How lean and mean is your security setup?

I just rebooted and i get different results, all over the board. So at least on my PC the application isn't reliable to give perfectly same results, like 3d mark does for example...

Application launch also isn't correlated linearly to CPU. For example, if it's an application used often, Superfetch has it loaded in RAM way before you execute it. So it becomes more a question of RAM. On my setup Superfetch though is disabled, because of the SSD. Secondarily is question of hard drive. It would be absolutely correlated to CPU, if the application launched required 100% CPU load to launch, but it doesn't.

 

Oh hell, i had promiced myself to stay put with a security configuration for at least a month, but just out of curiocity i will restore a clean image with only WinPatrol installed and see the results. But honestly i don't expect a big hit. I will run 3x5 executions and report later. But IMHO it's not reliable benchmark.

 

TOMxEU runs with only UAC and common sense. I hate it when people run with less security and are member of this forum aaaagghhhhhhhhh

So removed AppGuard on my desktop, will enable the 1806 regtweak prevent download trick instead, this are the results (Superfetch enabled for boot only) with cold start of Chrome

:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe - 5 executions
0.3278
0.3123
0.3122
0.2810
0.3278

Compared to previous setup 26% improvement

 

Restored image (as perfect as is possible, freshly installed Windows+freshly installed programs,nothing ever uninstalled,manually controlled registry cleaned once). Rebooted, exited WinPatrol (only security app installed besides Tinywall). That's why i said it's unreliable. Apart from differences between the runs, here Iron is faster and WMP is slower compared to the installation with Comodo and Avast and WinPatrol active.

C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0635
0.0631
0.0543
0.0543
0.0493
C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0631
0.0555
0.0731
0.0606
0.0531
C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0593
0.0593
0.0743
0.0543
0.0543
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.4131
0.1898
0.1947
0.1896
0.1913
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.1692
0.1753
0.1873
0.1981
0.1798
C:\Windows\notepad.exe - 5 executions
0.0568
0.0568
0.0606
0.0606
0.0606
C:\Windows\notepad.exe - 5 executions
0.0531
0.0578
0.0706
0.0568
0.0618

P.S.: And now i will stick with a setup with Avast + NovirusThanks + Shadow Defender, because if i keep restoring images at the pace i did the last month, this SSD won't last 6 months and i will then send you the bill for a new one, Rajeesh,errr... Kees.

 

Oh except from Superfetch, there is also Prefetch that plays a role. Also, unlike system benchmark applications like PC Mark, this one, apart being more inconsistent, also doesn't fully stress the CPU nor does it make multi-threaded test. So, a CPU in PC Mark, may look much stronger, but in PC Mark, multicores are counted in. This one, if you launch single threaded application, doesn't matter if you have 1 core or 8 cores...

 

Interesting. Gave it a go and this was what I got...

Win7 Ultimate 64-bit

PC Specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo T7500@2.20GHz
RAM 3.00GB DDR2
Mechanical HDD @ 5400RPM

Security Setup: UAC (highest) + Applocker

1st try:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe - 5 executions
0.0367
0.0153
0.0152
0.0152
0.0152

2nd try:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe - 5 executions
0.0151
0.0196
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151

 

@ Safeguy

First, congrats, you 've officially the fastest launching browser.

This said, this is yet another proof, of how this program is unfit in comparing different setups and i have my doubts even in the same setup.

 

After installing NovirusThanks and rebooting.

C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.4047
0.1855
0.1872
0.1842
0.1872

It's almost faster than it was before. Very inconsistent. I guess that's why reviews use other benchmarks instead of this.

 

What's the speed dial? I might need one of those.

 

Well, Opera had one and was great, so when i passed to Iron i searched for an equivalent extention. Basically, it's a page with the icons of the websites you visit more often. You click on the icon and it loads the page. You don't have to go to the bookmarks.

I am using this one:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/speed-dial/dgpdioedihjhncjafcpgbbjdpbbkikmi

But if you search for the term, there are many more.


Anyway, after installing Shadow Defender and MBAM Free, SWR Iron is now slower. No way to get below 0.2

C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.4893
0.2373
0.2364
0.2325
0.2368
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.2331
0.2338
0.2318
0.2426
0.2318
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.2401
0.2326
0.2276
0.2248
0.2294
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.2310
0.2368
0.2331
0.2368
0.2197

EDIT: I guess it's Shadow Defender causing it, since MBAM free is on demand and not loaded at startup.

 

I have to reconsider after this. I think i may also found why WMP was slower after restoring the image. Before, WMP was my default video player, so, it must have finished in the Prefetch after being used several times. On the contrary, the image restored was "virgin", so WMP was launched slower.

