NOD was fine Now KAV

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by JerryM, Apr 4, 2006.

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

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I had been trialing NOD for about 26 days, and today installed KAV 6 to try.

    NOD performed as I had "heard" and I am pleased with it. I would be satisfied to buy it. The uninstall went smoothly.

    The download and install of KAV6 went well, and I ran the first scan. The scan took 46min-25sec. NOD took slightly over 30 minutes. The difference is not a big deal for me.

    On another thread here I read of times to load a pixel page.
    NOD took 35.578 sec with Scripts blocked, and 13.310 sec with scripts allowed.

    KAV took15.328 with scripts blocked, and 6.125 with scripts allowed.
    I did not expect KAV to be that fast.
    I am using FF.

    Now to see how KAV compares with NOD.

    Jerry
     
  2. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well as of On-Demand scan for KAV6, do it again and you'll see how fast it will do it second and probably all next times.
     
  3. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Second time took 38 minutes. I do not consider that excessive.
    Thanks,
    Jerry
     
  4. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,055
    Jerry

    Be sure Iswift and Ichecker are turned on. Also be sure to check only scan new and changed files. My first scan takes about 65 minutes. Subsequent scans only take about 4 minutes.

    Pete
     
  5. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Hi Pete,
    I can't find either of those. Where do I find Ichecker and Iswift, and what are they?

    While searching for them, I went to the Proactive Defense page. Two are unchecked. Application Integrity Control, and Enable registry guard are both unchecked.
    Those are obviously the default settings. Do you recommend anything different?

    Thanks,
    Jerry
     
  6. dja2k

    dja2k Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Posts:
    2,040
    Location:
    South Texas, USA
    When you say "Also be sure to check only scan new and changed files", do you mean in Main Customize Settings plus each sub category's Customized Settings?

    dja2k
     
  7. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I found the referenced items. Thanks.
    Jerry
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,055
    Yes, but you can change the main scan settings and apply them to all the sub settings.
     
  9. fosius

    fosius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Partizanske, Slovakia
    Sorry but can you please give here more information?
     
  10. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    Am I already blind? I could not find any reference to NOD32 taking 35 sec. to load a page :eek:

    I doubt this would happen in Higher compatibility mode (default). Of course, if the web page is large and you have your browser set to HE mode, NOD32 will first download the page before it gets displayed. This is by design and it's not NOD32's fault at all.
     
  12. TradeMark

    TradeMark Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Posts:
    65
    Then who´s fault is it ?
     
  13. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,375
    You can decide whether IMON should first download the whole file and then pass it to the browser, or download chunks of the file and fluently pass them to the browser as they are received. The former is called Higher efficiency or active mode, the latter is called Higher compatibility or passive mode. It's up to you which mode you select, each has its pros and cons.
     
  14. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    35 seconds is really off. I also wonder what kind of connection was used for testing. My 1Mbit DSL never needed 35 sec with NOD32 to load any page.
    In worst cases it took 5 seconds. ANd lets don't forget 1Mbit is far from fast in these days when 4 and 8Mbit and even 10Mbit are becoming mainstream.
     
  15. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I am not prepared to argue the point. I just know what happened. Now you should notice that the 35 seconds was with script blocking, and with scripts allowed it was 13.31 seconds. Again using FF.

    I guess that is all I can say, and the rest of you can work out whatever details as you desire. I used a DSL connection. Jerry OUT.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  16. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Myfirst problem with KAV6. Snoopfree had to close, and would not open again in the sys tray. I uninstalled it, and during the installation KAV Proactive Defense shield gave a warning and asked if I wanted to prevent or skip the installation. I clicked skip.

    It appeared that the install went OK, but it did not, and had to close. I uninstalled it, and evidently it is not going to get along with KAV.

    I hope that there is a way to work around that. I guess we'll see. NOD ran smoothly on my system during the trial. I hope KAV will also.
    FWIW

    Added:
    I reinstalled Snoopfree with KAV disabled, and so far all is well. I could get along without Snoopfree, but I have some added degree of confidence that my system is better protected with it there. I wonder if there is any overlap between it and KAV. If so I could remove it.

    Jerry
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2006
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.