Why is Kaspersky consistently in the top 3 of AVs ?

Nope. Kaspersky ain't "guilty" that I don't use it now if you mean this.

 

Kaspersky for workstations may have more through testing compared to kaspersky home user products. I have only had experience with their home user products.

 

Yeah, I heard this with respect to other av companies as well.

 

100% agreed with you.

 

+


The test procedure counts the 'False Positives' in their malware/Virus totals

 

The only thing I hate about Kaspersky (KIS 2013) is the heavy footprint. I have it on my Core2Duo Laptop with 6 gigs of ram and an SSD and when the software kicks in to do a background scan I can totally feel it even in my browsing...it's really really heavy handed (in my case).
~OT comment removed.~
So I am trapped between security and system performance.

 

Security, performance and usability pretty much sum up the factors AVs try to balance.

 

Good research and fast response, basically. They've been doing it a long time and thus have maintained their position.

 

Perhaps you should ditch Kaspersky for something lighter.

 

Have you checked the option to concede resources to other apps?

 

Did`nt think that Kaspersky would run slowish on 6 gig of ram.

I suppose its the balance between good security and system responsiveness.Security should win out though.

For a lighter setup there are numerous great suggestions hear at the Wilders forums for anyone who wants to run light without comprimising security.

 

The amount of RAM shouldn't have much impact on AV performance unless the system is really low on RAM.

For me, responsiveness always is much more important than security.

 

One can have 32GB of RAM, but an AV can still make the system respond slowly, and affect the overall system performance, for various reasons.

An example.....If you would install Norton 2004/2005 on a system with 8GB, it would run like crap due to the way Norton was designed around that time. Then you install Norton 2013 and you would most likely feel a huge difference in system performance and how it responds.

 

Test your theory. I am serious put Norton 2004/2005 on your computer. You will feel nothing as computers have got faster, and programs back then used less memory and CPU cycles.

 

I think it will still have a noticeable impact on performance. I've even found a 2013 version Norton 360 to cause significant slowdowns.

 

You miss my point... the newer ones require more system resources even though the hardware has improved.

 

In some cases maybe, but certainly not always, and for some antiviruses there has been a lot of effort made to make them as light as possible.

I'm sure that old versions of Norton are nowhere near as light as a lot of the antiviruses around today. I would test this myself, but I'm sure they won't be compatible with Windows 7.

 

Yes computers has got a lot faster but not my 9yr old PC, it's not any faster now than it was back in 2004, that's a promise

Anyhow (since you mention the RAM usage) an AV that is using 15MB of RAM can still cause more system slowdown/drag, than one using 100MB+ of RAM. And it has been mentioned again and again here on Wilders that one shouldn't measure "lightness/system impact" based on the RAM usage. An AV that as a high CPU and/or I/O usage is much more likely to cause a drag on the system than an AV that is taking advantage of the fast RAM but in return it may use 100-150MB of RAM, some even more than that.

Sorry but no, I will not test my theory as my computer would be transformed into a little turtle, but maybe you can? I still believe in what I said, Norton 2003,04,05 was sucha bad products that they could make anything run like crap, and I don't think I am the only one thinking that, even the Norton fans would probably chose another vendors product than start using the 2004 version again.

I guess one could actually say, all AV's has got faster (some a lot faster) during the last 6 or 7 years. Higher resource usage perhaps, but they are a lot better optimized than they were back in let's say around 2004.

How about AV-C does a Performance test with AV's from 2004 on the same hardware that they did this years performance test, and then compare the results them with this years AV versions and results.