2.5 may be even faster?

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by windstrings, May 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    I don't have enough info to do a definitive test... nor do I want to take the effort... but For anyone paranoid about getting the new version for fear it has gotten heavy laden you the OS.... I will brag on NOD and say I am impressed!

    I set it to the max... turned on everything I could turn on and ran this test...
    Number of scanned files: 205758
    Number of threats found: 0
    Time of completion: 03:12:45 Total scanning time: 971 sec (00:16:11)

    Not too shabby?.. thats an average of 211 files scanned every second!
    Running an Athlon 64 3.2
     
  2. Stephanos G.

    Stephanos G. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Posts:
    720
    Location:
    Cyprus
    Same time here:)
    As a previous Norton user, i still remember the 85 minutes scanning :mad:
     
  3. wattsvilleblues

    wattsvilleblues Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Posts:
    29
    When I was using the beta 2.5.9, on-demand scans took over half an hour with all the settings maxed, compared with about 12 minutes in version 2.12.3. It seemed to spend ages scanning some things in the Mozilla Thunderbird directory. I don't know if this speed decrease is due to me selecting "potentially dangerous applications" or something.

    Any ideas?
     
  4. SaphireX

    SaphireX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Posts:
    84
  5. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374

    Maybe you enabled scanning of self-extracting archives in version 2.5 ?
     
  6. jim28277

    jim28277 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Posts:
    64
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    As long as we're comparing scan times, here the last from my scanning log using v2.5. Everything set to max per Blackspear's instructions.

    454,893 files scanned - 1684 secs (28m04s)
    ..........thats 270files every second

    pretty impressive

    regards Jim
     
  7. linx05

    linx05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Posts:
    30
    It has been a LONG time since I have used Norton BUT 85 MINUTES!!! WOW!
     
  8. wattsvilleblues

    wattsvilleblues Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Posts:
    29
    That could very well be it. When I buy the final release of 2.5 I'll give disabling that a try.

    Cheers.
     
  9. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada

    We keep one of our fileservers at close to 200Gb of data almost half of that being a backup of the primary data-source drive - I seem to recall Norton used to take 4 1/2 hours to scan... it was ridiculous...
     
  10. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,764
    Location:
    Texas
    I realize nothing too extreme is being said in this thread. I think posting your scan results with NOD is fine without mentioning other antivirus programs.
    It leads to flaming and arguments.

    "I guess more rules will be applied as the forum grows and I and the other moderators learn what rules are needed, but at this time I have only one ... "Don't use the forum to trash other antivirus products."

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=4383
     
  11. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337

    Humm.. I wouldn't spend too much energy until you first update to the latest 2.5.16.... thats what I'm using. If you have a slow hardrive, or a fast one on a slow bus because your system is old and only running at 85ish or less.. than you may experience slower runs than me... but when you compare... that should be the real test?
     
  12. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    I too have that enabled and it does well.. I haven't tried it without...
     
  13. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    Very nice!!!

    Kinda like NOd is a drag car and we all get to race! :D
     
  14. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    Well I haven't forgotten my old one taking around 40 minutes or so.... a little better but still rediculous?
     
  15. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    Hello Ronjor.. I agree it becomes like chickens all jumping on the weakest member when defaming other AV programs...

    When a new person on the forum checks in.. its tough for them to compare thier AV with the prospect of purchasing NOD if they don't have some type of way to compare with thiers.

    The web sites that give ratings with all the names listed are rareley trusted too much.. and are too bias... so folks like to hear it from other users....

    Too bad human nature is to exploit the weakness at the other AV's once its discovered.....

    I think with me I"ve gotten so ((^*^$ frustrated with my old one before.. it was like living with taxes.... you know you need them.. you know they do good.. but you hate them cause their use could be so much better?
    Even so with my old AV?

    NOD32 is a breath of fresh air in the AV world... I know that sounds a bit corny.. but when you come from being so frustrated to so delighted... I am always amazed and I cringe when I am in the store and I see someone buying "brand X" for thier AV!........ Those programs cost good money and twice to three times the amount for far less performance!!!

    ***Then I'm equally frustrated when I look at the rack they are looking at and I see that NOD is never available for them when they are trying to decide.. or I would slap some sense in to them verbally?

