AV Test December 2014 Windows 7

I run powerful machines, and I could tell ESET was holding me back. Most annoying part was the 'pause' when you start to stream videos. For the first time ever, I kicked Eset to the curb... It's time they work on how heavy it is, and toss in a DNA/Reputation system, and stop toying around. (IMO)

 

Anyone else notice the breakaway?

Companies with their own technology are largely breaking away from the pack, and we're seeing a consolidation of options. The last remaining proprietary engine products are starting to climb the charts as the substandard proprietary ones fall away.. What I mean is - you basically have Kaspersky and Bit Defender as primary engines - with large marketshare of branded technology. Then you have companies with proprietary engines, breaking away from the pack, and starting to really shine, like Norton, AhnLab 9 and Trend Micro. Then rounding it up you have 'blended' technology products (F-Secure, Emsisoft, GData, etc.)

 

I don't know what to say anymore, everyone has problems but no one reports them to the vendor to get them sorted

You and mortal have probably mentioned this streaming issue here on Wilders over 5 times each....but it won't get fixed by complaining on Wilders.

You should know by now that the product use DNA (smart signatures) tech since a few version back. And a file reputation system in Livegrid.

"It's time they work on how heavy it is"
I think ESET wants more details than this, if it really affects your system performance in some way.

 

How bro, when the entire system feels slow, I don't even know what to complain to them, browsing and app launch take a big hit despite me having an SSD and a super fast system .

If they really cared and want to fix this, they should look at the performance testing methodology and see why they score average when the known heavy AVs like Kaspersky and Bitdefender get a full rating in the performance department

 

I certainly get your point of view, and it makes sense. While I prefer to not have any serious issues with my computers, when I do I have problems and fix them myself I am learning. The knowledge I learn by fixing my problems helps me when I have to fix other peoples computers which have software problems.

 

So now your WHOLE system is slow, are you suggesting the slowness is spreading through out the system further and further, like an infection ?

Hmmm it started with video "stuttering" last year but now the whole system feels slow....something fishy is going on here.

Average ?
http://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-test-suites-october-2014/

Average ? No...actually a bit below average.
http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

Personally, I don't care about any of the tests as they don't change how the product works for me.

I just post both as they are both performance tests made by two different test orgz and the results are not the same.

"should look at the performance testing methodology and see why they score average when the known heavy AVs like Kaspersky and Bitdefender get a full rating in the performance department"

There are users on Wilders that says that both of them are lighter than ESET on their system. So I guess there's nothing wrong with the AV-Test methodology, the results shows exactly that. Why don't you give them a try, I'm sure they won't slow down your Whole system like ESET anyway.

"I don't even know what to complain to them"
Complain about all you want, the more the better.

 

Others here have mentioned ESET makes the system sluggish.. Just a few posts back someone says they didn't notice Eset slowing anything down. Then they uninstalled it, and the whole system felt 'snappier'. Eset being light is a myth held over from days long past.

 

Yeah that must be it, a myth is what it is, funny I didn't think about that sooner. I have believed in this myth for so long I can't see clear anymore

 

It was once true. It's true no longer. People can't let it go. I'm rooting for ESET to become light again. I own licenses to it after all.

 

It is light. I'm running ESET IS on XP and it runs fine.

 

I noticed a trend.. On high end systems, fast rigs, a few of us think ESET is heavy.. Same with the testers. On older, lower end machines, this doesn't seem to be a complaint. My thought is - it's because on higher end machines we become much more discerning to performance. For me, a web page loads in 0.12ms, I start to get highly annoyed if a page takes longer than 0.50ms. Some guy on an old, slow XP box is already waiting 30-90 seconds for a page to load, what's another 3 seconds an AV causes? Higher performance increases sensitivity to such things. Right now, Trend and Norton feel the lightest to me - all things considered. They simply don't increase page load speed, or video buffering times.

 

30-90s page loads? lol ok...

 

Well whatever they are on slow machines. I don't really mess with old boxes, but the last time I did it felt like eternity to do anything.

 

Exactly

! You hit the nail on the head! Very good observation, it seems that people are used to Eset being very light some the old days of v2, e 4 and 5, then when it started getting heavier slowly with each version upgrade due to the increase in protection modules and/or the way it works, people still have this idea carved in their head only until they use something else, many options out there for light BTW, that's when they would realize oh my now my system is much snappier at everything

 

I will if i'm able to pinpoint the problem. I found some image files in the beginning that was not loading, but it was fixed soon after I discovered it. Someone else reported the same issue, and they released a fix. I use web developer/ network in Firefox to try to diagnose the problem, but just got accustomed to surfing slower lately without looking into it anymore. I have a really hard time watching streaming video right now, but it may not have anything to do with Eset Smart Security/NOD 32. The video is constantly buffering, and that's on almost all sites. I could just uninstall NOD 32, and go without an AV for a while to see if there is a difference with video streaming. My other security software should cover me for testing purposes.

