6.0 Slower?

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus/Smart Security Beta' started by chrisf8657, Jul 29, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chrisf8657

    chrisf8657 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Posts:
    18
    I get the feeling that 6.0 is slower, and it's also getting FAT.
    Ekrn.exe is using over 100MB of memory right now.

    Anyone else have the same experiences?
     
  2. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    a few have a issue with a memory leak you may have that issue. i have it running on 4 systems and not one ever sees over 100mb 99% of the time its 80 or less total
     
  3. BALTAGY

    BALTAGY Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Posts:
    99
  4. trial and error

    trial and error Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Posts:
    72
    Location:
    the former USA
    ESS v6.0.115.0 is running ok on my rig this week. The problems I had with it last year haven't shown up with this RC. I've seen ekrn.exe*32 at mostly around 95MB with chromium 22.xxx except after the modules updated this am, then that and IEx64 have gone up 10MB or so.
     
  5. chrisf8657

    chrisf8657 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Posts:
    18
    Well, ESET may be losing their edge in speed then, which is why I switched to it in the first place many years ago. Detection is still good, though, which is 2nd most important.

    I just hope the developers read this site and try and do something to trim the memory requirements down and speed it up. It used to be faster because it was written in Assembler, which is the fastest programming language.
     
  6. trial and error

    trial and error Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Posts:
    72
    Location:
    the former USA
    I hope for the same too, but this version is faster than KIS has been for me. :thumb: So much quicker that I've let my K subscription lapse and I'll be using ESS again for the first time since I left Eset for the red K in `09.
     
  7. iScream

    iScream Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Posts:
    21
    Mine is @ 75MB RAM usage, with Firefox open with 4 tabs.
     
  8. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    I am not finding it any slower than 5. Using more RAM is not an indication of slowdown. I wish they would put the whole thing in RAM. No waiting for disk access.
     
  9. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    Very wise word! It annoys the heck out of me when people measure the lightness of an antivirus but the amount of RAM it is using! When a program is in RAM it's in RAM, running almost instantly.

    The problem is, the way it handles file scanning, that determines how light or heavy it is.

    I had Kaspersky Internet Security, if I double click on a large 100 MB or so setup file for example, I have to sit and wait for 30 seconds (look at my system specs in the sig and this is on an SSD) till the scan is done in Kaspersky then the setup file is launched. Now THAT is heavy. with NOD32, be it any version, everything opens instantly
     
  10. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    i actually find v6 to be lighter on my test system that v5 was even now with the newest updates web browsing seems to be a bit faster i know they are using the same module versions so im not sure what they did under the hood but to me it seems to run very well. ram usage for me is actually a bit less than v5 was. and i agree with 4-8gb on tap nowadays why not run the whole thing in ram this makes it lighter in the aspect of disk io's and it doesnt have to write and read constantly from disk ram is faster period why not use it as long as they dont go nuts and start using as much as some companies do like 300+mb of ram im fine with it.
     
  11. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    With my 12 GB RAM, even if it used 1 GB of RAM I wouldn't care.... 300 mb bothers some people? surprises me really where nowadays 99% of people have 2 GB+ RAM
     
  12. Biozfear

    Biozfear Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Posts:
    10
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    Not everyone have a high end laptop like you or me.

    Most laptops at least in Europe come with a 64bit OS but standard 3 to 4GB RAM.

    Then you have people who do not uninstall laptop bundled software from Ace, Toshiba, Dell and so forth and do not tweak the services. That being said, usually they are running by default over 80 processes with a memory usage up to 30% in stock.

    I only went for a 6GB instead of a 12GB on my XPS simply because I did not see the need to go so high on RAM. Haven't removed the dell bundled software but did disable autorunning processes, services etc so while I have still nearly 60 processes running, along with ESET I would have 20% memory being used.

    So yeah that is one of the reason why normal customers get scared away by ESET's range of 60 to 100BM ram (despite the official site saying memory required: 100MB).

    Most users will opt for lower memory consumption on idle suites but then don't usually realize when scan is being done memory spikes up. However it does not usually affect such users since when system scans are being done, they are usually not doing any other task or use the scheduled scans option.
     
  13. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    At 100 MB with 3 - 4 GB you are still only talking about approximately 3% of the RAM. People expect AV and security suites to use no RAM, no disk space, and cause no slowdown while providing flawless protection. It really is too much to ask of any vendor. We should encourage them to make the best product they can, but we have to be realistic in what we are asking for.
     
