KAV 5.0227 vs 5.0325

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by larouse, Jun 16, 2005.

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

    larouse Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2004
    Posts:
    157
    Hi,

    Like to know if somebody should tell me how are KAV 5.0227 vs 5.0325

    1.- Use of Resources
    2.- Speed,

    I remember that read that 5.0325 is taking more resources and put slow down the systems

    Thank you,
     
  2. infini

    infini Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Posts:
    110
    One difference i noticed, is that 5.0.325 version doesn't have the option in the "settings->configure updater" tab to select bewteen standard and extended databases. It only has the options "internet " and "local folder". So we don't know if the default is standard or extended and propably it can't be changed.
     
  3. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    There is a setting for the extended bases, under settings and exclusions then use dropdown button to select extended bases in 5.0.325
     
  4. tahoma

    tahoma Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Posts:
    228
    on my system 5.0227 uses less resources than 5.0325, but 5.0325 is significantly faster
     
  5. Trespasser

    Trespasser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,194
    Location:
    Virginia - Appalachian Mtns
    On my system 5.0.0227 was quite a bit faster for on-demand scanning than 5.0.0325 (10 minutes versus 12 minutes for 41000 files). The new Kav 6.0.12.171 beta is also slower than 5.0.0227 in scanning (10 versus 12 minutes) but resource usage is way down (between 6 to 8 Mbs). Nice interface on the new version, as well.
     
  6. mistycat

    mistycat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Posts:
    222
    Actually, I'm seeing the opposite on my system. Boot times have decreased from over 1 minute to 10 seconds with 5.0325. Scans take a few minutes longer ( 17 min vs 13 min) but more files seem to be scanned. I may be wrong on that,though. As an aside, an issue I had with Ad-Aware SE and, later, with Counterspy seems to be fixed. Other than this, all seems the same.
     
  7. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    325 uses a bit more memory, but the on access scanner seems to run faster. Honestly, it is no biggie either way.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.