Has Eset Smart Security gotten heavier ?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Fly, Jan 26, 2014.

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

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    On a nearly decade old computer with WIN XP and 512 MB RAM, Eset Smart Security (version 7) has been acting as a bit of a resource hog at times.

    I've experienced a few freezes and I suspect that Eset is part of the cause.
    At times, the ekrn process is hogging whatever CPU power is available. RAM seems to be scarce when I have too many tabs open.

    This is a relatively recent issue. Weeks, perhaps not even months.

    Anyone else ? I know they have their own forum but I don't feel like registering and asking for 'support'. I'm just wondering if I'm not alone at this.

    Please don't tell me to add some RAM, actually the type of RAM required is so old that it isn't cheap either. Not locally.

    Btw, AMD processor.
     
  2. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I have more or less the same hardware as you and no difference in performance now compared to a few months back.

    Yes the RAM usage goes up the more tabs you open but that's not ESET's fault, all browsers I have tested does it. Adobe flash player is usually the cause, it's not rare to see 600mb of mem usage. The web today is not built for computers with 512MB of RAM that's my conclusion, and no I will not tell you to upgrade as I am in a similar situation when it's not worth it.

    But no the performance and resource usage is the same as it always has been for me.
     
  3. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    I see about 300Mb of RAM usage with 2 tabs open in the latest version of Firefox. My PC has 12Gbs of RAM, but running Eset SS v7 I also see about 190K worth of RAM usage with Eset sitting idle in the tray.

    How do you have the scanner configured?
     
  4. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    On access ? About everything, I think.

    Just not the cloud.

    Two tabs might be doable, but try five ... It's quite unpredictable, really. Perhaps the worst is when Eset tries to update in such a situation.

    The computer consuming more than 512 MB RAM is a bad thing when you've only 512 MB RAM.

    I don't know about Flash. It has certainly 'grown'.

    Two years ago, 512 MB was fine.
     
  5. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Under Advanced Settings go to Computer > AntiVirus and antispyware > Click Real time file system protection. What is checked there?

    On the same real time system protection click setup. Is Enable Smart optimization checked?
     

    Attached Files:

    • ESS.PNG
      ESS.PNG
      File size:
      91.5 KB
      Views:
      37
  6. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    First question: everything.

    Second question: yes.
     
  7. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Try unchecking file open to see if that helps. If it scanned on write and real time protection is enabled you should be fine.
     
  8. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Why not? :doubt:
     
  9. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Because I don't trust 'cloud'. ;)

    I don't need it anyway. And I think the firewall is more important :)
     
  10. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Then I must ask, how do you know that you don't need it? :)

    If I would use Kaspersky or Avast or ESET...but don't trust the cloud assisting functionality in them then I wouldn't use that AV at all. It doesn't make sense to trust the code in the software but not their cloud features.

    But as long as you know how it affects the product having Live Grid disabled then I won't try to convince you to enable it.
     
  11. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    I haven't had a virus since I stopped using McAfee (!:D ) and I haven't encountered adware since I stopped using Counterspy !

    For whatever reason, I don't get infected.

    All right, to be completely honest I may have gotten one or two alerts from Avira but they were most likely false positives.
     
  12. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    There is your answer.. Maybe hit some garage sales to find an upgraded machine, because the last $75 computer I bought at a garage sale is about 1000x more powerful than your rig... I have calculators more powerful than that rig you are trying to continue to run modern AV's on... No offense intended, this is really an honest appraisal about why you cannot run modern versions of AV's anymore...

    No it wasn't. BTW, a 1GB stick of ram is $8...
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
  13. SnowFlakes

    SnowFlakes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    194
    Much heavier.
     
  14. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,089
    You can reinstall ESET and see if that will help. If you don't need all Smart Security features, you can use your licence to install AV only. In my experience it is a little lighter...

    hqsec
     
  15. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    You use Avira and ZA last I heard :)
     
  16. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    I think the fact is, many security product vendors are assuming people are buying better hardware, or building better machines as time progresses. It's assumed by now, most people are on at least dual-core systems, with 2-4GB of ram - at the minimum. Because those are now $100 machines on the refurb market. Also many vendors are assuming people are pushing forward to faster, more stable operating systems.

