F-Secure 2009 products released (3/9/08)

Thanks, Danny9 for the heads up.
89MB is too much, esp. with the older XP systems in the house.

 

Your welcome.
I crunch on my computers and always try to keep it as lite as possible.
F-Secure is a highly rated product but just to heavy for me.

 

one of the main things f-secure are working on is making the product lighter.
i will beta test the versions as they come along since i like f-secure the only reason i dumped it in the past was due to to much slow down on my older pc.

 

It is heavy- very heavy. Heaviest AV I have ever tested and I have been testing them for years. Slow as molasses- and that is giving it the benefit of the doubt.

 

Excellent antivirus.

I'm trying the standalone AV 2009 at last and everything is ok so far

Congrats to the FS Dev team

 

Another question. According to the PcMag review before deleting something it does a sort of "mini-scan". What is it?

 

it does a mini scan to look for other infections on the system.
im not sure quite where it looks.
i noticed this during the beta.

 

I've tested IS2009 today on a spare PC at work and I'm not sure it's any different than IS2008 in terms of speed (ie. how light/heavy it is). I agree that it's heavier than others (like the one I'm using on my home PC shown below). My biggest issues with previous versions and indeed the 2009 beta/rc is enabling web scanning (which is off by default) means you have to wait an age before a video plays on the web (e.g. in YouTube) as it's scanning the whole contents before it plays. The other was when viewing folders for the first time in a session, you'd have to wait for each file in the folder to be checked before the icon next to it would be displayed (looking at the Games folder in Vista, I'd have to wait about 20 secs before the game icons were displayed). And it's not the quickest at scanning incoming/outgoing email either.

All in all, I really want to like F-Secure and was hoping that the 2009 products were going to move forward more than they have in terms of lightness/responsiveness of the system they're installed on. I don't doubt the protection (we use their Client Security at work on all our pcs) and I got my hopes up with the release notes saying a dramatic increase in speed.

Be good to hear if anyone else has tried the IS.

 

don't know sorry but it was written this year for 64 bit so try it is my suggestion. I like what I have seen so far, I'm curious about the new engines would like to read more on those if someone has a webpage or info on that & thanks...

 

it weighs in lighter on my machine no more heavy resource wise than ESS was & on the couple games (sports simulations) I have not seen any slow down...the only fuss I have is a little lag on scanning e-mail BUT if it stops something from coming through I can live with that. Since I have a laptop I like the fact I can chg the firewall setting to mobile when I'm out & back to a lighter setting when back behind the router...

 

It does a Quick/Mini Scan of active directory, memory and system files. Everytime real-time module finds a infection.

Really annoyed me

And on my machine, its taking 92 MB RAM and Anti-Spam is having some issues !! (I am using FSIS 2009 )
It slows my machine, but its comparable to what FSIS 2008 did. But frankly, when lighter alternatives exist which provide same/or better protection. I fail to understand the need to use FSIS 2009.

I hate to say this, but IMO.
New F-S = Old Yellow product

 

Have to agree. Everything is in slooowww moootioonn with F-Secure on the comp.


Cheers

 

It is indeed odd that on Vista 32-bit I have found F-Secure to be one of the lightest products in terms of active CPU usage during real-time scanning and noticeable slowdown on my computer (even though the memory usage is high)......Need to try out this 2009 version....

 

Anyone know where the OEMs are hiding? I can never find them on F-Secure's site! This will be quite nice to try, as it ties in with my 2008 licence renewal.

 

I think i spoke too soon my vista laptop is becoming unresponsive at times when running certain apps, don't know why and i don't want to find out why.
It's a pity really certainly i don't doubt a thing of the FS excellence and effectiveness when it comes to PC protection, but these momentary freezings are killing me. I hope things change soon after some updates...

 

It's really the only way we can make sure that we fully remove the malware. Sure, we could just delete the file but that would leave registry keys around and possibly also leave related components on the system etc. So while it's a little bit slower than what the others might be doing it will leave a cleaner system.

--
Patrik
F-Secure Security Labs

 

Well, I am a skeptic.
I have used many security products, mostly all of them cleanup really well without a need for a mini-scan. Plus when FSIS 2009 is already eating a mega resource lunch, the last thing you need is a mini-scan due to the leak-test files you wanted to test. I can live with mini-scans, provided they live up to their name and truly are mini. A mini-scan with runs for 12-15 mins and shoots up cpu usage to 85-90 % is a annoyance by all measures.

 

and of course you have documented proof of that?

 

is he for real?

how often does he expect to get infected?

a 15 minute scan to make sure whenever that time arrives, is certainly ok with me.

 

you know it strikes me funny. People want the AV of all AV's, they want it built like a tank BUT weigh light as a feather, they want it to only have 1 process & that can only take up 1k of ram...As I see it as a AV developer you can't win so you almost have to ask yourself why bother. Folks everything isn't for everybody but please don't try a AV if all you want to do is bash it, just fake it & say you did. Than write something nasty & leave. I think F-Secure did ok here. Perfect? not a chance but they do it with a certain amount of pride & integrity. At least run it more than 5 minutes before bashing it , I may keep it I may not I just can't stand it when people just kick at something because it's the thing to do...

 

I would be good if avs were like SAS on resource usage...

 

I used 2008, Technology Preview, IS 2009 BETA and now I'm using FSIS 2009 released.
F-Secure used a lot of resources until 2007 version. From 2008 to now it's not a problem anymore...
Maybe it's a little heavier than some other AVs in some systems... butat least we know that FS has a very good detection. =)

I don't like when FS finds a riskware and I choose to delete file... F-Secure takes minutes to delete the file... :|

 

Nope, this is my own experience. Just like to put it out there, may be it can help someone or maybe someone could actually be kind enough to help me.

 

Point taken Chris, I don't expect to be infected very often.
But sadly F-Secure is not the only good security vendor out there and I am definitely not a frog in the well.

My gripe, is because I am not a loyalist or fanboy of any particular brand. So I just happen to pragmatically compare. Hence when I see F-Secure is popping up a 10-15 min mini scan on my already crawling system to clean up infections.
I just tend to look at the other competitive products which also remove the same infections with comparable efficiency and without the excess load or delay.
And this variation annoys me.Plus my once rock solid belief in F-Secure's abilities gives me no solitude.

 

People would not gripe so much... If there was not Faster AV's already out there that have just as good or Better detection then FS.. the point is if one can do it light they all can. its just a point of how much you want to dump into coding a better product. slapping a product together with good detection and lousy performance on a computer. leaves something to be desired when your competition already has done it faster lighter better.. where is your Customer base going to go.

Moping around with decent detection and crap performance only gets you so far as other "yellow products" have found out.. and sence changed how they do things. welcome to the market how it is you ether learn to adapt or get dumped on. one way or the other. the stronger survive.