Norton IS 2010 - Resource Hungry

Well you say people there (cnet,pcmag,pcworld) are morons. Many here believe on those magazines I mean morons.
And you are the only person who really feel that NIS 2010 is a resource hungry. If you say that earlier versions were heavy it was definitely true but 2010 products are way too light. If you like Eset and is working great then you can keep. Otherwise I would suggest to freshly install OS and see for yourself how it is working.

+1 to this comment

 

This is just another thread where the user is complaining that they actually have software using memory, like it should do. Unused memory is wasted memory. Might as well close this one, he will be over in the ESS section complaining about the firewall shortly.

 

I do not understand the problem here. Eset is well known for its light system footprint. If you like Eset then keep it. NIS 2010 is also light on resources, at least it is for me. There is no point in comparing the two as both have different feature-set. NIS 2010 has far more options built in as compared to ESET Smart Security, so obviously it will consume more RAM. NIS 2010's minimum system requirement is 256 MB of RAM, so it not as if you are cheated or something.

I always tell people to go for the product they like and keep it. Norton products have always kept me safe so I use them. I have a comparatively high end system, so NIS 2010 does not bother me in the least.

 

Norton 2010 is NOT resource hungry, period!

 

Alright guys, lets dropp it. and Thanks for the support. . Cool

 

Bloat!

I don't know about NIS 2010, but NAV 2010 doesn't have anything running via svchost.exe (not that I can see anyway).

 

I have not noticed any either.

 

You're right, nobody really offered any help here. For the price of buying yet another security suite for your PC, you could probably do a RAM upgrade instead. DDR is about $60 for a 2GB kit, and DDR2 is even cheaper, depending on what your machine uses. Good luck on whatever you decide to do.

 

Thanks, after all these chats, i'm switched to 2010, (i don't mind memory consumption as long as it keeps my system safe & no slowdowns). I just wanted to let someone know that norton is not very light as they claim. i dunno, i have even done a fresh install of xpsp3 & tried it, however no matter what i do, after installing nis2010 the physical memory consumption will jump a 120mb+, well as i said i just wanted to point out the resource usage.

 

Good luck to you
Live Malware free
No hard feelings buddy

 

when i tryed norotn 2010 i didnt find it heavy. I have found other problems with it but those things wasn't asked in this thread.

 

Unless you are very tight on ram, it doesn't much matter. I use Norton 2010 and find performance to be very good. The only place I did notice a hit was a slight delay on startup. But that aside, it is doing great.

 

Well, last night i checked it with processor explorer, it shows 97MB as virtual, dunno what it is.. in that case i do agree nis is light, anyway system is running fine now.

 

It is light when it is idle, but not when it scans. It consumes 304mb and eventually goes higher. Do you guys experienced the same?

I would like to attach my screenshot but I don't know how to.

 

Yes, you are right. i switched from winxp sp3 to xpsp2.. NIS is light when its idle, say total ram consumption at 340mb or even less(in my pc,without nis its 225mb), when browsing it goes up to 495MB..

 

This is what I'm trying to say.


http://imgkk.com/i/6HQitz.jpg

 

I can care less about how much memory a program uses while scanning. I only scan when I am not using my machine (lunch, going to bed, etc..).

 

Doesn't matter to me how much it uses when SCANNING
Its temporary and norton shoots to this much memory usage only when virus is already running on computer.

 

Any AV product can shoot sky high in memory when scanning just the nature of the beast.

 

Memory consumption does not slow down your system. CPU consumption does. The Norton thread runs in normal priority and right now it is consuming 83% of your CPU as you are not doing anything else. If you run some thing else, like a media player in the background, then the Norton CPU consumption will go down to allow your media player to run side by side.

This should be true for any anti-virus software.

Also CPU consumption is directly related to the length of time to run a scan. When I am not at my system, I would prefer Norton takes over 90% cpu power and finish the scan quickly. When I am at the system, I would prefer Norton to sacrifice cpu consumption to allow me to run my other applications. It will of course increase the scan time.

 

.
The way I look at it if I'm scanning my system concerned about malware I'm not worried about how much memory the scanner is using. I give over all memory and CPU cycles so that the scan can be completed as quickly and effectively as possible. Memory and CPU usage are only a concern when the security app is running in the background and I'm using the computer for other things. That said, NIS 2010 regularly runs low priority background scans with no noticeable impact on the system. The only way I know about it is the little pop-up when it's finished.

 

I was a bit surprised to learn how much memory NIS uses...I guess I'm just used to the ~4MB Comodo IS uses. (lol)

 

i dont wanna get to much in comodo but the memory usage u see in task manage isnt really the programs memory usage, ther are many ways to disguise the memory usage u see in the task manager...

 

.

On my Vista 64x system a NIS 2010 Full System Scan uses the following amounts of ram:

During the initial part of the scan when it scans "common areas of infection" and start-up files it uses very little ram 15-25 mb.

After the initial part of the scan, when scanning the rest of the system it generally uses between 35 mb and 50 mb with occaisional brief spikes to the 60 mb - 100 mb range. These spikes occur mainly when it is scanning high resolution texture files.

There is one brief period of approximately 1 minute when it first starts the full scan after the initial part of the scan when it uses 300 mb - 310 mb.

These RAM usage readings are from readouts in Cacheman 7.

.

 

Where does Comodo hide it's memory use? I sure have not been able to find it.