Prevx memory usage

This thing is eating up memory about like Spysweeper does (ditched spysweeper for that reason). Here is what I have:

PXconsole - 3,792k
PXagent - 45,496k

Is that about what you guys are getting? I can't remember what Spysweeper used to use, I think it was over 60 megs!

 

Prevx is not a good software in my opinion because with this memory requirements or less are another good applications that add more protection

For my Prevx requires arround 30 Mb -> I uninstall it
Any aplication of This list need less memory for run well and offers better protection

gdata (KAV an bit defender engines)
Panda (TruPrevent) http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/truprevent_tec.htm
Or aplication like ssm or ps offers better protection with less than 10 MB
"AVG Anti-Spyware (Ewido)" (600.000 DATABASE) good heuristic
NOD32
Cyberhwak is better in the test and only requires 8mb (http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/HIPS-BB-SB.pdf) In this test prevx was the worst

 

SSM and Ps are different concepts.

Prevx1 has a bit of a heavy foot, but you should notice what it does: it's analyzing every program you run, check with the database, use heuristics, and it can clean if malware is found (or block it when first found). It's the most comprehensive security program i've seen (i could be wrong, but i can't see another).

 

Prevx depends of its database and (see the test: bad heuristic or bad database or both)... ssm and ps simply block the malware (any malware), this is most efective than prevx.

Example: You have a database with 9000000000000 virus xDD
You open all, with ssm or ps in the computer: The software ask you -> press dont execute -> you ar free of virus
You open all, with prevx in the computer: is extremly easy that some virus are not recognized by prevx ->you are infected

 

heres my values for Prevx1:

PXconsole - 16,496k
PXagent - 30,296k

 

You're missing the point. SSM doesn't prevent, it allows you to prevent. You're the one who blocks it or not. You have to understand what the message implies. Prevx1, even if you allow it, upon review, can clean your computer if it's malware. Quite different approaches.

 

But what was the mem usage of Prevx1 when you tried it?

Gerard

 

For my Prevx requires arround 35 Mb -> I uninstall it
In my opinion Prevx promises a lot of things in the web... seem very good but it is not the best....

 

console: 5.412k, agent 37.884k. About the same WSFuser.

 

What about the various tests that have been done on Prevx, especially the AV-Comparatives one. I understand why Prevx failed the AV-Comparatives, but other people are saying it sucks in some other testing. Is it really that bad?

 

Yes but if you know a bit about "computers" is very easy to know what application is good and what application is bad.
I am 3 or 4 years with windowsXP and outpost only, and i never had any virus trojan or spyware beacuse is easy know that I must open and that not.

In my opinion ssm or ps need "any" antivirus, truprevent or cyberhawk or similar, and a firewall, for "complete security"



Sorry for my english

 

Hi, folks: Prevx1 is a kind of security app that I would aquire at all costs. It is a very comprehensive software covering wider spectra of online security issues. Memory usage is never an issue for this pc. Currently it runs at13,968/14,604. I use O&O clever cache professional, it works fabulously to optimize memory usage to a reasonble level all the time. Try it out, you may never have to ditch your favorite app just simply because of higher mem usage.

 

another thing u miss is that Prevx1's ABC mode is "Set it and Forget It". It has almost no prompts.

Some people may find this appealing.

 

Prevx is not my favorite, but now i need:

O&O CleverCache USD 29.95 and
Prevx €19.50 only 12 moths

TOtal=50€ ->> a lot of alternatives

 

Hi, folks: I concur WSFuser's assessment. W/ its ABC mode on, I often dub it as a ideal online watchdog for a cyber idiot like me.

 

Hi, folks: your calculations appears to be correct, but think about this way, once you fork out hardearned money to aquire these two(for exemples) apps, you may not need any other AS paywares, perhaps just adding free on demand AS. The investment you make here will benefit you for a long way. Believe me, I used to spend $$$ to have a fleet of protection gears, at end , I just ditched them. The reason is very simple, I just need one which can do the whole spectrum of jobs, that is Prevx1. As I have said many times, you either love it or hate it.

 

Your english is ok, i understand you

If you know about computers very well, it's probably easy, and maybe you don't need anything. If only a bit, it's not that easy.

WSFuser and Perman pretty much summed it up.

 

I note this thread repeats many others, all of which fall under the general heading of "this [insert application name] uses too much memory".

I again ask myself the inevitable question such a statement raises of "by reference to what?"

Kaspersky Internet Security 6.0 for example uses around 12mb at rest whilst TrendMicro 2007 uses over 100mb. If each were as effective as the other then KIS may be viewed as doing it better as it uses less system resources (absent CPU usage). There are other examples that everyone reading can think of when comparing similar apps.

To what other program are you comparing Prevx1, Someone or does it just seem "too much?"

I run a lean machine but the memory usage you quote is not an issue for me.

With respect the far more pressing issue is to find security apps that will happily co-exist with each other without driver conflicts and with reasonable use of system resources.

 

Footprint from "BOTH" CyberHawk & System Safety Monitor are very light on this XP Pro system running "only" a mere 512Mb from 2/256 mem modules.

Prevx i know little to nothing about personally, but i do read where some highly prefer it whereas so long as their Hardware can support the heaviness/pull or what have ya' it must be tolerable for them.

I been relying on the above combo along with at least a half a dozen other monitors of sorts from time to time depending on which products have just released a new version, but the above are mainstays and that is exactly the reason why they are home on my units, light but FORMIDABLE!!

 

Hi All,

Prevx1 has a higher footprint then we would like at this stage, but for us it's a trade-off between the real-time protection and performance versus memory. We will continue to improve the resources of the client over time but for now we are more focused on improving the protection.

We have recently submitted Prevx1 to real testing by offering the full product on Virustotal. Unlike some scanners (which are highly tuned specifically for VT) Prevx1 protection is what you get on installation.

http://winnow.oitc.com/AntiVirusPerformance.html

We will continue to improve the protection and ensure we maintain early detection of zero day malware, however this is still early days for Prevx1. The roadmap we have planned (especially v3.0) will continue to improve the strength of Prevx1 and allow us to compete favorably with the leading AV vendors.

Regards,

Prevx Support

 

In this test prevx seems good.
Someone knows if this test are trustworthy?
Fortinet and esafe better than kav nod or bitdefender??

If Prevx 1 is comparable to an antivirus why in avcomparatives don't add it to test?

 

Hi all,

I find Prevx seems to run very light ono both my laptop and home computer which is pretty old now.

A lovely peice of software I would not like to be with out!

Cheers

Jlo

 

i would say that people should love prevx for the nearly zero popups.
thats the thing i hate about pdm in kav is that there is quite alot of popups.
and they said they are working on the memory usage but working more on the protection.
lodore

 

If it's directed at me, please note that i'm a Prevx1 user, and i was pointing out that there is no comparison.
And now i add that i have enough memory. It's not an issue, these days you can get it relatively cheap.
But it would be better if it were more efficient, that's all. stubbs100 just said they will work on it after they improve protection. And that's all i want

 

It's not actually a test, it's statistics compiled from VirusTotal. You can click the link at the bottom of the page for full details.