64Bit Anti-Virus. NOT "A vs B"

Ok this is.

NOT A VS B THREAD!

If you post something that leads to A vs B then I will petition to have that post removed. With the release to windows 7 alot of people have been moving to 64 bit, For the newbies out there this might end up to be a very useful thread. What I would like to see is a List of Compatible AV's with 64bit.


List them as.

True 64 bit "Not running in 32 bit mode whatsoever"
Non True 64bit "Still able to provide protection but runs in 32 bit mode"


Remember NO "Personal" comments about the AV, quotes from the AV's website should be ok as long as there is a link and it don't turn the conversation to A vs B.

I would like to see this thread stay open and I believe it can as long as we stay in the rules.





Edit.
The edit was for editing the title.

 

Not sure but I think that the following is a native x64 application:

Microsoft Security Essentials


By the way , I think we (the forum members) are very scared from the forum staff when one has to type "Not A vs B thread" in such a huge font size

 

The Blue guy he intimidates me always lurking in Dark area's I mean what self respecting man has a wicked laugh and enjoys the underbelly of the city's.

 

Seriously, what's the point of having tr00 hardcore entirely 64bit antivirus when 32bit one does just as good job? It's not like you'll benefit from 128GB of RAM or change scan times from 2 hours to 5 minutes just because of truly 64bit coded antivirus binaries.

There are plans to code avast! 5.x in native 64bit code entirely, but benefits aren't all that big, so the exact future plans for it are still pretty unknown.

 

Pretty much every self respecting AV supports x64....if the scanner/gui run in 32 bit mode does not make it any worse, because the drivers have to be 64 bit coded anyway.....and plus the "newbies" are hardly likely to have >4gb of ram (and even if they did the performance increase should be negligible)

 

Then what is the real Performance value of 64bit besides the memory. I mean all in all 32bit seems like its never going to go away as is until people need more memory.


AV's have even showed this alot of them run in what they refer to hybrid mode.

 

There are a lot of differences between the two types of operating system. Besides the ability to address more memory than the 4 GB limitation of a 32 bit OS and how the system uses your memory and hard disks, the system has more throughput for data, double the amount for 32 bit. Although only applications written for 64 bit systems specifically can take advantage of this situation. A 64 bit OS can also be more secure. I have provided a link to an article that does a nice job of explaining some of the differences. Hopefully it helps provide some information that is beneficial to the members and this thread. Also ESET has a native 64 bit version of their suite and stand alone antivirus. Avira ANTIVIR and VIPRE to name a few are 32 bit applications which are compatible with a 64 bit operating system.

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

 

.
This article provides a good overview of Windows x64 and x86, however it doesn't really speak specifically to security applications. It seems to me the main issue is the difference between the x86 and x64 kernels. In particular there is the matter of "patchguard" in x64. Can a 32 bit security application protect the core of a 64 bit OS? The 32 bit apps that are x64 compatible are addressing this somehow, but I don't know if compromises are made. It would be great if the software developers could step in and speak to this.

 

I heard that there are less viruses running on 64Bit.So I think there are less AV being chosen.

 

For what it's worth, when I was looking it seemed that most if not all vendors support x64 with Vista onwards, but not so many support Windows XP x64.

I don't know if there are technical reasons for this, or if it's simply financial as more consumers started using x64 with Vista for things like gaming/high memory applications.

 

I believe Norton has one.

SourMilk out

 

Bullguard too. There's a 2 month free trial. Has BitDefender and Outpost Pro inside. Special 64-bit download link below: http://www.bullguard.com/dk/download/bullguard-internet-security.aspx

 

The lists have more or less already been made. They can be extracted from the sticky threads in here: http://www.sevenforums.com/software/

More:

Windows 7 consumer security software providers: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx
Windows 7 Compatibility Center: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Default.aspx

 

It was not a technical issue. You are correct from the financial aspect. XP Pro 64 bit was not considered main stream enough to waste resources rewriting parts of software code to make it compatible. Some companies did, and others simply did not wish to. With Vista 64 bit Microsoft started pushing a 64 bit operating system more then they had with XP and are pushing clients to move to 64 bit even more so with Windows 7. This is a logical progression as hardware and software advance. Also power users needing more memory and speed have been moving toward better performing systems for a few years. The next step after 64 bit takes hold will be the 128 bit OS and so on after that.

 

I highly doubt we will see 128 OS anytime soon heck even 64bit has been around sense the late 60's, also the only MAIN reason they moved to 64bit in home PC's was memory space. To hit the hard cap on 64bit is 16 exabytes of RAM I highly doubt we will see anyone touting that much memory anytime soon.

 

well according to early news about Windows 8 and/or 9, 128bit is being worked on in some way. so idk

 

@firzen771
Not earlier then Windows 9, trust me...

 

It would be a complete waste of money as people have really No reason to upgrade. They found this out with 64bit its been mainstream now sense 2004 and people are JUST now starting to move that way. There has to be some sort of driving force that makes people upgrade not just telling them its better.

Also vendors simply wont just throw money down the tube for the sake of being compatible they found this out with Xp64 and Vista64.

 

What really gets my temper boiling is the fact that Adobe Flash only supports 32-bit. So: all 64-bit OS owners are forced to run a 32-bit browser on their 64-bit PCs. The special made IE8 x64 browser is useless to them.

Adobe's forum threads are full of frustrated users yelling and screaming. To no avail. The forum staff wont answer the 64-bit users complaints.

 

I just did not install flash. Lucky 99% of the time its unneeded for what I do. frankly Adobe should have had this fixed back when vista launched no idea why they are lagging behind.

 

I fully agree. This is what they have to say about it: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/000/6b3af6c9.html

Wikipedia says the 64-bit system has been around since the 1960s. Talk about running behind! Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

 

Microsoft is " forcing " users to adopt the 64 bits version of Win7.
At the moment, 99.5% of new laptops come with Win 7 64 bits.

 

Frankly this is not a problem tho, As 99.5% of the possessors in the last 3 years are 64bit capable. With people commonly hitting the 4gig barrier in memory this is a needed change also I am running the 64bit version of Windows on my main system and can tell no diff besides allocation of memory between the 32bit version as far as performance is concerned.


Not even Drivers have been a issue, Even on my oldest system AMD64 3000+ I have managed to find 64bit drivers for all its devices also.

 

well its about time.
my parents computer is at least 4 years old and has a 64bit processer.
64bit operating systems are the future.