SWR Iron being slower after installing Shadow Defender, is consistent with the fact that the same speed i had before installing the image, in the Comodo setup, that also had Shadow Defender.

Conclusion:

Shadow Defender, i want my 0.05 sec back!

 

After installing Avast, running a full scan to build cache, rebooting:


C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.2167
0.1153
0.1193
0.0755
0.0931
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.2680
0.2655
0.2593
0.2556
0.2759

The results are actually worse than when i had Avast+Comodo. Must be something with Prefetch, Superfetch or whatever caching Windows is doing.


Avast, i want my 0.03 sec back.


EDIT: Disabling Avast's shields:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0780
0.0906
0.0880
0.0881
0.0868
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.2468
0.2511
0.2823
0.2663
0.2539

EDIT: Re-enabling Avast's Shields:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.1018
0.1181
0.0830
0.0931
0.0881
C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0843
0.1268
0.0918
0.1243
0.0893
C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.3793
0.2505
0.2493
0.2668
0.2543

Conclusion: Yep, the test is crap and incosistent. Only good to show big differences.

 

Respond times around 0.25 - 0.30 sec's feel as immediately, around 0.4-0.5 as very responsive, responsive 0.6-0.7, just okay 0.8 - 0.9, above a second slow, above two secs very slow, above three secs dead slow (unacceptable).

Remember 2005, we were happy with a cold start of IE/FF/Opera of 3-4 secs, repeat (cached) starts of under two secs made us jump on our desks.


My tests are more or less consistant, see pic for program settings. For these test I disabled the contineous NAS backup (which runs automaticcally), forgot about it. Can't go leaner, without to much impact on mean (security wise against malware): SRP/UAC/GPO/ACL/EMET and Kingston Cloud Antivirus

C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe - 10 executions
0.3591
0.2972
0.2966
0.2966
0.2966
0.2966
0.3368
0.2810
0.3122
0.2810

 

Iron has proxy disabled anyway, but in either case, i got fed up. My current results are worse than before, and WinPatrol was present in both cases. PC feels slower too. Must be something with Prefetch, superfetch still building up. Maybe i will repeat in a few days of use, when Windows will be more used up.

I was using WM close.

Anyway, both Shadow Defender and Avast had an impact. NoVirusThanks had virtually none.

 

Laptop Specs:
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Processor: Core i7 2630qm
Ram: 8gb DDR3
Graphics Card: AMD 6770m
HDD: 640gb 7200rpm

Security Setup:
Norton Internet Security
Limited User Account
Applocker
EMET
Sandboxie

C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe - 5 executions (NOT SANDBOXED)
0.0235
0.0177
0.0233
0.0224
0.0214

C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0745
0.0687
0.0686
0.0688
0.0685

C:\Windows\notepad.exe - 5 executions
0.0667
0.0627
0.0625
0.0507
0.0507

 

Thanks. I forgot to say that I do use EMET. I can't help but to give it another try...this time with Palemoon. I also tested with Notepad and WMP since some of you did...

1st try:
C:\Program Files\Pale Moon\palemoon.exe - 5 executions
0.0312
0.0309
0.0308
0.0308
0.0307

2nd try:
C:\Program Files\Pale Moon\palemoon.exe - 5 executions
0.0297
0.0377
0.0276
0.0275
0.0316

C:\Windows\System32\notepad.exe - 5 executions
0.0547
0.0571
0.0556
0.0556
0.0556

C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe - 5 executions
0.0955
0.0645
0.0665
0.0646
0.0636

I'm definitely pleased lol I'm wondering why though when my specs are nowhere as good as some modern machines

 

I'm wondering the same thing for my results. I know my specs are fairly good, but I ran my test without restarting my laptop first, and with a few programs running. I also have a lot of security stuff enabled (I'm in the process of reducing the amount )

 

Note:

First, anyone under 0.1500 on any chrome version isn't running the test right.

I have the fastest machine specs here so far aside from Fuzzfas SSD, and my box is highly tweaked, and frankly, even with a fresh window installation, and running Chromium on a ram disk, I cannot get under 0.1700. Therefore 0.0300 or anything around that is hogwash, it's just not happening, and most likely the program isn't configured properly. I don't care what you do, you aren't loading Chrome in 100th of a second.

Fuzzfas timings are actually the 'legit' quickest ones posted yet, that's on a raw windows installation with nothing else running. Which is pretty much how Linux is, and why linux feels so fast. For a recap, Fuzzfas times on a 'raw' system, with good horsepower is;

C:\Program Files (x86)\SRWare Iron\iron.exe - 5 executions
0.1692
0.1753
0.1873
0.1981
0.1798

Nobody is going to get under 0.1500, and if you are, then you aren't setting the program up correction.

