Bitdefender antivirus opinions

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by disinter1, Dec 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. disinter1

    disinter1 Guest

    I tried the new bitdefender antivirus, and I am sad to say it slowed down my computer and the gui seems real dumb, but to the point somehow I didn't feel really protected with it on, why is this?
     
  2. Xenophobe

    Xenophobe Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    174
    I concur with the GUI, but it should be able to help keep you protected.
     
  3. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,277
    Location:
    Earth
    hated it stuck with avg
     
  4. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I'm running Bitdefender IS 2008, and it hasn't slowed down my computer at all. It's running very light. As for you not feeling protected with BD, I'm not sure why you would feel that way. BD has very good detection rates. Check out the AV test sites.
     
  5. tec505

    tec505 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Posts:
    284
    Location:
    Romulus, class M planet
    I tried other AV (Avira, AVG ...) and BD seems to be light, but not lighter than AVIRA. It is powerfull, but some FP are possible (at the moment it show an evident FP on Adaware msi installer file).
    The cons is GUI (2008 GUI really sucks, main window Security Center is completely useless and it is an NORTON clone).
    It is a good AV overall, but my Laptop hangs if Outlook 2003 is opened during or immediately after an BD update.
    Other bugs have been fixed (sometimes ago I had some BSOD ...) Actually i stable, but ... my be is time to change.

    Mike
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2007
  6. Magister

    Magister Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    6
    I have Bitdefender's Antivirus 2008 on my new laptop. It's light, but the GUI is very poor. The web (HTTP) scan hangs my Vista when i try to start Firefox.
     
  7. JasSolo

    JasSolo Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Posts:
    414
    Location:
    Denmark

    I couldn't agree more.


    Happy holidays
     
  8. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The main GUI is pretty poor and useless:rolleyes: The advanced settings are where the rubber meets the road:eek: They should work with the advanced settings area and develop a GUI off that...:cool:
     
  9. Niels

    Niels Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    466
    Location:
    Belgium
    I don't have any problems with BitDefender Internet Security 2008 installed on my computer. You can change some settings to reduce the resources. You can exclude large folders by adding them to the exceptions once you have opened the antivirus section. What you also can do is enabling the option once your are in the antivirus section more specificly the shield section press on custom. There you can enable the option and change the size which is by default 5000 Kb so the realtime protection want scan files that are larger than the size you have chosen.

    In the previous version of BitDefender you couldn't see if some parts where disabled. Only if you did check every section. You could it also saw it at the changing colour of the BitDefender icon. But not that many knew about it.
    Now it's easier to see once your are in the BitDefender Security Center.
     
  10. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    There have been a variety of tests on AV overhead. In all of them Bitdefender runs slow. Its too bad as it has fairly good heuristics.
     
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    Its weird really because bitdefender is very fast for me.
     
  12. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Are you referring to scan speed or just how it runs on your system?
     
  13. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    both honestly.
     
  14. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Good to know. Thanks.
     
  15. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,502
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I just don't understand how people keep saying BD is slow. BDIS 2008 runs very light on my computer. Scan speed and browser speed are fast. Of all the AV/Suites I've tried, only Avira is faster, as far as browser speed is concerned, and not by that much. Of course that's the way it is on my computer. Everybody's system is different I guess. :)


    EDIT.......Wow, two posts in one thread defending Bitdefender. I better stop before I get accused of being a fanboy. ;) :)
     
  16. Chuck_IV

    Chuck_IV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Posts:
    133
    Totally agree. I don't really understand it either Graystoke but different AV's run differently, depending on a person's machine. My machine is actually a less than up to date machine in it's only a hyperthreaded 3.2ghz machine. So with that, I know I am VERY picky with things slowing my machine down(this is why I left KIS) and Bitdefender, was definitely the lightest, of the ones I tried and doesn't slow me down, in the least(it's running Vista).

    Hmm, the CNET review calls it "fast and light" and it ranked pretty good in their speed tests, so I guess the "variety" missed one...

    http://reviews.cnet.com/search-resu...us-2008/4505-5_7-32595226.html?tag=prod.txt.1
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2007
  17. eBBox

    eBBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Posts:
    482
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    Same here :thumb:
     
  18. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    id label the suite, nearly as fast as drweb.

    its definatly, 100% the lightest/fastest suite available.

    scanning speed for 2008 is alot faster than v.10, it used to be about 40 minutes on my setup, now its about 13 minutes.

    so, big thumbs up from me. :thumb:

    ---
    it was Very buggy on release however, and its taken a few months to iron 'most' of those bugs out, but some (very little) still remain.
     
