Avira Premium 9 - Slow browsing speed

And you're basing that on....? Oh that's right, the god (Avira) can never go wrong. Every programs has flaws, they are made by humans...

 

That's true and i certainly belive those who have tested on their PC's and report that the webguard is slow for them.But your claim "designed better"sounds like bash to me unless you wanna add proofs.

 

I don't think I need active mode.. it seemed to be picking up malware fine without.

Avira's Web AV is just slower whenever I use it, so I prefer to be without it. It's just a fact that I've had to live with. If you have no slowdowns, good for you, but it's not the case with me. And I have a quad-core computer.

 

Nope.........Avira's record, various independent tests, my own personal experience and others, looks like all you are basing it on sour grapes and emotions and nothing else. Its a lonely world at the top and for Avira, nothing can be further than the truth. If you read my posts, I compared to my Ubuntu installation and found that there is hardly any impact to surfing when compared to a XPx64 installation with Avira.

As per design, well, for the record, Avira has had minimal issues even with new releases and also minimal system impact. As I mentioned, browsing speed impact maybe PC dependant, in my case, I didn't see any.

 

Well, I love Avira's AV, so I'm not bashing. Eset's web AV was much faster on both the computers I have used. So they are doing something right.

 

Ok...I beleive you if you say that Avira's webguard slow you down (btw in v8 I've had webguard uninstalled)...but the fact is that only with active mode enabled (in EAV) you can compare Eset EAV and Avira's impact on browsing speed.

 

No, I think that shows that Avira needs more options in its WebGuard - just like Eset has.

 

I believe you, on my machine, I see no impact.

 

Not at the cost of detection, Avira has far superior detection than Eset period.

 

Agreed about the detection. I'd rather not use the WebGuard and have better detection. But it is possibly something Avira can look into.

 

Let me ask you, even if its a hit of milliseconds, would you take that over letting the nasties in. Avira today allows one to surf with IE and with no tension as all the nasties are being filtered away.

 

On certain web pages, the pause is very noticeable, so is the WebGuard that necessary?

 

Well fortunately for me as well as others where they I have installed Avira, there is no such pause so yes, we would live with the extra protection of the web guard.

 

Wow how did I know that would come into the equation. But you're right I am basing it off nothing. THAT WAS THE POINT, because your statement that "i doubt it" was also based off nothing. Understand? I seriously can't believe the dribble that you post here it makes me laugh.

 

I have tried most of them, and the best ones I've seen are Avast's and Avira's.

 

the double A's AA

 

That just goes to show how different things can be on different systems. I found Eset's to be much slower than Avira's on mine.

 

I think that if you have a HIPS like OA and the guard for Avira you will be ok without the webguard enabled. Not sure of this but I guess we all have a opinion on this.

 

I did install the free version of Avira on my work pc - where I must use Windows and I have not found any browsing slowdowns.

 

The free version doesn't have a webguard.

 

The difference is that the web guard should catch it before it hits your HD, and HIPS would be more after the fact blocking it. I think someone once mentioned that the one real advantage of a web scanner is that it could catch and prevent something that takes advantage of a browser flaw and tries to execute directly in browser memory, without hitting your disk at all, in that case, the standard guard would not see it, but the web guard would.

 

Thanks for that info. Will keep that in mind.

 

I haven't noticed any slow downs at all with the web scanner enabled. With the extra bit of protection it gives I am going to keep running it.

 

How do you un-install the 'web guard' portion?
thanks