ESS 4.2 Virus Scan versus F-Prot 6.0.9

Discussion in 'ESET Smart Security' started by YaddaMinski, May 21, 2011.

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

    YaddaMinski Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Posts:
    28
    I was surprised when I installed ESET on my XP desktop (getting paranoid with all the new attack vectors even though I use it little) that it was slower than F-Prot ('My Computer' scan 48 minutes for F-prot versus 62 minutes for ESET). Reason? ESET scanned 275,190 files/objects while F-Prot scanned 54,153. Is one fibbing?
     
  2. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    There are two possibilities: the other AV didn't scan certain archives internally or it uses optimization techniques for faster scanning. Perhaps you might want to try out the new ESS 5 beta announced here to see if it performs even better.
     
  3. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Was this the first time you scanned your computer with ESET?
     
  4. YaddaMinski

    YaddaMinski Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Posts:
    28
    No, when I installed it I did a full scan. Then one more before I noticed it took longer. F-prot is set to scan compressed files. More testing needed but I am happy now, I think, that I put ESET on this Win XP PC. Observation: all other malware suites have positive problems, but ESET if anything has a negative problem: it is so out of the ordinairy that one doubts it. But a double negative is a positive, right?
     
  5. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,771
    Location:
    Outer space
    Full scan times are not important in my opinion, if it takes 2 hours or longer to complete one then it's an annoyance, but I don't care wheter it takes 20 or 50 minutes, as long as it checks the system thoroughly for malware it's good.
    Better to look at speed impact on daily computer use, or if you're a bit more technical, Disk I/O and CPU time, because RAM usage doesn't say much either and there are ways to hide RAM usage.
     
  6. YaddaMinski

    YaddaMinski Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Posts:
    28
    I scanned folder with zipped files count of 9: ESET 16 seconds 1,061 files scanned, fprot 19 seconds 11 files scanned. Looks like fprot only counts approximately the zip file count whereas ess counts the objects inside the zip files. Note ESET was faster in this test.
     
  7. YaddaMinski

    YaddaMinski Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Posts:
    28
    Ekrn verus fpavserver is more intensive Read I/0 by ~ factor of 8 while CPU time is less by 60%. Must be why ESET runs well on the netbook my friend has.
     
  8. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.