Lightness, to me, means browsing (PC or internet) responsiveness. Yes, there are 10 FortiClient processes running at present, but, honestly, I can't "feel" their presence (2.0 ghz dual-core laptop with 4 gigs of ram). Wow. 7anon sure is a bundle of sunshiny joy today, isn't he? lol. Later... Bob
+1 ---------------------------------------------- Check the Performance Test from AV-Comparatives: Performance Test - May 2013 http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2013&month=5&sort=1 Performance Test - October 2012 http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2012&month=10&sort=1 Performance Test - June 2012 http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2012&month=6&sort=1 Performance Tests http://www.av-comparatives.org/performance-tests/
May it's configured to search for updates on 3 hours interval but the released updates are far less than 8 per day. AV-Test.org:
Those tests were for v4, not the current version, which is much lighter. By the way, AV-test also rated F-Secure as being heavy, while AV-C rated it as the lightest. I used both, and Fortinet as well as F-Secure are VERY light clients. I trust AV-Test about as much as I trust the NSA.
Correct. You "believe" that v5 it's much lighter than v4. I don't "believe" that difference between the two versions can be so high as you think. ------- =
Let me preface my post with this: That being said, I've ran both. 5 was lighter than 4. I'm not sure what else you're expecting here, other than just being contrary to keep up an argument.
I might change my view in the future. but for now its light (disclaimer : for my i5, using only 0.1% CPU on average while opening forticlient console and using 0.01% while standing by).
maybe light needs to be rephrased as "snappy." Forti does use a tad more memory then WSA and along the lines of most AVs. The difference isnt the lightness but how snappy all my applications are when opening. That is the big difference, it is almost like not running a AV at all. Forti
The days of worrying that a program is using 40mb of ram when you only have 128mb is gone. 4GB is the standard, with most new computers having 8 or even 16gb. People need to lose the old conventions of "OMG look at the AMOUNT of ram this is eating" and look to system impact. And as far as system impact goes? On a relatively recent computer (my secondary desktop and laptop are about 6 years old) this runs light as a feather. If you're still trying to keep that Windows XP machine alive, trucking along with its P4 and 256mb of ram, well, you've been left behind. Stop complaining of system resources, when you refuse to catch up.
Not everyone in this country, or elsewhere, has the monetary resources to be upgrading pcs when just keeping a roof over their heads, and meals on the table is the immediate challenge. The developers of Avast, and Panda Cloud designed their AVs with those older, lower resource pcs in mind.
Yes, the 33.66% of the market share computers running Windows XP have 4GB Ram / 8 core CPU as standard...... ------------------------------ This.
FortiClient v5.0 Administration Guide http://docs.fortinet.com/fclient/forticlient-admin-50-ga.pdf PDF, page 8: Minimum RAM: 16GB , 8GB, 4GB, 512MB............
Way to skew facts. Perhaps you should mention how much of that marketshare are corporations rather than home users? Nobody mentioned an "8 core processor", but I'd think a dual core with 4gb in this day & age is more than generous for baseline. We're talking 2005 technology here as far as CPUs, and $20 in ram. Edit: And yes, 512 is the MINIMUM. The baseline. The absolute lowest you can go. Also, Aztony, I'm not sure how your post is relevant to mine.
forticlient 5 brought my win 7 64bit to a crawl and freezing and I unistalled it in a jeepy. This is on a pc with 4gb or ram. I did not like it a bet.
No issues using Forticlient 5 on my W7 64 machine with 16 GB ram. Like the categories of sites to block/warn. Dislike the fact that it can be shutdown, unlike a password protected Avast install.
again, it's personal choice, I like the fact that forti only have av + web filter, because I only need that. can we stop arguing on snappy or light? its getting old. if you feel forti is heavy then I believe it, but for some ppl like trespasser, trjam, and me and maybe others, its the other way around fast or snappy are subjective matter since everyone have different machine and set up
Am I right with the behaviour blocking? I just want a single answer without any further debate regarding light or heavy.
I don't know, but there's no reason why they shouldn't try that when even a vendor as hopelessly incapable as G-Dud have managed to develop a good one.