Has Eset Smart Security gotten heavier ?

Honestly, it is as light as it always was. Now, my wife, is a different story.

 

Hello,

ESET Smart Security 7 should run on an AMD CPU-based computer with 512MB of RAM running Microsoft Windows XP.

It is possible, though, that you could be experiencing issues due to an issue with another program, missing or unapplied hotfix, configuration of ESET's software, etc.

For assistance in investigating the issue, please contact ESET support and they will be able to help you diagnose it and make recommendations on how to improve things.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

I did 7 on a new image and it does grow heavier over time. With no other apps installed. Went back to 6 for now as I know Eset will tweak 7. I still luv Eset and still say there is nothing better today in the market

 

Good Evening! I agree Trjam...that Eset...is on a number of fronts one of the finest. Strangely enough I've found it on my system to be lighter than Version 6. Anyhow it's my go to Suite for the next two years...an excellent product. Keep up the splendid work Aryeh! Sincerely...Securon

 

Maybe its time to think about a lighter realtime AV or like me no realtime at all.

Something like hitman pro does not run until it hits scheduled 18:00,
when it comes alive, scans then quits so no memory is being used the majority of time.

Thats how i run things on my 1gig of ram x61 thinkpad.

 

Rofl

If Eset is too heavy I think it's time to upgrade hardware. 7 was very light for me.

I'm currently using webroot with appguard and mbam pro and it's super light.

 

You should have no problem using ESET on that one if you want

 

Hello,

I use a ThinkPad X61t in the course of testing and working with ESET's software. It's upgraded to 4GB of RAM (can go to 8GB) and has a 60GB SSD installed, but is otherwise stock. No problems noted on it between ESET's software and Windows Vista, 7 or 8.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

The SSD probably makes all of the difference. My laptop would need at least 300 GB of disk space so the price is still out of my reach. Try some mechanical drives and see if you don't notice more of an issue.

 

I would expect a program to get a little heavier as time goes on and tech improves. Whats the point in all the advancements if we constantly want software to stay in the past ? Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying bloat it. But if it gets a little more usage intensive over time and does a more thorough job then that's fine by me.

Now with that said, I have not noticed Eset being any heavier on the computers I have it installed on thru out my house. (Currently 3 Laptops and 1 Desktop)

Oldest
Windows XP computer running 512 SDRam!!!!! with a 1.9Ghz Celeron on a 80 gig HD (E-Machine Desktop)

Newest
Windows 7 Ult (Windows 8 can die in a fire) with a Core-I7 12Gigs DDR3 on a SSD 260Gig and a 750Gig 7200 RPM backup Drive (Alienware Laptop)

 

Tough neighborhood! I've been running NOD32 again...will see if I can notice over time any change. Probably not but no comments beyond the PC!

 

My issue wasn't Eset, it was something else. Happy Camper here, again, with the best product this side of the yellow water at the Olympics.

 

Currently using the Smart Security trial and several times Win7 stops loading at the welcome screen, icon spinning. Have to reset and then it starts ok.
Maybe another suite to cross off the list.

UPDATE: ESET support has proved to be helpful. Turns out Malwarebytes conflicts with ESET at startup, so need to add exclusions to both.

 

If you are using v7, JUST LEAVE TURNED ON THIS OPTION, exactly like in the screenshot
---> Advanced Heuristics on executing files from Removable Media

 

I disagree. I want my antivirus software to stay as light as possible. My laptops range in age from 5 to 8 years old. Even my oldest laptop runs quite fast without antivirus software installed. I don't want to have to upgrade to faster computers in order to run latest antivirus software without it causing any noticeable slowdowns.

 

Agreed. You'd think improvements in technology and experience would result in more optimization, not resource usage.
The current ESET products are a joke compared to the old NOD32 2.x, at least performance-wise.

 

I got ESET V7 on a 10yr old PC using XP SP3. As light as always just like the previous versions.

Edit: But ESET is not a product where it's recommended to turn off the essential web protection in wich I have read that you like to do in other products.

 

Wich ESET version did you try, and did you leave the settings at the defaults?

 

That's good to hear. I am downloading it now.

I may leave it enabled if it is easy to whitelist websites.

 

One thing you could enable is the detection of PUA's wich is optional and not enabled by default.

I've never tried that as any website can get compromised in one way or the other. And then it's up to the http scanner to block the threat at the source, or the url blocker may block access to the whole website.

 

Almost every version since v3. Default settings or lighter protection, it's still heavier.

 

Oh well I can't say anything about V2 I started using ESET when the first Beta of V3 was released and have used every version on the same pc/hardware and I don't think any version from V3 to V7 is heavier than the other. Infact V7 feels even snappier than the previous ones.

 

It's not that the modern versions aren't light, but v2 was the lightest AV I've ever used.

 

Ah I see, it's possible I would think like that too if I would have tried V2 back in the day. But in any case i'm very happy with the performance ESET got today, and even if V2 were supported still today the detection and protection would be quite bad compared to V7. And possibly slower scans too due to the lack of LiveGrid.

 

I did that. Not that I actually want PUAs to be detected, but to see what it gets detected with it enabled.

After installing NOD32 (I don't want the extras features of Smart Security) I experienced up to 50% CPU use while it was doing the initial update. However, a while into the update the high CPU use stopped, so it would seem that there should usually be no CPU spikes during future updates.

After configuring it to never automatically handle threats I proceeded to do a smart scan. While doing this, NOD32 started doing it's first scan which helps speed up future scans. I was quite surprised to see two scans running at once - something I've never witnessed before. I paused the "first scan" and the let the smart scan run. During scanning, NOD32 is using up 50% CPU use, causing noticeable system impact.

I cancelled the smart scan before it finished. A few threats had been detected, mostly for installers which included OpenCandy. I did not like the lack of an option to whitelist any of the detected files, so they would not be detected when doing future scans.

While not running a scan, so far, NOD32 is being very light. There is a very brief spike in CPU use when launching programs. But since it's very brief, is not really an issue.