Is it just me or is 3.0.684 faster?

It seems to me that web browsing and viewing mails in Outlook works faster with 3.0.684 than it did with 3.0.669.

Anyone else seeing this?

/Preben

 

No difference here.

 

I agree, mine feels and seems faster

 

Also here. Seems to load faster and not slow down the system as much during startup. Also, ekrn doesn't seem to be using as many resources, as often, as it was previously.

P.S. - I noticed this improved increase in performance prior to reading this thread.

 

Same here. Browsing and general performance definitely seems faster.

 

Def seems snappier here too....

 

Faster for sure. Testing AVs all the time, and I uninstalled NOD32 because of the 100% CPU usage issue. After the new build, there has been zero instances of CPU spikes and things load faster. This on my machine (by far) is the best build yet.

 

I just moved to 684 from 667 and initial impressions are 684 is faster. I have to admit I was sceptical.

 

My impression is that Outlook 2007 loads more quickly and reliably. Before the 3.0.684 update, Outlook 2007 would hang for a minute or two at the 84% mark during the initial "send and receive."

 

The system DOES seem to boot and work faster
I wonder what they have changed...no changelog yet.

 

The changelog only says: "stability and security fixes" so it's actually hard to tell what is changed/fixed.

 

Agree, much faster.

 

It's faster than any AV I have used including Dr. Web and Avira. Machine boots in 1/2 the time, and opening and closing files is faster as well.

 

Its hard to believe Eset tunes up performance without mention it in the changelog.

 

Maybe it was an accident.

 

Same here
Good work ESET

 

Sacrilege. Heresy. Don't let C.S.J. see this.

 

I hope it's a good accident if you catch my drift

 

I have not been a big Dr. Web "fan" since a reinstall of 4.44 made my system unbootable a few weeks ago. Had to restore with Acronis. Eset never did that.

 

I am sold on version 4 but cant run it right now on this computer because of a slow down with a driver on my end. That will get resolved over time. But think about it, I am sure some of the changes for 4 and also indirectly being made into 3. I have no issues with 3 right now. For me version 4 brings some very strong cleaning ability or I would stay with 3. Good work Eset. I would like to say," Its about time." But its Christmas.

 

I am sold on 3 also, but I have a feeling b2 of v4 will sell me out. I'm really interested in v4's use of WFP in Vista. Seems like a real step forward.

 

Does anyone have real performance metrics that they are measuring this with or are we just throwing around anecdotal evidence as proof?

 

yes I do. Last week A was slower then B and this week B is faster then A.


Think about it. If this was my neighbor saying it who knows nothing about this site or security, then I would want evidence. But, I think for the most part, most of us here should be able to tell this. Especially when you see a diverse group, like in this thread, saying it. Why didnt Eset tell us? Being smart I guess because if it hadnt worked, you never would have know it.

 

That makes sense.

 

I'm not going to take any anecdotal evidence on good faith since it only takes one person to suggest something and everyone else to follow along buying in to the placebo effect. And in essence you guys are my random neighbors who's word I'm not going to trust without some evidence backing it up. There are tools that can measure rendering time for web pages and it isn't that hard to time how long a full system scan takes. Show some metrics if you think there is an actual difference.

I honestly think you are buying in to some groupthink nonsense and the reason why there isn't anything documented in the changelog is because they didn't change anything to make the scanning engine run faster. But hey, prove me wrong. Its a win-win for me either way.