future ;)) but anyhow from this perspective even AVG looks better than AntiVirPE at the moment

For a freeware, it's very nice... ;)

-{ Quote: "Or try F-Prot...
" }-

I think this one is at the moment even the better choice out of this three. :)

yap... :)

wizard
" }-

[c0ltran3]

Command Antivirus. The program is very light and its results in tests are good.

[bigc73542]

I prefer mcafee I have never had any problems with it and it has a very good detection record. It really seems to be fairly light on resources. ;)

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: " quoting: bigc73542 link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129826 date=1076457494]
I prefer mcafee I have never had any problems with it and it has a very good detection record. It really seems to be fairly light on resources. ;)
" }-

Watch for mshield.exe CPU usage when you are using your computer and running programs. ;)



tECHNODROME

[bigc73542]

I started up a few things and had three web windows open and this is what it shows. (screen shot)

[Technodrome]

Well I don't think you’ll be able to capture it since CPU usage goes to 0 pretty quickly. Everytime when I open something mshield.exe CPU usage goes up to 80%. I got pretty fast machine but its overkill on my old IC 333 machine.


tECHNODROME

[bigc73542]

I just don't notice it with a 2.3 proc. and a 1 ghz of ddr. of course I probably wouldnt notice hardly any of them. but truthfuly even on my old box with a 500 mhg and 128 ram mcafee didn't seem to pull it down any. It has just always worked very well for me. (knock on wood).

[VikingStorm]

-{ Quote: " quoting: bigc73542 link=board=24;threadid=21532;start=0#msg129910 date=1076473638]
I just don't notice it with a 2.3 proc. and a 1 ghz of ddr. of course I probably wouldnt notice hardly any of them. but truthfuly even on my old box with a 500 mhg and 128 ram mcafee didn't seem to pull it down any. It has just always worked very well for me. (knock on wood).
" }-
Well it's like less than a second of 80% cpu usage (sometimes it doesn't go that high), so you can't really notice it. The only time it seems noticeable is with zip/rar etc. archive scanning on, on some larger type archive.

[Technodrome]

We are talking about P233 machine and the current version of McAfee would kill it without any doubt.


tECHNODROME

[nameless]

If you could find any modern, Windows-based AV software that ran truly well on a P233, I'd have to seriously wonder why that AV vendor wasn't making use of the more-powerful hardware we have these days, and using that power to make a better product. I don't think you should need a mainframe to run good, modern AV software, but at least a CPU with "GHz" on the tail end of its description. (To use an analogy, if you were shopping for a 3D game, and it listed a P233 as the minimum requirement, would you think it was a worthwhile 3D game?)

I'm wondering if it won't be necessary to simply use a DOS-based scanner on that machine. The AV software that was designed to run on a P233 is really outdated now, and not being updated anyway (if there are any exceptions to that rule, I'm not aware of them).