Is it just me or is 3.0.684 faster?

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by PRJUS, Dec 19, 2008.

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

    PRJUS Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Posts:
    95
    Location:
    Denmark
    It seems to me that web browsing and viewing mails in Outlook works faster with 3.0.684 than it did with 3.0.669.

    Anyone else seeing this?

    /Preben
     
  2. CivilTaz

    CivilTaz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Posts:
    146
    No difference here.
     
  3. rollers

    rollers Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Posts:
    439
    I agree, mine feels and seems faster
     
  4. InfinityAz

    InfinityAz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Arizona
    Also here. Seems to load faster and not slow down the system as much during startup. Also, ekrn doesn't seem to be using as many resources, as often, as it was previously.

    P.S. - I noticed this improved increase in performance prior to reading this thread.
     
  5. Scotto

    Scotto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Posts:
    12
    Location:
    Sydney
    Same here. Browsing and general performance definitely seems faster.
     
  6. PaulB2005

    PaulB2005 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Posts:
    525
    Def seems snappier here too....
     
  7. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Faster for sure. Testing AVs all the time, and I uninstalled NOD32 because of the 100% CPU usage issue. After the new build, there has been zero instances of CPU spikes and things load faster. This on my machine (by far) is the best build yet. :thumb:
     
  8. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I just moved to 684 from 667 and initial impressions are 684 is faster.:cool: I have to admit I was sceptical.
     
  9. kwg

    kwg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Posts:
    126
    My impression is that Outlook 2007 loads more quickly and reliably. Before the 3.0.684 update, Outlook 2007 would hang for a minute or two at the 84% mark during the initial "send and receive."
     
  10. JuliusB

    JuliusB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Posts:
    82
    The system DOES seem to boot and work faster :thumb:
    I wonder what they have changed...no changelog yet.
     
  11. GAN

    GAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Posts:
    355
    The changelog only says: "stability and security fixes" so it's actually hard to tell what is changed/fixed.
     
  12. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Agree, much faster.:thumb:
     
  13. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    It's faster than any AV I have used including Dr. Web and Avira. Machine boots in 1/2 the time, and opening and closing files is faster as well. :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2008
  14. rolarocka

    rolarocka Guest

    Its hard to believe Eset tunes up performance without mention it in the changelog.
     
  15. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    Maybe it was an accident. :D
     
  16. c2d

    c2d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    570
    Location:
    Bosnia
    Same here
    Good work ESET :thumb:
     
  17. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Sacrilege. Heresy. Don't let C.S.J. see this.;) :D
     
  18. JuliusB

    JuliusB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Posts:
    82
    I hope it's a good accident if you catch my drift :)
     
  19. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have not been a big Dr. Web "fan" since a reinstall of 4.44 made my system unbootable a few weeks ago. Had to restore with Acronis. Eset never did that. :)
     
  20. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I am sold on version 4 but cant run it right now on this computer because of a slow down with a driver on my end. That will get resolved over time. But think about it, I am sure some of the changes for 4 and also indirectly being made into 3. I have no issues with 3 right now. For me version 4 brings some very strong cleaning ability or I would stay with 3. Good work Eset. I would like to say," Its about time." But its Christmas.;)
     
  21. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    I am sold on 3 also, but I have a feeling b2 of v4 will sell me out. I'm really interested in v4's use of WFP in Vista. Seems like a real step forward.
     
  22. SmackyTheFrog

    SmackyTheFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Posts:
    767
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Does anyone have real performance metrics that they are measuring this with or are we just throwing around anecdotal evidence as proof?
     
  23. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    yes I do. Last week A was slower then B and this week B is faster then A.


    Think about it. If this was my neighbor saying it who knows nothing about this site or security, then I would want evidence. But, I think for the most part, most of us here should be able to tell this. Especially when you see a diverse group, like in this thread, saying it. Why didnt Eset tell us? Being smart I guess because if it hadnt worked, you never would have know it.:)
     
  24. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    That makes sense.
     
  25. SmackyTheFrog

    SmackyTheFrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Posts:
    767
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    I'm not going to take any anecdotal evidence on good faith since it only takes one person to suggest something and everyone else to follow along buying in to the placebo effect. And in essence you guys are my random neighbors who's word I'm not going to trust without some evidence backing it up. There are tools that can measure rendering time for web pages and it isn't that hard to time how long a full system scan takes. Show some metrics if you think there is an actual difference.

    I honestly think you are buying in to some groupthink nonsense and the reason why there isn't anything documented in the changelog is because they didn't change anything to make the scanning engine run faster. But hey, prove me wrong. Its a win-win for me either way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.