Prevx 3: Enjoying the cloud computing

After hearing all the great things about Prevx I decided to try it out.
What happened to the good ole days of antivirus software that would suck up cpu cycles and large amounts of memory? Well I don't long for those days anymore because Prevx has two processes that use around 5,000k each. It is light and lovely. It seems to be idiot proof too so I will buy a few licenses for my dad and best friend.

I had my doubts about cloud computing in the past but I'm enjoying it so far!
Prevx w/ csi & edge will be on my mission critical machines.

Edit: How did I not notice that there is a Prevx forum on wilders now?

 

Where have you been? And yes Prevx has come along way in the past year And the best support is here with PrevxHelp (Joe)

TH

 

Just want to point out. Most AV's run as light or lighter then this, It really has nothing to do with cloud computing or its concept.

 

lol... which AV solutions have you been using? AVG Pro and Symantec Endpoint Protection are resource HOGS.

 

Avast, Antivir and MSE to name a few.
Ice

 

There is more now that run with less resource usage then it used to be..

Hell even Norton has overhauled its home user core to make it light. Point being as this post Cloud Computing has nothing to do with resources or how light it is on a system. Its just another way to look for virus a very controversial one at that.

Some would even go as far as its nothing but a marketing tool, But then again what isn't now adays.

 

Absolutely unsurpassed... never seen anyone do better. He's way ahead of whoever is second best.

 

That's true ultimately !!! While I am still a newbee as regards Prevx so I am a longtime user of ESS and their worst feature is not firewall, as many think but their support :-(! So I am astonished how Prevx handles this forum. Incredible!

 

Eset.
In my experience their corporate support has been top notch when I needed to talk to them or fix a issue.

Everyone has there own experience tho I guess.

 

I meant their forum here on wilders, feel free to take a look how many posters there are crazy for no action, no response ...

 

Agree. And what a speed he answers questions very detailed

 

Well maybe ESET lack a bit with response in forum but maybe they are too busy or search a better answer for us!As a user,we should be more concern.Late reply better than no reply!ESET still a best product after all!

 

I've used Avira Antivir and A-Squared Anti Malware
for years and it would always have the hard drive cranking
and use for more resources. At least 40,000k ram and up to
7-9% cpu. I've been using prevx 3 for a few days now
and I haven't noticed any effects from it at all.

 

It is indeed incredible light! That is why i am using it stand alone. My PC is healthy like never before!

 

Must of had a conflict.

As Avira hardly ever hits the hard drive and as for CPU usage this computer has been running for 3 days now with Utorrent running 90% of the time and normally 2-3 World of Warcraft windows running.

CPU is sitting at usage is sitting at 2 min of 53 Hours.
Memory is low also.

 

AVs in general seem to become lighter. But there is an advantage in Prevx's concept: Most analysis is done at their servers and not on my local machine. That saves (my) resources. Therefore the two Prevx-processes together consume less than 2 seconds (0 seconds each to be ecaxt) of CPU time after one hour of surfing (without scheduled scans). I have never seen AVs perform like that. I definitively experience the difference on my 1.6 GHz Atom processor.

 

Prevx has a webguard ? Otherwise it should use NO CPU cycles as its really not watching jack or scanning anything, as It would only scan on access of a file. People really need to read up on cloud computing and how it works. Maybe then people would seriously realize how stupid of a idea it really is and what kind of bag of worms it could / can open up. Also, System impact from doing "analysis" on your computer is not what hits your system its the scanning that does. Cloud computing does not remove that element from the computer.

Using my current AV which runs lighter then "Prevx" runs the same on my 1Ghz AMD Athlon as it does on my Intel Core Duo. And that's without using "Cloud Computing".

 

It's great that the product you use runs light on your system. That's how it should be. Unfortunately, when you look around these forums we see time and again users who say X product is dragging their system down whilst others report no such issues with roughly the same specifications. It's all relative and does depend on many factors; it's drilling down those to find out what the differences are that is the difficulty.

Any scanning, cloud based or not, is without doubt going to cause a spike in computer resource usage. It's the program working with whatever processes it needs to do its job. I thought everybody understood that. It's just some will cause less spikes than others on certain systems under particular configurations, which as we have seen can vary from machine to machine. However, the vendors will try to keep the 'weight' of their product as low as possible for the majority of known setups. Not an easy task given the many configurations out there.

 

Agreed.

People can also have conflict on there systems that cause problems unfortunately it normally gets blamed on the AV. I'm not putting Prevx down even tho I personally don't care for it, then again I'm sure there is people also that don't like the one I use because of their experience. The whole point of this topic was to point out that cloud computing has no impact on how light something is, it's simply just another method for how to detect virus.


Cloud computing being a stupid Idea or not.. Well that is another discussion entirely.

 

It makes a massive difference. We have many gigabytes of signatures and heuristics within our cloud and can run them on a powerful datacenter with many many times the power of a single home PC.

If you were to run these calculations for detection on your local PC, it would cripple your PC. We are able to offload all of the processing into the cloud and therefore do not need to waste the end user's CPU cycles parsing signatures or analyzing data - the cloud does it all.

 

Yet. others manage to do without it, And still manage to do better in any Detection based test.

This is basically where the conversation ends as now all it will do is degenerate into nit picking.

But thanks for your time.

 

Why should it degenerate into nit-picking? You say the cloud has "no impact". Joe says it makes a "massive difference". This isn't trivial stuff. One of you is wrong. Why end the conversation now? Because you can't substantiate your claim? Make your case, Fajo. I'm sure Joe can make his. Don't start something and then walk away.

 

Google is your friend if you Want to know the Up's and Downs of Cloud computing see for your self make your own views on it. A debate from Joe or from me would make really no difference in the long run, simply because one would be my Opinion and the other would be from a Employee from the company that uses this tech.

I'm not here to start something and walk away. I'm here to give my input not a debate on a support form. You want more don't be lazy do your own research.

 

I think this topic depends on what one means by "light".

Classic AVs can be measured by the structure of their program, the components loaded, how much memory is used or a combination of those.

I have used the AV highlighted by Fajo and found it to be "light" on my system, and I have a 7-year-old computer using 256MB RAM. By the same token, I also found a competing program to be "light" even with all the components running not existent in the other program, but the other was probably "lighter" because there was less stuff to load.

Another factor to consider is the size of database files downloaded by some AVs. One I know has nearly 1,000 base files stored on the local system; another has about 4-5 actual database files. The latter program would be considered "light" in this regard.

Cloud-based alternatives are most likely considered to be "light" not because of memory usage, but because they don't (usually) download signatures. There is, therefore, less call on the system to pull the signatures into memory. This alone is one of the main reasons why I think we're going to see a shift to more cloud-based solutions in the next few years.

There are pros and cons for both traditional and the newer technologies. A search here and on the 'net generally will show you that. At the end of the day, you have to go with what works best for you without compromising your security, but one must take into account the changes in the landscape as it happens.

 

Next time you quote me, or anyone else, Fajo, I recommend that you not insert bolding and underlining without acknowledging you have done so. It is not a quote of mine if you've added your touch to it. You are changing the context of a quote when you bold and underline.

As for the rest... most folks in this forum (mods included) will ask members to support their claims. It has nothing to do with me being lazy. You're the one who chose this venue to make the claim that cloud computing has no impact on how light something is. Why did you come to a Prevx forum to make that claim, and then not have anything to back it up with?

Because you've got nothing, that's my belief.