G DATA 2009 RC2

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Blue Sea, Sep 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. D3VIL_3AT3R

    D3VIL_3AT3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Posts:
    5
    One thing is for sure. This uses extremely too much memory. About 300MB thats way more than any other antivirus.

    I guess its cause of the 2 engines.
     
  2. Farmand

    Farmand Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Posts:
    73
    Location:
    Denmark

    It "only" uses like 160MB here.. And I have the Internet Security 2009 installed.. But way too much if you ask me..

    Anyone knows why it uses that much.?

    Thanks
     
  3. UIS

    UIS Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Posts:
    14
  4. D3VIL_3AT3R

    D3VIL_3AT3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Posts:
    5
    I was doing a scan, maybe cause of that. But 160 mb is too much.
     
  5. markcc

    markcc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Posts:
    185
    Location:
    Michigan, usa
    I'm using the Internet Security 2009 now & it does use quite a bit of memory, however it does not slow my system down. Memory usage is not a main concern of mine so long as the system runs well
     
  6. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    160MB is a joke. NIS2009 is using 7 to 10 MB on my machine.
     
  7. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Didn't GDATA use the Kaspersky engine at one point. What happened ? Kaspersky ejected them because their meager German markets were getting cannibalized ?
     
  8. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    :) It sure does look fake.
     
  9. i_g

    i_g Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Posts:
    133
    Well, if you look at the full report of the latest av-comparatives (which includes summary results for both AVK 2008 and 2009), you'll see that the engine change (Kaspersky --> BD) resulted in detection improvement... so maybe it wasn't Kaspersky who "ejected" them, but rather vice versa? :D
     
  10. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=218668
    No.
    Norton is a joke, i already told you in other thread :rolleyes:
    This topic: G DATA 2009 RC2
     
  11. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Care to substantiate.. look at Clementi's test http://www.av-comparatives.org/.

    Number of False Positives = "many". So yeah, anyone can improve their detection to 99.x% with many false positives. If GData was serious about their customers, they would reduce their FPs.

    Link to AV-Comparative table modified. Link to site only. - Ron
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 18, 2008
  12. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    For those that may be concerned, the FPs mentioned in the av-comparatives report will have been fixed before it was published.
     
  13. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    Personally, i had only one FP (which was quickly fixed, btw) when i had GDAV2008 installed on my system for months.
    That's what counts for me :thumb:
     
  14. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    Thats good, but customers would have seen those and thats what counts. And I'm sure the next time Clementi does a test, there will be "many" FPs with GDATA. The bottom line is that its FP-prone and thats what kills it for me (besides 50 other reasons but lets not go there).
     
  15. Zombini

    Zombini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Posts:
    469
    I have never seen an FP in the last 8 years since I started using NIS/NAV. And I'm sure that goes for most NIS/NAV/SAV customers. And when you compare the size of the customer bases of Symantec vs. GDATA, then you get a feel for how accurate Symantec AV engines are when it comes to FPs.
     
  16. D3VIL_3AT3R

    D3VIL_3AT3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Posts:
    5
    The FPs have been reduced in the 09 version, and that is quite clear from the remove-malware review.
     
  17. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1333373&postcount=281 :D

    Again, topic: G Data 2009
    No wonder why you don't see any FP with your product :rolleyes:
    Well, stick with what you like best and good luck..
    As for me, i would never never use such a poor AV program (in terms of new malware detection) that it's not even worth considering IMHO.
     
  18. D3VIL_3AT3R

    D3VIL_3AT3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Posts:
    5
    The AV-comparitives had reviewd Gdata 2008, so thats why the false positives were a lot.

    They have been reduced in this latest version.
     
  19. Cooper_it

    Cooper_it Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Posts:
    6
    So the product which is used by most people is by definition the best product? Yeah, right. Ever heard of marketing spendings?

    By the way: in German retail G DATA is bigger than Symantec...
     
  20. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,530
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Looks like the 2009 version is ready for purchase on your site. Just picked up a license, I got my key very quick.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.