Avira Antivir

Anyone with Avira Antivir installed. Can you grab a resource usage percent from task manager real quick while doing a scan?

 

I remember Avira V9 can detect malware.

 

CPU 5%-50%,memory 50000K-60000K,virtual memory 50000K-60000K .

 

Thought someone said it wasnt resource hungry?! Right now with NOD32 Im using 4200K and 40,000K. Much less than Antivir.

 

When NOD32 scans,is it only use 4200K and 40,000K?My data was recorded,when I had a complete scan.

 

Using WinXP and scanning...


As to cpu usage, you can set priority to high, normal, or low. So... cpu usage depends on your setting. . .

+ When I have something else to do while the computer scans (usual), I set priority on high because I will be elsewhere.

+ If I want a scan done while I am working with the computer (rare), I set it on low. Never have tried normal.

 

thanks for replying

 

ok understand the payload,.exe*,dll,sys etc(the installer)

 

Avira is very light on my system, only uses about 15mb of ram and almost no cpu usage.
The highest detection rate, according to AV-Comparatives.org, while it does have a few false positives.
Apparently Avira free doesn't have real time spyware scanning, but it still picks up a load of spyware anyway so.. maybe the free version has a lower detection rate than the paid version for spyware? I don't know.

I'd highly recommend atleast trying it yourself, it sits quietly in the background without slowing me down.
It also reduced my startup time by a few seconds, even when I used the "safe start" option.. which was a little weird.

 

With V9 Avira free has same spyware protection as paid.

Ian

 

Re: Avira Anvir

According to the results of this test Avira kinda sux at removing active infections:

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/14


.

 

Thats v8 not 9. I dont know how different it will be though.

 

I dropped my NOD32 subscription and haven't looked back. I also use CFP w/D+ and they work well together.

 

It is light without guard.

 

Then you're just as well using the free version.

 

I have it installed currently with a 6 month licence. I so far have nothing good to say about it. My system takes about 20 seconds longer to boot up and show the desktop. I have considerable lag in Firefox, IE8, and general Windows operations, scrolling lags, and it consumes about 100,000K in resources which NOD32 didnt even come close to that in the middle of a scan.

 

I found the webguard to be useless..
It doesn't offer any additional protection over just the file guard and slows down my internet a lot.
Free version = good
Paid version = not so good

 

I don't know why (by reading your posts maybe ) but I already knew from the start that you'd end up with such conclusions

Just keep using your favorite AV and be happy

 

Of course it detects scripts... what "script test" on eicar.org are you referring to? There is no such thing afaik... If you mean the eicar.com.txt file, that's a matter of configuration.

 

Of course it adds additional protection. Just because you do not understand web exploits or the benefit of blacklisting malicious/hacked websites, IFRAME blocking etc doesn't mean it is useless.
Scanning always comes at a price, so yes webguard will slow things down a bit, but its not as much as you may think (speedtests and displayed download speed in browsers will show completely wrong values).

 

Not for nothing but did you uninstall NOD?

 

I see that your laptop has an 'abundance of resources'. Although I'm not familiar with Vista.

I've tried the whole suite.
On MY system it was very light.
Whether an Av is sluggish or light depends a lot on the particulars of your computer/system.
The detection rate is very high. I'm not familiar with Comodo.
It isn't as good as some other AVs with regard to cleaning.
In my experience false positives are not an issue, if you just surf the internet.

 

I used to regularly alternate between the two, Avira Suite and ESS, there is a SLIGHT difference when browsing with Avira compared to ESS but it isn't bothersome, to me at least. However the difference in detection is noticeable, Avira stopped quite a few things that scans by NOD and uploads to VT, NOD didn't detect and still doesn't with some of the files were given to them weeks ago. On the downside for Avira I have had one FP, which hasn't been fixed as of yet(it's been two days, but it is a weekend), but considering that I have both maxed out settings wise, I would rather have one FP than the several FNs (False Negatives) I could have had.

Also with NOD/ESS I would suggest you had an anti spyware app running real time as well, where as Avira is better in AS detection so that's not needed, thus canceling out the performance difference, Avira alone is faster than both ESS and SAS running, at least on my systems.

All that being said, these are two of the best out there and you can't go wrong with either, use which ever you feel most comfortable with and works best on your system, try them both out. Just be aware of the shortcomings of each and be prepared to counter them, nothing is perfect.

 

Sorry, i meant to say on my system i found it to be useless, as I use AVG linkscanner with Opera.
My bad.