Panda Cloud Antivirus 1.5 final release

Hmmm... that's weird. Those numbers you shown are too big for the average scan speed most users experience. Have you tried another Full Scan yet?

 

As i'm writing this,the full scan begun 1 1/2 hours ago and the scan is at 62%.Simply awful.
PS.Today i played a little with CTM snapshots and installed KIS.The full scan took 35 min.(i repeat myself here,Avast free took 25 min and Avira IS 35 min).So i don't think it's my machine to blame here.(2.00 GHz CPU,4 GB Ram,Win 7 Ultimate x32)In fact,Panda Cloud is the only AV that makes me this problem.
Well,i will scan only once a month or so because i really begin to like Panda.But don't know for how long...
PS.Another snapshot,installed AVG Pro...38 min full C drive scan.

 

Why are you comparing traditional AVs against Panda Cloud?

 

I would imagine that the scanning speed for 1.5 will be as quick as 1.9 currently is.

 

What point of reference i should have then?

 

there isnt one Joe and you are right. Scanning in the cloud may take longer then some tradtional AVs, but is also faster then others.

Panda needs to get 1.5 scanning speed like 1.9 and then we wont have a arguement. But for now Joe is right.

 

And then there is Webroot/Prevx and it's 5 minute full scans.

 

I know i'm right,thanks.
Are you saying that Panda 1.9 is faster?If that's the case,i'll install it right away,even if it's still in beta.

 

yes it is, try it out.

 

yep, scanning thin air does lead to some pretty quick scan times.

 

I agree.
PCAV is an AV, if you are going to compare it's scanning speeds you have to compared it to another AV regardless of whether or not it uses Cloud technology. And from the looks of it for people that do a in depth scan on a regular basis, like me, PCAV is too slow. I always do a full in-depth scan of my primary drive, before I make my weekly image. Hopefully future version will be faster. Right now If choose to install PCAV I would only install it on my PC's that I don't image regularly, our 2 netbooks.

 

Being a cloud-based scanner PCAV will always be slower scanning than traditional AVs whose complete signature set are stored locally and/or whose cloud only checks under a smaller set of criteria (for ex only those detected heuristically are checked against the cloud).

Even though the above holds true, we are working on a few things to make it faster, such as a bug we found, an improved cache, etc. But as I said above, this will not make PCAV faster than an AV which holds all its signatures locally.

Someone mentioned above that there's no improvement from the first scan to the next scans. According to the latest AV-Test's performance results the speedup of the second scan is 85% (vs MSE 5% for example).

 

That person is going by their own experience and most likely the scan times posted in PCAV's own logs. You can see when the scan started and ended and do the math. That's what I did.

 

I'm not arguing against it. This could happen due to a variety of situations, like expiration of the cache, x number of offline synchs, etc. I was just offering an independent counter-argument with measured data.

 

I mentioned this issue.And i care very little what AV tests says,as on my machine is obvious that it no improvement for a second full scan and i have just Privatefirewall as my other security.
PS.I tried Panda 1.9 and it seems faster than 1.5.But i didn't wait for the full scan to be completed,as i want to wait for the final release.

 

pcav scan is really slow..it's nowhere near the so-called 'traditional avs' scan speed...imo pcav scan should be at least close to those speeds if not faster at all..

 

Is it just me or has this full scan argument gone a bit into hysteria mode? Yes, it is slow, but you don't need to do full scans every week with PCAV, you can get by with one when you install it and then do weekly optimized scans which is very fast. IMHO thats the beauty of full use of cloud like Panda & also Prevx does it.

Each to their own of course, but i must admit this full scan obsession some dig is a bit strange to me. For me the detection, how light it is, ease of operation is first priority. The only time i would consider running a full scan with PCAV after the one i do after installing PCAV or Prevx for that matter is in case i meet malware.

 

totally my point of view.

 

In what way strange,what do you mean by that?Is it strange if i ask (and i'm not the only one) a decent scan time?It is strange if i put on the table this issue maybe the dev's do something about it?
Let me be more specific,i'm not a troll,i like Panda a lot and i have full licenses for another 4 great AV names that i could use.But i like Panda,and i don't want me thinking once a month or whenever i want that full scan "damn..another almost 3 hours of scanning..." Get my point?

 

Agree, this whole full scan argument is lame.
Unless of course these people actually sit and watch their PC's scanning?

I set it going and walk away or run it overnight.
Never ever given a rats a*se for full scan speeds as never there to be bothered about it.
If the decision between selecting an AV over another falls down to full scan speed/time then boy oh boy you need to get out more!!

 

Anyone else using PCAV pro url filtering with sandboxie? I have it installed but I'm unsure whether the url filter is able to operate under sandboxie.

 

its works, Ive tested it.

but in IE9 i noticed when you search it will mess with ie9 searching

heres an example if you search a long string or a sentence like search

http://www.pandadomainadvisor.com/s..._26&type=dns&q=homes%20for%20sale%20in%20iowa

not sure why it happens

 

Nobody forces you to read it.So ignore it.

 

For you it is but to others it's not. And I don't sit and watch my AV do a full scan. But I always do a full scan on my PC's before I make an image. While I'm doing a scan and image we don't use that PC. If I were to use an AV this slow it would back up my whole weekend since I always do a full scan and image on 3 PC's every week. This process usually takes me about 5 hours. I do it all in one evening per week where I do a full scan, image the drive, and verify the image. So for me and others this slow speed is not acceptable. So please don't make excuses for PCAV pathetic full scan speeds. PCAV might have great detection rates, but it scans speeds, from what others here are saying is extremely slow compared to other AV's in the market.