    We need to get NOD exposed more and available commercially for consumers, so they have a choice. Most folks don't know how to find NOD?, so it makes us try and awaken them in the forums as much as possible so they "come to the light"

    (Gospel of NOD: Ch 3 verse 14) - Come to the light... come on board brothers and sisters... your redemption draweth nigh!!! Listen to the Good News!!!
     
  16. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    NOD32 does well. Scanning speed wasnt really a matter for me - just an added bonus. I am happy to have that bonus with NOD32 :D

    NOD32 is like 50x faster during an On-Demand Scan than my old eScan based on KAV engine!

    The real time components are the lightest I've ever seen in any AV so far.
     
  17. wattsvilleblues

    wattsvilleblues Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Posts:
    29
    I've used alot (ALOT!) of AV programs over the years and none compare to NOD32. I have it installed on all my friends' and family's machines.

    One mate of mine inparticular couldn't go a month without me needing to format his machine due to viruses (using "industry leading AV solutions" - we all know who I mean:p). Since installing NOD32 last year it has stopped hundreds of attempted infiltrations and kept his system running nicely.

    A few weeks ago I installed NOD32 on another friend's computer and within 10 minutes it had detected about a dozen viruses, and to be blunt about it, it cleaned the living sh*t out of his sytem.

    He's a greatful bugger now!

    All hail NOD!
     
  18. muf

    muf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Posts:
    926
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    The new NOD32 v2.5 scanned 127,000 files in 21 minutes. If i've got my maths right, thats 100 files per second. The same scan using KAV 4.5 takes 65 minutes so i'm happy with NOD's scan speed.

    This system is an Athlon 1ghz with 512mb sdram. I was also running BOClean, Cookiewall, Ad-Watch, Regrun Gold, NOD's Amon and Browser Sentinel at the same as i carried out the scan. I'm sure running all these apps resident will have slowed down the scan. Even so, i'm very pleased with it's speed.

    Big thumbs up. :D

    muf
     
  19. Elray

    Elray Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Posts:
    95
    Location:
    Rural Queensland, Australia
    Just out of interest in this thread I scanned my C Drive. All options set to the max and no exclusions. Version 2.5 scanned at the rate of 130 files per second and that's good enough for me.......

    Elray :cool:

    P4 2.4Ghz: 512MB DDR3200 RAM: 80GB HDD: Nvidia GeForce MX440:
    XP SP2: NOD32 2.5: ZoneAlarm: AdAware: Spyware Blaster: Spybot S&D:
    Ewido: MS Antispyware.
     
  20. CyberMew

    CyberMew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    128
    Number of scanned files: 361768
    Total scanning time: 2093 sec (00:34:53)

    And that's around 172 files per second (or 172.8466316292403248924988055422:cool:, which is much slower than the others, because during the scanning I was doing other stuff :p
     
  21. ShunterAlhena

    ShunterAlhena Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Posts:
    134
    Location:
    Szigethalom, Hungary
    Hmm... seems that an engine written in Assembly does have considerable benefits over higher level programming languages :D
    BTW I fully agree with all posts about NOD32's relatively poor marketing. I decided to scrap Norton, and reviewed lots of threads on my favorite Hungarian IT forum, where someone threw up NOD32. Some people did say it's splendid, but the debate quickly reverted back to flapping gum on Norton's poor performance. This was enough for me to start searching info about it, but it's not the same as going into a shop and getting a boxed copy off a shelf.
     
  22. wattsvilleblues

    wattsvilleblues Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Posts:
    29
    Agreed. Also, I believe the user interface should be split into "simple" and "advanced" modes. The simple mode would be for noobs who just like to know it'll work out of the box with settings etc all tweaked to (Blackspear) perfection.

    The advanced options would be the usual NOD interface.

    And getting NOD32 boxes on the shelf is essential to increasing market share.
     
  23. windstrings

    windstrings Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    337
    Perfect!!!
     
  24. wattsvilleblues

    wattsvilleblues Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Posts:
    29
    Cheers! Can't give a guy much more praise than "perfect"!
     
  25. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Please refrain from critising NOD32's interface here. It's been said numerous time it will be changed completely with NOD32 3.0 and, what's more, it will offer a different interface (options) for advanced and common users.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.