 

@Bodhitree

Wow. I didn't know you had the authority to tell who's doing the test right. Prior to updating your post, you mentioned about 'page loading'. You quickly changed it and now it's about '0.1500'. Anyway...

That's the quote direct from the homepage of AppTimer - the same app we're all using to test. Mind you, it's not for web browsers only so no question of web loading or not.

 

Is your computer at the NSA or something? Because if you are getting 0.0307 then either you are on a quantum computer that preloads everything form another timeline, or you aren't configuring the product right, or it is incompatible with your machine.

On a RAW machine, Quad 3.2's, overlocked, fast graphic card, extremely fast ram, highly tweaked and 'empty' Chromium, loaded from RAM-Disk, with absolutely nothing running, I am unable to breach 0.1500. Based on everyone elses numbers, logic tells us that 0.0XXX is some strange bug, or anomaly. Because you aren't loading palemoon in 100th of a second, Ok?

 

Not exactly. It's on a fresh Windows installation with installed all programs that i normally use, but no security applications aside WinPatrol and Tinywall. But i do disable some Windows services and i don't run too much crap at startup. Overall, i had about 43 running processes on the Task manager.

What i mean by "virgin", is that it's as a clean installation as can be. Windows updated to January 3 patches + all my programs installed and configured as they should be when i use them, but otherwise untouched, no remnants of uninstallations of other programs. I usually do :

1) One image with just Windows+Drivers
2) One image with Windows+Drivers+All programs configured to the last setting (ready to use)+1 small game. This was the case with the test and those figures. Only WinPatrol and Tinywall installed. To this later, i add security programs, but the base image has no security apps besides Winpatrol and Tinywall.
3) Occasionally i do one with the above+games, but i am not in the mood of gaming these days.

I do that because normally the programs i usually don't change them, but the security applications yes and i don't want leftovers from uninstallations. So when i restore an image i am sure it's in pristine conditions, as if i had just installed Windows plus all else from scratch.

So theoretically, someone with a more powerful system and a lighter setup (less services, less startup programs), could very well get stricter timings. But that's as a clean setup as i can have, because it's configured to perfection for the things i use. Right now, i have 88GB out of 111GB free on the SSD, to give an idea.

 

Possibly, but you do realize that 0.0100-0.0300 isn't happening, right?(on browser loads) Your machine is pretty speedy, your SSD is faster then any of our drives posted thus far, and you are getting down into the 0.1700ish range. Which is about right. I can push down to that if I load from Chromium-Portable out of pure ram-disk, but no faster, and that is with everything off, on a tweaked gaming rig. I am inclined to reformat, and see what I can drop it down to, or drop back to an old core snapshot. But honestly I do not think I could get much lower then 0.1700 - again - that's 100% cached in speedy ram..

So unless someone has a quantum computer, they aren't pulling up Chome in 0.0200 as some state they are doing, so I am calling out a glitch or some other anomaly.

 

Logic tells me that you're for whatever reason unhappy with my results. Btw, CrusherW9 got those figures too. So, maybe he got his computers from NSA too. How lucky the 2 of us.

To quote your own words: "I don't care what you do" or how highly tweaked your setup is. I can't be bothered if the test is incompatible or if the results are inconsistent (since that's what Fuzzfas said earlier on). It's just numbers. It'd be childish for both of us if we were to argue over this. I don't wish to derail the thread any further. I don't think Kees or the mods would like that.

 

Bodhitree has a point

When you figure out that at least Chrome opens the medium level parent process, a GPU process and at least one (new) tab, then calculating the number of commands to be processed a reasonable high classed i7 would at least take 0.0800 milisecs to process it all. The overhead of the systembus/controller adds another .0.0100 to 0.0150, plus the disk I/O neccesary to feed the bits to the bus/controller takes another 0.0200 to 0.0400 at least.

can't be under .1000, just is not phiscally possible with retail computers but it was fun to read, where can I buy one

 

You didn't post system specs yet. But I was able to glitch the apptimer to get similar times as you, so I would adjust your setup and run it until you get times that appear normal possibly turning off things to find what is conflicting with it. I am only being totally honest with you when I say your times aren't feasibly possible because the procedure calls of Palemoon would take longer to initiate then those total times, even if they were already preloaded into ram in advance.

Anyway, I loaded OperaUSB into a RamDrive, and here is what came up.. No AV or anything running.

E:\opera.exe - 5 executions
1.7968
1.7802
1.7480
1.7866
1.7225