my dr web trial, opinions please?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by tobamore, Mar 24, 2005.

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

    tobamore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Hello, based on a thread I created yesterday on a 3rd best av for our 3 pcs, I thought I'd give dr Web a go, since it is apparently light on resources and very good at its job.

    Well, I'm not sure how the users banging on about it's light footprint have it setup, but I had it setup with all the bells and whistles switched on and the pc takes *much* *much* longer to startup (after logging in obviously) than did nod32 (fully belled & whistled :) ) and even longer than KAV 5! (equally belled & whistled :p ) Now this particular pc is hardly state of the art, but I believe that it isn't quite so archaic that I need to turn pages on a calendar whilst waiting for the system to become usable!
    I have read many many posts on these forums and tend to trust the majority of opinions herein, but this time I'm shocked and disappointed. Perhaps I'm missing something in the settings, maybe there is a 'switch number crunching to abacus' mode selected in the options somewhere that I've missed :rolleyes: I don't know. I do know that if I switch to smart mode scanning and don't scan archives it speeds up nicely, but so do the chances of getting a virus!

    Your opinions will be most welcome, but please note that I'm merely stating my findings in the hope of enlightenment and not wishing to start a flame war.

    The PC in question is an Athlon 1200 with 512Mb Ram by the way, and as I stated, it's not state of the art, but was capable of running KAV or Nod32 without passing off it's digital coil...

    As always, many thanks in advance,

    #
    Toby.
     
  2. tobamore

    tobamore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    By the way, I've got to come clean here and admit that I actually bought it before a proper trial... :oops: :oops: :oops:

    (Makes mental note - don't ever do that again!)

    Still it was *only* £18...
     
  3. Big D1

    Big D1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Posts:
    68
    Make sure you are using the smart scan option on access in the spider guard settings instead of "run and open" and "create and write". Look here for the Dr. Web screen shots. http://www.wilders.org/screenshots20.htm
     
  4. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    tobamore, i'm also on a Dr Web trial ATM, i don't see this slow startup at all in fact it is very fast, i use the "smartscan-mode" and not "run and open" and "create and write" this slowed me, but not as much as you report.

    One of our DrWeb experts has advised me to use smartscan and do on-demandscans regularly due to the fact that it cannot scan executables in smartscan-mode. This (on-demand) is the only thing i don't like about DrWeb so far, it's very slow using "all files" (but, also very thorough) and takes much longer than even Kav 4.5. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  5. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Presuming you are using Win2000/XP, the NT SpiderGuard when in 'SMART'-mode' does not check files when they are executed.

    Using any other scanning options of SG, ALL files will be scanned. However, use "RUN and OPEN" and "CREATE and WRITE" instead of smart mode, and it will take for ever for every program to open and/or increase boot-up times. That's the reason why smart mode is the default setting in Spiderguard.

    But the way round this is to make sure you scan EVERY new file coming in to your system manually and back this up with regular scanning using FULL settings of the Dr Web on-demand scanner. Further, occasionally, just right-click on the scanner option on the SG menu to launch the memory scanner of this AV.

    Smart-Mode together with common-sense will offer you good protection in Dr Web.

    Also I see that you have NOD down in your profile. I hope that you have uninstalled this AV before installing Dr Web ( you can ignore the warning of another installed AV). A number of people have reported that Dr Web is quite sensitive to other installed AV's, even when they are disabled or installed as a backup scanner.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  6. tobamore

    tobamore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    Thank you all for your replies. :)

    On the pc with Dr Web installed I have no other av (nod32 is on my own pc - I consider to be the main pc ;) ) so the slowdown can not be attributed to that. I wish I had known that Dr Web was so sloooww in 'full on' mode before i bought it, but that's my stupidity for not trying pre buying. I am going to give my Dr Web & serial to my Dad (his pc is a 3Gig Pentium so should be able to take the strain) and buy another nod32 license.

    So much for Dr Web, ah well, we all live and learn...