 

Totally agree, for me I would notice even a split second of slow down as I know very well how my Alienware performs usually, I measure very second

 

Hehe no, it does not take 30-90 sec for websites to load on XP....not even if you used a 56k modem on a bad day.

"Same with the testers"
http://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-test-suites-october-2014/

Tester not testers. In this PDF you can see exactly what hardware they used, which OS, and test method. It's all there. And you can also see that both Bitdefender and Kaspersky wasn't far behind in this test. And I hope you understand that it would be totally irrelevant to make these tests on a high-end super duper fast system as most users use "normal" hardware, similar to the system in the
AV-C test.

Now find the same details from AV-Test performance test and you can easily compare the hardware and test method between the tests to back up your "trend". This is all I could find: http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/performance/

"a web page loads in 0.12ms, I start to get highly annoyed if a page takes longer than 0.50ms."

I am impressed that you actually is able to tell the difference. 1 sec load time is nothing to get highly annoyed about.

 

You say this because you simply must have not experienced how instantly webpages load without Eset's super duper heavy HTTP scanner.

Torrents download slower, pages have a serious lag, like when I click on a bookmark from my favorites, rather than the page starting to load that same instant, there is a 1 sec lag, I don't know about you but to me all this adds up as I want my browsing experience to be super snappy.

Heck, even with Trend's toolbar installed an Trend's AiProtection active in my router, there is literally 0 delay when loading sites, they load so fast as if you're loading them off an intranet, I really suggest you uninstall ESET for once and have a taste of the snapiness I am talking about, only then would you know how much is it really heavy.

Now I won't mention the streaming videos buffering then playing then buffering again all in slow motion cause we've been there, not just me, many others like Mayhana, zFactor, me, etc.... the bug is there, I think zfactor provided them with the logs but then what? nothing.....it's still the same old turtle

 

And again, this is your opinion or your system. Not everyone experiences this. Therefore, just because it's your experience doesn't make it a bad product..

 

Nice quote right there. I hope you know my history on this forum, and that also implies that I know more than I let on, just like a few other members here (Now there's a little hint!). I'm not someone who praises McAfee as a product or a company, but when it comes to comparison with Symantec, well, you choose the lesser of two evils....

Well, it did well this one time, and it's not been failing any tests either. Like AVG, perhaps consistently mediocre, but at least it can be trusted to be exactly that.

I think McAfee's focus has changed since the acquisition by Intel and they are more directed towards hardware-based security, which might explain some of these bizarre actions. As for Symantec, I'm going to take a long, deep breath and wait, for reasons I've already described. Trend, however, is on a roll.

Still, given a choice I'd not be using either of these three products.

 

Come on, 0.38 of a second, do you really know how quick that is, how could you tell the difference?

 

my issues currently with eset are streaming is bad and you tube videos with buffer way to often. they will start, play for maybe 20 seconds then buffer then play for 20 seconds then buffer rinse repeat and my streaming was stuttering. the other issue is the extremely slowed down upload speeds my speedtest results went from normal (150/150) to an abysmal 20 or less. no matter what server or test i tried. its a shame for me because i love eset and really it would be my sole av minus these issues. and i have tested every which way side of sunday to try to remedy the issue and on MULTIPLE systems even different isp's fresh installs etc etc i get similar results every time.

 

Bad performance for Avast, what happened? I thought it's one of the lightest AV available.

 

Nothing happened - many times the performance part of the AV test has been discussed. It is not perceivable by simple human users - it is understandable and logical only to the chosen few at AV-test org. Take it with a good amount of salt and if it doesn't get clearer, increase the dosage of salt.

 

When system starts for 1 min with one AV and for 5 min with another AV along with a delay in opening software, that is unperceivable?

I do not believe AV-Comparatives in performance tests anymore, not that AV-test is any better. They claim, that Avira is the best in performance, in my tests, the worst. I can not believe, that I have recommended it for years as such, it has not changed since the last time I have tried it 10 years ago. Avira took 15 min to instal, another 15 min to update and system was slow like a hell. Panda on the other hand took less then a minute and according to their tests it should be worse than MSE. 360 was also quite a resource hog on a system with 1,7 GB usable RAM, pagefile disabled. Someone might argue, that it depends on the system, well great performance AVs should perform well on low-end systems, on high-end it does not matter much.