Bitdefender Internet Security sucks! IS it just meh?

these are all performance tests, but bitdefender offer you a good protection instead all these (maybe) slownesses , though i found some of the results like you gotta be kidding me..

just find me one person in this whole world who says the installation size of bitdefender is 1200 mb... i challenge...
maximum size of bitdefender installation for me was about 800 mb ( considering Temporary data )

so biased tests.. comparing to what AV-C did once before.

 

The installation File was 1096 MB; not 1200 MB!
This is of little importance, however, compared with
other -by far- more important Benchmarks.

In the following Benchmarks, BD was a POOR performer:
-Boot Time
-User Interface Launch Time
-Browse Time
-Internet Explorer Launch Time
-Installation Time,
-File Copy, Move and Delete
-Installation of Third Party Applications
-File Write, Open and Close
-PE Scan Time

Now, if you call the internationally recognized PassMark Benchmark Reports "biased",
then there is No Logical ground left...

What I call biased are the Fanboys,
who systematically "ignore" Reality,
when their favorite Application performs poorly!

Even inexperienced users know that BD is a Resource Hogger...
Of course, for the BD Fanboys, BD is not that Heavy...
O.K. gentlemen...As you wish...
And donkeys fly, too...

 

interesting

Actually 1147mb for TS... which for me and all existing bd users is about 800mb !!! ( this company is right for sure ! )




firstly I'm not a fanboy.. but i hate exaggeration

yeah.. just remove the "Even" from your sentence and read it again.
amigo.....!!

that's the reality.

 

Bitdefender Internet Security sucks!

And donkeys fly, too...
As the Fan/FunnyBoys want...
No further comment...

 

Lol. What does install size have to do with anything? I could careless how big it it is cause I have a 750GB HDD. Gezz. Acting like its 20 years ago when pc's had 512MB drives.

 

the larger the installation size = bigger updates+ wasted internet traffic. other suites use less than half that disc space so why does bitdefender use so much?
Plenty of people on here do daily images of their operating system partition and that extra space used by bitdefender means longer backup times.

 

Probably.. as i said before my online installation size of Bitdefender TS was about 800 mb.

about 370mb was for the temporary files created during online installation.

and the final size of bitdefender folder was about 500 mb.

 

Salut,



Ne pas confondre mémoire virtuelle (réservée par le sytème) et mémoire de travail (réellement utilisée), Bitdefender consomme très peu de mémoire de travail.


Do not confuse virtual memory (reserved by the system) and working memory (actually used), Bitdefender consumes very little memory work.

 

Maybe the suite is different IDK but I have Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2013 on two netbooks with 2 core intel atoms 1 gig ram and there is minamal impact with low memory usage.Bitdefender lost a lot of weight in comparison to older versions.
Hell, I am even able to surf the web all while a full system scan is going with no problems at all.Ha Ha my atoms our smoking your big processors. No where the speed of my Macbook,that just fly's through eveything.

 

Thanks, 1 & 3 were great. However, for the Bitdefender ones they are different, one is just the AV and the other is the whole package. Just be aware.

Thanks for clarifying your companies stance, I think it's a good one, but that's why there's other options out there, some need something faster. Like if using Dragon Naturally Speaking and many other programs running that slows the PC down no matter what, but that's NOT the norm.

Granted it usually doesn't matter for most, but overtime on a new system it starts to add up. Like people with smaller 60GB SSD drives on a laptop. Some people keep PC's for 3+ years. I assume a lot of us on here turn are old ones into testing ones. However if they use it for testing but also actually use it daily or a couple days every few weeks, over the years they will probably go to the newer AV program which will get bigger and bigger and try to do more things. I have 6.5tb's on my main PC and I am seriously running out of space on my internal hd's.

One good thing about netbooks, tablets and basically PC cell phones type devices is that software has to be written to lower end systems. I guess that can only make the desktop versions more efficient if the programmers work on both or at least share that info to make them faster.

Hours past my bedtime, I'll probably read parts of this tomorrow and be like what the ? was I thinking.

 

i'am running the 637 version from Bitdefender Internet security 2013 and it is running better then the other 2013 versions of Bitdefender and they have fixed a lot of bugs and it is running good now.

 

Thanks for that Passmark link. I didn't know they did performance testing.

Looks like Symantec blew away the competition as I would expect. However, there are a lot of performance complaints about NIS 2013.

I believe a lot of people don't realize that the best way to install any AV/IS is to first uninstall and remove all remenants of the old version. Then install the new version. Finally, if any other realtime antimalware software exist, set the proper exceptions for both products. Note that even with exceptions properly set, multiple realtime protection software can "butt heads" with each other; sometimes at the worst possible time such as a malware attack.

Also it has been shown that stand-alone non-real time scanners can conflict with AV/IS software. Best example I can think of was when Emsisoft AntiMalware was using the Ikarus engine which conflicted with Avast.

Bottom line - using multiple security software does not necessarily mean your more secure and can actually result in the opposite.

As far as Bitdefender requiring a 1 GB+ download, that's outrageous.

 

I try different set ups all the time but this last time i have Bitdefender antivirus and on my pc it runs the best of all others.Even Sandboxie is off my system because of a slight delay and Bitdefender with Safepay is on to stay.

 

berryracer;

Just curious, is this needed if you have Revo Uninstaller Pro or similar? Just wondering if it's like that DriverCleaner.NET program was. They obviously looked at every file and registry that was created when ATI or nVidia installed something.

Does it use a program that sees exactly what is installed like when using
RevoUninstaller Pro's Trace Install program thing and when I used that IoBit Advanced
SystemCare program that can also trace everything that is installed and shows a log. Can't remember if Revo creates a log you can see. I know I forgot to use it when I installed Avast 6, then I upgraded to Avast 7, so that's why I'm wondering if this AppRemover would be better.

I just downloaded your program and it passed Avast 7 free. Also uploaded it to VirusTotal (scan hash link) and it fully passed 0 / 38.

Here's the SHA1 hash:

118A5DA6D0BB882B6DF6C68B64856D34538AF83E

SHA256 Hash:

31ada3b96dd6a255767ea1af5b60136d748dbee6eb730006caad59fc38e6b4e6

Going to install within Sandboxie to test it out either way.

Thanks.

---

Update: I ran it within Sandboxie, it showed Avast, Malwarebytes and uTorrent. I also have SuperAntiSpyware that I rarely run but that didn't show up. However, none of these programs are installed within Sandboxie so I'm lucky they showed up at all, was just curious. I chose No Installation to just test it.

 

personally i never recc use of "app removers" simply uninstall the program and then use that companies removal tool, run ccleaner and or the likes of jv16. i have found MANY TIMES uninstall tools remove more than they should and or cause major issues after removal. some people love them still though. i would never recc any of them to any of my clients personally. av companies make removal tools for a reason.

 

Just wanted to say I've tried MANY of the suites over the last couple of years, and am now running the paid version of Avast Internet Security and it's the last one I'll put on my box, along with MBAM Pro. I've fount the perfect combo for me.

 

Just as a clarification; 1GB install size does not (necessarily) mean a 1GB download.

Personally I do think hardware and software configuration matters: For example I have personally never found Kaspersky or BitDefender to be light but I have seen it run great on other machines. PC Tools is not rated very well for performance by either AV-comparatives or AV-test but I find it just as light as AVG (both suites at maximum protection settings, note that AVG is almost always shown to have less impact on PC performance than PC Tools). In some products I have found a huge difference between their impacts at default settings versus the impacts on maximum settings (e.g. eScan). Thus it cannot be universally said that a product is light or not.