Lightest: NOD32 or KAV 4.5?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Opeth, Apr 29, 2005.

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

    Opeth Guest

    So what´s lightest? NOD32 2.5 BETA or Kaspersky Personal PRO 4.5?
     
  2. tahoma

    tahoma Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Posts:
    228
    definately not kav
     
  3. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    Memeory wise I'd says that neither of them are really that "heavy". CPU wise I would say that NOD32 has less of an impact when opening programs/Docs or scanning. That's how it appears to me on my machine.
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    KAV 4.5? Light? Nah (not memory usage wise from my measurement)

    Try KIS 2006 beta, you might like it :)
     
  5. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,526
    Location:
    Arkham Asylum
    Here is what the 4.5 pro version is doing in my task manager. This is with everything installed, control center, office guard, etc.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/NAMOR/kav4.jpg

    Not to get off the subject, but does anyone know what the last english version of Kaspersky 4.x was?
     
  6. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    4.5.104. :)
     
  7. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Well, actually KAV 5 has very good memory management. It has only two processes and swaps down to under 3 MB of memory usage. VM, however, is another 20 MB.
     
  8. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    KAV 5 does have good memory management - I do not disagree.

    I do however, have to say that KAV 4.5 wasnt that good as far as memory use was concerned ;)
     
  9. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    NOD32 is more light than KAV without any doubt...

    Maybe the new KAV IS will be more light and doesn't have some issues that it's very annoying...
     
  10. Diver

    Diver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,444
    Location:
    Deep Underwater
    Of course, memory management and system slowdown are different issues. Its entirely possible to reduce system slowdowns by keeping large portions of the virus signature files in memory, assuming the right program design objectives.
     
  11. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    On my system about the same. My resident anti-trojans (whether it by BOClean or Ewido) take up far more resources which is why I usually run one or the other or shut them both down when I might be doing a CPU intensive scan. Firefox is actually using the most resources at any one time.

    I am running Windows XP SP2 with 512K and Intel 2.5 Mhz chip.

    Rich
     
  12. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    512K of RAM? Now THERE's your problem :p:D
     
  13. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Sorry, my typo. 512mb. ;) I'm still thinking in terms of my first XT. :rolleyes:

    Rich
     
  14. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Another problem - Intel 2.5MHz processor. That processor is Never good enough for anything :p:D
     
  15. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Actually, for the first time in memory, my computer is not a problem in my life. :) I have to say, I owe a lot to Kaspersky, DiamondCS, Ghost Security, Terabyte Unlimited (Image for DOS) - and of course the mighty fine people on Wilders. :D

    Rich
     
  16. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    Exactly! Too many people think that comparing numbers in Task Manager will reveal which AV program slows down, or doesn't slow down, systems. IMO, it's less than 50% of the equation. There's the actual code itself, the real time file protection sniffing process, a whole buncha other things.
     
  17. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Believe it or not, but I found KAV 4.5 with everything enabled (except email scanning) to be much lighter on my 3 Ghz PentiumIV, Hyperthreading Dell 8300 with 1024 RAM than NOD32 with IMON HTTP scanner enabled and no IMON email scanner. I had heard so many warnings about how much KAV slowed even fast boxes. Well, I DID find that to be true with KAV 5.0 Personal which was a disaster on my box because it caused severe, rapid fragmentation (I use System Restore at maximum storage so 90 restore points). But KAV 4.5...well, I didn't even know it was on my box. I had to keep checking to make sure nothing was wrong because it had such light footprint. NOD32 which was my registered AV at the time became bloated and slow with the new IMON HTTP scanner. That scanner was awful on my box. It slowed it to a crawl.

    I can't say how either will perform on YOUR box. You need to test both. You can still buy KAV 4.5 personal (not just the pro) if you want it. ICE systems in the USA sells it. They are the US distributor for Kaspersky.
     
  18. Stephanos G.

    Stephanos G. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Posts:
    720
    Location:
    Cyprus
    strange, i use a pentium 3 at home and nod32 run at 10-12K, very good performance an d very lite.

    Check the attached image and compare nod resources with Spysweeper or firefox (for example). 10K is very low. thanks
     

    Attached Files:

    • b.gif
      b.gif
      File size:
      6.4 KB
      Views:
      312
  19. no13

    no13 Retired Major Resident Nutcase

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Posts:
    1,327
    Location:
    Wouldn't YOU like to know?
    hmmm
    it's 12k and 3k for me here.
     
  20. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Make that 12 and 3 Mb, not Kb. There's light, then there's a few missed decimal points.

    Blue
     
  21. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I wasn't referring to the amount of virtual memory used. I was referring to the SLUGGISHNESS of my computer when that darn IMON HTTP monitor was running. That thing is awful. You have sit and wait and watch a progress bar on every file! Never had to do anything like that with KAV 4.5. I didn't know KAV was doing anything. It was almost like not running with a real time AV monitor. KAV 5.0 though ....I knew something was wrong with my computer. It was sloooowww...and then when I saw that it was something like 65% fragmented in two days! (I had defragged just before installing 5.0) I was stunned. It usually takes about 3 months for it to reach 15% fragmentation. So, I knew that was why it was so slow but the cause of the extreme rapid fragmentation was KAV 5.0 ADS tags messing with all the system restore files and I have a large number of those.

    The amount of virtual memory used doesn't have that much to do with how well your box runs. My Fx routinely uses 120k virtual memory and yet Fx and my box run fast.
     
  22. twig

    twig Guest

    using KAV 2006 suite on a dell dimension 4600 avp.exe > 7044 k and 2176k
    which is very lite on this system.
     
  23. rabmail

    rabmail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Posts:
    47
    Location:
    Phuket, Thailand and Jakarta, Indonesia
    Hard to believe you had any problems with NOD32's IMON. I run NOD on one of my laptops which is a 1.7 Ghz PentiumIV and I have no problems whatsoever. It is extremely light. I have it on 4 other workstations and am also experiencing no problems. There must have been something wrong with your installation to experience the problems you were seeing. Sure NOD does pop up a window as it downloads and thats what I like about NOD, I can see how much is remaining to download, it is very valuable for large emails.


    I have read your numerous bad comments on KAV5 in all the forums I read. I have 5 machines, 2 Laptops and 3 workstations running KAV5 WS (now at 5.0.200) and they all work fine. We have no problems with slowness or anything else you claim to see. There is fragmentation with KAV5's use of ADS but on our machines Diskeeper handled it without any problems. We only use System Restore to give us a few restore points, I cant imagine what you would need with 90 restore points. On the Laptops, we dont use System Restore.

    Regarding KAV 4.5 it does an excellent job however we prefer KAV 5 WS.

    Dick
     
  24. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    for me, KAV is heavier on my system then nod32, especially when im browsing a cd or my hard drive. the performance hit it rele depends on the system and the user however, what may be slow for one person may be normal for another.
     
  25. besonen

    besonen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    Posts:
    25
    is there some place i can download this version? kaspersky's website only seems to offer version 5.

    thanks,
    david
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.