    More and more products will seem 'heavier' if you are running on decades old machinery as security vendors do this. It's not their fault, it's how products progress. To keep something engineered for the lowest possible denominator costs resources, and constrains improvement, and in many cases - impedes security.

    Many game companies decided to make their upcoming games 64-bit because keeping games operating under 32-Bit, single core environments was constraining the quality of the entire product that could be delivered. For example OXIDE can render 5,000-15,000 individual units, and have huge universes to play in - under 32-Bit they'd be constrained to roughly 10% or less, and the experience would be lackluster.

    The real answer is - new hardware, or even refurb, more up to date hardware. I just dropped a GTX470 graphic card and new PS into my daughters aging computer. Entire cost to upgrade was only $50, after I sell off the existing parts they are replacing. Yet this will effectively triple her performance in rendering, and games. It's just not expensive to make these kinds of upgrades.
     
  17. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Without getting into specifics, many people hold on to their old computers till they either break down or faster computers are needed to run applications.

    Buying a new computer for security software is just a weird concept.

    I did buy a new computer, but there is no reason to ditch an old XP box till it no longer works.

    Whether $50 is cheap is a matter of perspective.
    The ddr1 RAM that is required for the XP box isn't cheap at all, when bought locally. And that 'locally' isn't in the USA !

    I think there is a kind of law that pertains to this ... the resources required by a security product will tend to expand to what is available !

    Windows is bloatware.

    I wish I had held on to the computer I had before WIN XP came along ... WIN 95 or 98 ? It was fine for basic internet at the time.
     
  18. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,089
    System requirements for ESS v.7 on Windows XP:
    Here is a link: http://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN358

    OP, what browser are you using? It might be an update of browser or any other software that is causing this slowdown.

    hqsec
     
  19. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    Windows 8.1 is hardly bloatware, and in fact - it's the best windows ever released, akin to Linux Distros in speed/stability.

    I sometimes forget not everyone is in the USA. I read some statistics from Wargamming that showed that 75% of their users are still running at 1024x768.. But the majority of their players are in China, and Russia. I haven't seen a 1024x768 monitor in nearly a decade.

    Sometimes we in the USA assume everyone has the same expendable income, or access to cheap technology. That's not the case, but realize that's the framework we are experiencing, and people tend to think everyone is experiencing the same thing.

    Nevertheless, back on top.. Most stuff increases in heaviness as time progresses, mostly because computing power increases by the same, or greater magnitude. If it didn't we'd all still be running 64Kb computers, and have no reason to upgrade, right?
     
  20. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,013
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    sorry i totally disagree about windows 8 ill take win 7 over 8 any day of the week. win 8 is simply the new vista till 9 comes out. but i agree that a computer that is that old is just that... old. no offense but today 512mb of ram is simply not enough unless you are using a old pc for maybe a router or something like that. but for a everyday machine its just not enough. now that my thoughts there are out of the way for me eset is as light as its been in a long while in fact version 7 is lighter than 6 was for sure. and maybe even version 5. 4 may have been equal or just a hair lighter. and when you get all the way back to nod 2.7 then yes that was much lighter than 7 is.

    where are you located? if its the old ddr ram i have a boat load sitting here if thats what your system uses. if its the really old stuff from before ddr then imo its time to retire it.
     
  21. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,254
    It's a shame you can't get more RAM, because as other posters here have said, upgrading to 1GB will make a huge difference in performance.

    I so remember when 512MB of RAM was plenty for XP, but that was many years ago.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2014
  22. SnowFlakes

    SnowFlakes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    194
    I use alot, there will be hard time for you to follow me my friend ;)
     
  23. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    Microsoft sneakily increased recommended RAM when SP3 came out.

    512Mb is below the recommended amount of RAM on XP since SP3 - which is ... almost 8 years ago??
     
  24. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    Do you have a source for this recommendation ? I have been unable to find anything like that.

    I never installed SP3 till about two or maybe three years ago till some software started requiring it. Just installing the updates was fine.
    Since it has come up ... I have the gut feeling that subsequent updates over the past two (?) years have slowed down the WIN XP system. One would almost wonder if that was intentional !
     
  25. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,254
    It's not intentional, it's just a general trend of software increasingly using more memory. But, it's not all bad. For example, even though Vista, Windows 7 and 8/8.1 use more RAM than XP, you don't need to have more RAM installed under Windows 7 or 8 than Vista.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.