  14. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    dittoooo!!!! 100% agree!

    People expect an antivirus to be a magical genie and not use any resources! 100 or even 200 or 300 MBo_O so whatt?
     
  15. BALTAGY

    BALTAGY Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Posts:
    99
    you have 16GB Ram, but what about who have 512MB or 1GB if antivirus use 200 or 300MB, so what about other programs and system?!
     
  16. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    a 4 GB SODIMM DDR3 1600 Mhz. sells for $20 USD these days...

    how much would a 2 GB or 4 GB DDR or DDR II cost? 5 or 10 bucks?

    cmon man
     
  17. Biozfear

    Biozfear Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Posts:
    10
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    Once again, not every user who buys a laptop that is low end to mid end most of the time will not upgrade any components. Since when ESET is targeted at the high end system users?

    Like I said, running ESET or any other AV with memory over 100mb on idle will just scare the user away.

    Bare in mind that I have been an ESET user and I own both a Low/Mid end laptop and a High end laptop. On my High end, sure memory was not an issue, but on the other system, I chose a different solution due to its ram usage.

    Other things we have to consider is that while most users eventually upgrade ram on desktop, not many venture on laptops.

    In UK/Spain mainly normal users buy a laptop and that is it. If anything take it to the repair shop since the warranty is valid.

    Please do not mistake a normal user with a power user or a gamer.
     
  18. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    Correct on the DDR3. Not correct on the DDR1 and DDR2. neither of those are in production any more and are actually quite a bit more expensive than DDR3. :(
     
  19. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    I don't think anyone is. Most any machine made since the release of Vista contains at least 2GB of RAM. It's all but impossible currently to find one with less than 4GB. I could buy a brand new Toshiba laptop today for not much over $300 with 4GB or RAM and Windows 7 x64. If you have 512MB of RAM you are running an outdated machine with a more than decade old OS. I realize not everyone is made of money but if you have a machine that old you can't complain about having issues running the latest and greatest of everything else.
     
  20. Biozfear

    Biozfear Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Posts:
    10
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    Next time, have a look at other countries before you mislead any user.

    - http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/asus-x501u-xx039v-15-6-laptop-white-14442744-pdt.html -

    ASUS X501U-XX039V 15.6" Laptop - White

    Dual-core AMD C-60 processor
    Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
    Memory: 2GB
    Hard drive: 320GB

    And you were saying it was impossible?

    Pointless going on about it. I rest my case.
     
  21. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,172
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    And what about people in countries-under-development (south-east Asia, Africa, eastern europe, etc... ) where a good salary is 200usd a month, so they can't buy a new pc or upgrade their old one because their salary is for other more important priorities than a bar of RAM...? fully developed countries are not the center of the universe..

    Comodo IS uses only 20mb for all its features, with spikes at 200 when scanning...

    ESET can do better than 100mb on idle...
     
  22. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    USA
    They probably aren't spending $60 on a security suite then. They are likely pirating or using a free solution. It's not that I don't care about those people, but realistically, are they the target market?
     
  23. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Posts:
    1,640
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE

    D!tto

    No matter what anyone says about the RAM, even if other AVs use less RAM, ESS / NOD32 feels the lightest on ANY system thanks to its awesome scanning engine! It doesn't stress the system

    Take for example, an X Antivirus I had earlier (Not going to name it so the mods won't delete my post saying this is an A vs B post), it used around 40 MB only of RAM, but it was so heavy on my system that if I launch a large setup file, I would literally have to sit there and wait for 30 seconds till the AV has scanned it first before it launches it. With ESS/NOD32, everything opens instantly. RAM has 0 impact on performance what matters is the scanning engine!! get this RAM thing out of your heads guys!

    Plus! ESET targets the average user, not the low end user. and the average user has at least 2 GB of RAM unless he was living in a cave!

    ~Image removed~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 22, 2012
  24. arsenaloyal

    arsenaloyal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    507

    not everyone has DDR3 RAM,DDR 2 costs much more that DDR3.

    i have DDR2 RAM on my desktop.
     
  25. Temp Member

    Temp Member Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Posts:
    263
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Why all the arguing about memory?

    It does not matter if I have 16GB or not, there is no need for ESET to use 2-4GB like a certain person above is saying would be fine (obv clueless). :rolleyes:

    I am certain ESET will back this fact up, its obv a memory leak and will be fixed in final.

    Someone else in another thread wants ESET to hurry with the RTM, I do not as I have seen what happened when they rushed it before.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.