  19. clambermatic

    clambermatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Posts:
    216
    Have only tested v10 on BD-Suite, but all Free versions up to v8... i must say it was slow if ondemand scanning were initiated. Some where still deployed (free editions) as backup ondemand due to its good record in FPs.

    What i'm impressed on BD was its good record of 'support' PLUS it's dual-threaded sigfiles updating... quite fast & efficient!
     
  20. ogy

    ogy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Posts:
    28
    Installed 30day trial version today and after 30 minuts "license expiered" mesage.:rolleyes:
    Very unprofessional!
     
  21. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I trialed BD. It was very light on my computer. PLUS, you cannot find a better price for a top-tier AV.

    BD's GUI is friendly, functional, and easy to get around in. It isn't "pretty" but I could care less about a GUI's looks as long as it gets the job done.

    However, BD's forum scared me away from buying version 2008 right now. Based on several recent forum posts: (a) support is often needed, WHEREAS (b) support is slow and not very helpful, THEREFORE (c) the forum Mods (they are splendid!) seem to be handling much of the vituperative fall-out.

    Evidently one of the main issues is an occasionally spotty updater. I HATE updater problems!! I'll check back later because BD WILL straighten itself out in the near future, of that I feel quite certain.
     
  22. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    Have you installed a BD trial before? If so, then it's normal, you cannot get another 30 days if you already used one.
     
  23. kinwolf

    kinwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2006
    Posts:
    271
    I never go to the BD forums for support. I use the email form or live assistance. So far I am pleased with the response time, although I cannot say I am always pleased at the answer, but bugs gets corrected eventually.

    What I am tired of though is that in a week you might have to reboot 4 times when they are fixing bugs. They should regroup the fix instead of releasing partially every other days through the updater.
     
  24. Sm3K3R

    Sm3K3R Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Posts:
    494
    I use BitDefender for almost one year and a half.I used BD 9,i used BD 10 and im using BitDefender2008.
    Although the interface changed in this 2008 release to something like TrendMicros interface(to be more easyly to use,though the advanced settings are in the old BD way) this antivirus is very strong and belive me i always double checked it with KAV6/7 ,Trend Micro,AVAST,Avira,NOD32,F-Prot,F-Secure.
    I never had false positives,i never had active virus infections.
    I use BitDefender Antivirus 2008 (the one without the firewall and some aditional modules).If you really want to see its power use this version.In the last 2 years detection rate placed it always in the top 10(if not top 5) and has the best proactive defence.
    As for the consumption i can tell you more,in an Windows XP SP3(RC1) i got on a system with nforce 2 and Jetico 2 firewall a phisical memory load of 205mb-211mb.In a system with same Windows version but with Comodo 3 firewall(versions 3.0.14 or 3.0.15) i ve got around 241mb and keep in mind this is the load when the gaming mode is not activated.When the gaming mode is active is like not having an antivirus in your computer smooth even on my old rigs.CPU load is always smooth.Scaning speed is ok faster than KAV.
    With KAV i always had loads of over 290mb or with TrendMicro over 350mb.
    If you combine this antivirus with a good firewall your computer is 99% protected.
    I dont recommend usage of the BD firewall versions,its better to use the best modules from diferent vendors.
    As for the price its imbatable for a payed antivirus,if you want free antivirus get AVAST.In the last year KAV discovered nothing in my computer BD beeing used as primary antivirus on a parallel active partition and i dont usually keep my computer up for nothing ,i use firefox i enter in bad sites i open kracks and keygens,i host gaming servers.
    Before speaking do some testing ,of course its also a question of taste,everyone has his preferences.
     
  25. ogy

    ogy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Posts:
    28
    Yes, but 2 years ago, v9 or v8 can't remember.Ysterday i installed BD TotalSecurity and after 30 min. my trial has expiered.
    However, i have other suite now.
    Thanks.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.