Boclean Vs Trojan Hunter

Set asside on-demand. How do they compare on access?

And which Uses lower Resource Usage?

(I am on my 2nd Week trial and find Trojan Hunter CPU resources usage will always suddenly jump from 0 to ~10.....
So the Total CPU time was about 3 times higher when comparing to Nod32 on access )

 

BOclean gets my vote.

 

BOClean (4.12.001) resource usage here on my 3 systems is a steady ~6,100K.

Nick

 

I THINK Silly Thinker is asking about...

What is the relative CPU usage, BOC vs. TH, when they are running as real-time monitors (aka "on-access).

 

On my system BOClean uses 3.5% of CPU. Although i'm also a licenced user of Trojanhunter, these days the guard crashes my system so i can't test it. But i can tell you that about 12 months ago when i use to run the guard and BOClean 'together' that when i compared them the TH guard used much more than BOClean(about 10 - 15% of CPU on average) and occassionally it also spiked to high CPU useage. It was then that i decided i didn't need two resident AT's getting in each others way and stopped using the TH guard and used BOClean only. So in my experience, BOClean uses much less than TH.

My system is Windows ME with a 1ghz Athlon and 512mb ram.

muf

 

Hi bellgamin,

You're right. I should read more carefully. Even though I have a TH license, I uninstalled it long ago. BOClean (4.12.002) performs as shown. Every 10 seconds, CPU usage spikes to ~28% (which corresponds with the "green" blinking of the tray icon). The spike in the white rectangle shows how BOClean reacted when I opened a 110MB RAR archive.

Nick

 

At the moment THGuard.exe is using 5,784K mem usage and 2,584k VM usage.

 

Hmm, funny: BoClean does not provide on-access at all, only on-execute. I am not sure about Trojan Hunter, but the same may be true.
So I guess you wanted to ask on-execute, didn't you?
-hojtsy-