Avorax Shield vs WinPatrol

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by WSFuser, Dec 18, 2005.

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

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Arovax Shield vs WinPatrol

    do these two apps overlap, and if so, by how much? which runs lighter and/or works better for you? all opinions appreciated.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2005
  2. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    I have tried the both for me Arovax SHield is very light.

    i don't think its that fair to compare becuase Arovax Shield is only a few months old winpatrol is yrs old.

    i preferr Arovax Shield to be honest. i think Arovax Shield will improve alot in the future:D
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I'm using Arovax Shield because is much more light than WinPatrol PLUS, about CPU time...

    I already talked about that on WinPatrol forum, but everything remains the same... :(
     
  4. Tassie_Devils

    Tassie_Devils Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Posts:
    2,514
    Location:
    State Queensland, Australia
    for a new 'kid on the block' so to speak, I personally think Arovax is great... very light, quick, responsive, and works.

    I agree with the above posters totally. Tried WP and I much preferred AS.

    ~ TAS :)
     
  5. Did some testing on avorax shield. Not impressed.

    It's 'lightness' is understandable considering the limited coverage.

    I'm not even sure I would place it that much higher than Spywareguard.
     
  6. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Doesn't have the same level protection of WinPatrol, but they are working on it, and protects what I want, instead of being annoying...
     
  7. sosaiso

    sosaiso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Posts:
    601
    VaMPiRiC_CRoW,

    Actually after reading your numerous posts about Avorax Shield made me try it the other day. I like the interface, and the LOW cpu/ram usage. [It sat mostly at around 2mb on my 4 year old machine. 2! I haven't seen such low usage by a security program... EVER.]

    Anyways, I haven't decided if I should ditch it or not. I don't see it covering anything additional. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just seems like another program that pops up whenever I try to run an exe. :/
     
  8. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Only 2 or 3 posts... ;)

    It doesn't popup when you run an exe, but when you, or some other, change the windows startup registry, add some plugin to IE, change the Hosts file...

    You can take a look on its website and see what Arovax Shield protects you ;)
     
  9. StevieO

    StevieO Guest

    Hi,

    Winpatrol is a neat little App which has proved quite useful on many occasions. For the most part, unless you are installing something etc, it just sits and waits.

    Recently some new avenues of attack that it monitors, have been included in the latest version.

    One of the nice things about it, is it's ability to Disable/Enable running Apps. Also you can Very easily Add/Delete new Programs to the Start Up boot entries.


    I've been trying Arovax Shield for a few days. I think that other Apps may cover what it mainly protects, except for this. If i try to alter something in IE Options Advanced, it alerts me with this check box.

    http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/9696/arovax17qy.png

    Changing other ares of IE Options doesn't alert me ? not that i've gone through them all. I've found it seems to be related to whether or not there is an APPLY button to click as well as an OK one.


    StevieO
     
  10. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    WinPatrol is very good application, but I don't like its resources because the code should be improved to avoid this...

    I think that will cover all the areas of IE...
     
  11. RobZee

    RobZee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    290
    Location:
    Texas
    A quick check of task manager shows WinPatrol at 2,200 VM and Arovax Shield at 8,400 on my 5 yr old PIII.
     
  12. sosaiso

    sosaiso Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Posts:
    601
    You have to wait for Arovax to calm down a little. It's been on my Celeron for less than 2mb most of the time actually. :D
     
  13. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    Hi VC,

    I don't know if you have upgraded to the 9.8.1.0 version or not, but like you....I was experiencing a little heavier memory usage than normal, as well as occasional CPU "spikes". Since the upgrade, though, it seems to be much more like it was prior to version 9.7....much less memory usage, with no noticeable spikes. Don't know if this is just my particular situation or not, but it's something to consider and perhaps try if you haven't done so yet.
     
  14. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    The problem of WinPatrol is that check the registry every x seconds, instead of only popup when some registry is changed, and this will avoid some cpu usage...

    Arovax Shield isn't perfect but works better than WinPatrol in this area...

    WinPatrol PLUS use less RAM than Arovax Shield, but Arovax Shield use less CPU time than WinPatrol PLUS...

    RegDefend is the best in this area, but the free version doesn't have the option to choose what to do, and covers much more registry items...
     
  15. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    On Nov 16, 2005 I asked the Arovax proponent to comment as to WHICH startup/autorun registry entries are covered by Arovax Shield. As of today (Dec 19, 2005) the Arovax proponent has replied to my post, but has NOT answered my question. You can read the question & the replies HERE.

    I am cautious in placing any great reliance on a security program that seems reluctant to disclose specific information as to what it does and does not cover. Further, I continue to be concerned that a major REASON why Arovax is so light is that it isn't defending the full spectrum of startup/autorun danger areas, as detailed by hojtsy & other qualified posters in THIS Wilder's thread.

    I agree with those who say that Arovax Shield may very well be a splendid security program in the future. However, security threats must be protected against in the *here & now* & not merely in the *sweet by & by*.
     
  16. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    On my pc Arovax Shield consumes 10.70 MB RAM while WinPatrol free only eats up 1.27MB RAM. :cool:

    In my own simple opinion, I think WinPatrol 9.8 free now is becoming much more faster in detecting changes in my system than their preveous version...they also added "some things to detects", and what I like on WinPatrol was that it offers several features not found on Arovax Shield e.g. disabling some starting programs. :D

    Arovax Shield was also good... but I wonder if it can really shields me from spyware cookies coz my Ewido still got to catch lots of them after its scans. :oops:
    Arovax was also fast in detecting some changes in my system and also can block some spywares and viruses.. but still m not sure if this is really good. o_O

    I need some "proven and tested" protection... :p
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.