Which antivirus has the lowest CPU and memory usage?

Which antivirus has the lowest CPU and memory usage for optimum security?
Thanks and regards.

 

Off the top of my head, I'd guess the F-Prot/Command AV's. Maybe Dr.Web with the email scanning and scheduler turned off.

 

pop3 and smtp (for outlook 2003) e-mail virus scan function will be important. antivirus software must have this function. thanks again.

 

So F-Prot is excluded automatically... I'd go with NOD32 for sure. Lowest footprint and POP3/IMAP scanner.

 

If your ISP or mail provider scans mail, there is not much to be gained by doing it again. About 4 years aago my ISP started to scan mail. I have not seen a virus in my email since then.

 

um...i have never try Dr.Web. So i suppose it is NOD.

As driver have said. Most ISP provide Av scan on email. So you don't gain anything extra.

 

Well,sometimes scanners on mailservers are a bit late for some outbreaks...
I have seen few cases where latest worms passed through Norton protected mailserver and it was later cought by avast! and/or NOD32.
So i wouldn't 100% rely on ISP mailscanners...

 

That's what I used to think too. My ISP scans email with Symantec, so why should I bother doing it too, although I continued to do so. Then a few weeks ago, a virus in an unsolicited message got thru the isp scanner and was stopped by the KAV engine of my Gdata AVK mail scanner. And I only get a few emails a day, and maybe just 4 or 5 spam messages per week, so must have hit the jackpot that day. I delete unsolicited stuff immediately anyway, but it still is nice to know the 'double' protection is there.

Getting back to the original poster's question: I've found that NOD32 runs light & easy on another machine having modest limited resources.

 

Lets say...NOD32

 

There have been several threads here where ISP's scanners have let stuff through. It never hurts to check it with a desktop AV--whether it's with the e-mail or the on-access scanner of your AV.

I personally would never rely solely on an ISP's scanner to protect my e-mail.

 

it seems that AVG7Free's memory usage was reduced after the last program update (322). Good work Grisoft.

 

Having used the two (nod and dr web) id say dr web pips it for cpu and mem usage.Dr web is also able to run on w95.Even with the email scanner its very light and like nod u cant really notice it there.Dr webs email scanner does not work correctly with my router sending attachments so be sure to send large attachments (if you use a router too) if you trial dr web.Any of the two would be a good choice though.
ellison

 

Minacross,AVG uses some different method for it's processes,so you can't really read correct memory usage.

 

Although it seems that I have been outvoted on the issue of relying on ISP email scanning, I would like to point out that one can always save any attachment. That will cause the local on access scanner to come into play and provide a second scan.

Never the less that will not be enough for the truly paranoid. I can send you instructions on how to construct a hat out of aluminumm foil

Note that some email programs, like Eudora save all attachments by default and protect the attachment directory from execution as well.

At any rate I stand by my original advice, the possibility of something both getting through the ISP scanner and the local on access scanner, but being detected by a pop3 scanner is so remote as to not be worth dealing with. If you want something real to be concerned about, that you are very likely to see, it is phishing.

 

Well said, and very true. As I pointed out here:

I am wearing mine as I write.

 

An aluminum foil beanie won't protect you from all the wireless devices in use today, you'll need to line it with copper mesh...

 

Dont forget lead underpants! Uncomfortable but safe!

 

Are you picking up signals on your dental fillings??

 

I need to go lie on the couch an talk to Dr. Woo Woo. Remember I am the guy by necessity that must use the FREE stuff, what words of wisdom do you "new" guys have for me? Minacross: Tell us more, you know I liked the 6.0 version but the 7.0 one was a real hog. I would really like to see what you have recently experienced.

Thanks
Wildman

 

I quite like KAV suite? just tried it and am impressed light i like it better then Pc cillian wich says sumfn? hopefully its better detection 2..

 

it's fine but needs to release final version. (KIS2006)

 

latest nod32 on my desktop is taking up 17meg of memory

 

Nod32 is no longer a light AV. It used be but as of a year ago it got big, fat, and bloated. I ran it for two years when it when it was light and a very good AV but I would not use it now. Scan time has increased from 8 min to over one hour!

You do NOT need an email scanner. Your choice is F-Prot. It is excellent and MUCH lighter on resources and scanning than NOD32. F-Prot does a command line scan so fast that it is almost unbelievable. It's faster that any other AV and the lightest of all.

I agree that occasionally your ISP's email AV scanner may not catch something. But surely you ALWAYS download an attachment to disk and command line scan it!!! Surely you do this! I'm sure you practice safe hex at all times...so why in the world do you think you need an email scanner? I always disable any email scanner that comes with an AV.

As for NOD32, if I had also enabled IMON email scanner, my very fast XP pro box would have been totally crippled. That unnecessary IMON HTTP scanner did cripple my fast box. You would be MUCH better off with Kaspersky 4.5 than NOD32 as KAV is very light on newer XP boxes. NOD32 used to be excellent but it is no longer in that category and it is one of the most bloated of all AV now.

 

I have to disagree.... I do not notice such problems on MY box. Everyones computer reacts differently to each piece of software.

 

Antivirus must have e-mail scanner option pop3 and smtp. because AV support of ISP isn't trustworthy. other main problem is cpu usage of working on computer. for example; i have a folder for downloaded softwares (patches, trials, service packs, drivers, etc) i used kav pro 5.0.20 and folder refresh time was very long, i saw that "kavmm.exe" used more cpu resource when only exploring these type of folders. of course, there were another AV examples same as KAV. by the way, my computer specifications aren't bad; cpu is Athlon64 2.4GHz, memory is 1GB, hdd is sata 8mb cache. because of these unacceptable results, i couldn't use my current AV in the other pc that have p3-700/256mb RAM