    I thought about trying arcavir but I don't like the idea of it installing a firewall of its' own and the kids like to play with any settings they can - I don't think it has a password protection system (another Dr Web failing) :(
     
  7. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Please trial that one first ;), Arcavir did slowdown my system more than Kaspersky 5.0, DrWeb & BitDefender, but the firewall in Arcavir can be disabled. :)
     
  8. AndreyKa

    AndreyKa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Posts:
    93
    Location:
    Russia
    If Dr.Wed steel on your PC check TaskManager process list after startup.
    Which of process have bigest "CPU time"? (Or simply post screenshot).

    PS. My old P1 200 MHz 48 MB Win2000 SP4 with SpiderGuard & SpiderMail startup takes 3 min. :(
    PPS. Default setings are enough for good protection.
     
  9. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    ArcaVir DOES have a password protect feature - Read the manual :)
     
  10. SDS909

    SDS909 Guest

    You have it setup wrong, don't blame the doctor. Run it on default settings and you'll be fine.

    I've trialed DRWeb on 4 different computers and its the fastest and lightest AV i've seen.
     
  11. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    Personally I think the Dr. Web engine is very powerfull and good detection, but the program it self sucks... The interface is confusing, and I had many stability problems... I really hope the Dr. Web programmers are making a whole new program around ther nice engine... Till then I (personally) won't ever pay for it...
     
  12. tobamore

    tobamore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    I cannot agree, I don't see why I should buy an AV and then hamstring its' potential to stop viruses, it just doesn't make sense. o_O

    I had Kav 5 and nod32 running on that same pc (at different times) and took the settings to the max and STILL they performed better than Dr Web. I have already bought another license for nod today (based on my experience) and installed it on the afore mentioned pc and set everything up to the max (advanced Heur/scan *all* files etc) - everything is good with the world again and have written off Dr Web for that system.

    I can see no point in loosening an avs grip (any av) just to make it run at a reasonably acceptable level. For me it's top protection or the highway for the av software.

    Please don't get me wrong, Dr Web may be a superb alternative on certain systems, but I won't compromise on arguably the most important software on the pc, excluding M$ XP of course. ;)

    #
    Toby
     
  13. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    I have used this AV, with smart mode enabled, as my main scanner on one of my NT computers here for over 3 years now and so far it has not let any malware through.
    Granted at the present time, Dr Web's SpiderGuard appears to offer better protection on Win95/98/Me systems.

    However, if regular on-demand scanning is carried out on NT systems then Dr Web offers, IMO, a superb balance between protection and performance ;)

    After all unless you have a new computer, choosing your main AV and the settings of the running Monitor will always be a balance between these two factors.

    However, you have made the correct decision in finally choosing an AV that you are happy with ;)
     
  14. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    I have just received an email from Dr Web's support in the last few minutes which contains some good news for those of us using this AV on XP systems;

    :D

    But also some not so good news;

    :'(
     
  15. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    ANY scanner that fiddle-fusses with every process the computer does will be a drag on the system. DrWeb's smart scan gives all the protection you need (that's why it's called *smart* scan). A prudent computer-user will on-demand scan ALL downloads, right? If s/he does not do so, DRW's "smart scan" is still smart, whereas it is that user who is NOT smart. :)

    My box is virginal for going on 2 years now with the Doctor. Plenty bad schtuff detected & slain. None entered.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2005
  16. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Here-here and likewise for my wonder box.... :eek:
     
  17. SDS909

    SDS909 Guest

    Well said! The good doctor does the job. I think hes being a bit harsh "Assuming" to get great protection you need to crank the settings. Thats simply not true in the case of DrWeb.
     
  18. tobamore

    tobamore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Posts:
    128
    I'm only "assuming" to get better (full on) protection, however each to his\her own :)
    The results, for me at least, still leave nod as the winner (fully tightened) but I thank all of you for your feedback and for avoiding a flame war which I feared. ;)

    Good luck to all of you with whichever av you have chosen. :)
     
  19. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I do not believe in luck; nor do I depend on it. Luck is an excuse for those who have lost.*puppy*
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. parham
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    784
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.