PrevX v2 - Impact on My System

Discussion in 'other anti-trojan software' started by puff-m-d, Nov 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,452
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Hello all,

    I have been trying out PrevX v2 since yesterday morning. The first thing I noticed was that my system seemed very sluggish. Also my CPU Temp usually runs 38 - 39 C, but all of a sudden it is running around 46 C.

    This prompted me to start looking into just what effects PrevX has on my system. I have attached a chart showing the effect PrevX has on my CPU and system resources.

    PrevX is quite resource hungry on my machine. On average it uses 24,732 K of system resources, peaking out at time to a monstrous 60,502 K of system resources.

    To me, the CPU usage is even more detrimental to my system. It averages 3 - 7 % of my CPU, which to me, is high.

    I did not record the values, but PrevX does more I/O read/writes than any other program I have. I believe this also adds to the sluggishness of my system.

    The most disturbing thing to me and my system is PrevX's impact on my CPU temp due to its resource usage. My system usually runs 38 - 39 C, but with PrevX running, this has escalated to 46 - 47 C. This is an 7 - 9 degree increase in my CPU temp. This increase will drastically decrease the life of my CPU. I find this unacceptable.

    Also this version is running a little buggy on my system. It has locked up on downloads, firefox, and RegRun. If I do not use the Trusted Installation feature, PrevX is also prone to locking up on install. I do run ProcessGuard, so in testing PrevX, I put both processes as protected in PG and allowed them ALL settings and options. The "Trusted Installation" feature is one I do not personally like. Usually when I am downloading and installing something new, I want the most protection possible. To use this feature or to have to disable settings in PrevX bothers me.

    The final issue is the calling home. There has been little research as to what info is transmitted and at this time all we basically know is what PrevX says. I am reserving judgment here until some research is done as what is actually sent to PrevX.

    My conclusions are this:
    Until the resource issue is under control, I am removing PrevX from my system.
    Until the buggines is fixed, I will also have it removed.
    I will also have to see my CPU temp go down.
    I am waiting for some research into the actual info sent to PrevX.

    I would like to clarify that these are my opinions of how PrevX v2 is behaving on my system and the conclusions I have drawn from that. PrevX may work completely differently on your machine. Software can be be influenced by the environment it is ran on, this we all know.
     

    Attached Files:

    • PXRU.JPG
      PXRU.JPG
      File size:
      25.6 KB
      Views:
      814
  2. chew

    chew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    515
    Location:
    GeordieLand.
    I have gone back to Version 1 now ...

    Good info. you got there. Keep testing.

    Cheers

    :)
     
  3. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    puff m-d, do you have teatimer from Spybot installed? I am not using Prevx due to the questions and concerns some of us have, but Ewido used to use quite a bit of cpu time along with teatimer until I stopped using teatimer, getting back on topic, when I had Prevx version 1 or 2 running I couldn't use Perfectdisk, all files showed as access denied, file in use. I switched to diskeeper and was able to defrag again, but I have sinced removed Prevx as mentioned.
     
  4. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,452
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    I am not using teatimer. The functionality or resource usage of any of my apps is not being affected. I have seen several posts on boards already saying PrevX is using a lot of resources and anywhere from 2 to 7 % CPU. So the findings on my system are pretty much along the lines of what others are reporting...
     
  5. jwcca

    jwcca Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Posts:
    722
    Location:
    Toronto
    Hi FF111, I have Spybot with Teatimer, Procees Guard 3 Final, PrevX 2 and a bunch of other stuff too. The highest CPU time goes to TDS-3 with 43 seconds, then System, explorer, MBM5, services, Soundman, then finally PXAgent at 5 seconds. The idle time is 55 Minutes. So it looks like I got lucky, no impact on system.

    And when I use Perfect Disk, I just disable the PrevX protection, defrag and then re-enable PrevX protection, not an issue and PD is much nicer than DK, IMO.

    For installing new stuff, the only settings that I change are in Process Guard, I disable the "Block new and changed applications" and the "Block Rootkit/Driver/Service Installation" and then turn them back on quickly. In addition, I use First Defense as a Sandbox for installs, even trusted ones just in case they're "buggy", just so that I don't have to uninstall and reinstall the prior version. And if I want to go "risky" sites, I do so from the Sandbox so that if by some malicious miracle I got a "baddie", I can just copy the known good snapshot back into the Sandbox.

    JC
     
  6. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,452
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    After todays new program software update to build 2.2.0.1, it seems that PrevX may have already solved some of the resource issues (on my system at least). Give me a day or two and I will post back with the findings on my system. I have to say that initially it looks very promising in this area.
     
  7. solarpowered candle

    solarpowered candle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    1,181
    Location:
    new zealand
    Has there been any tests to actually see if prevx is effective against spyware/virus/trojans malware ? It certainly appears good . ( I always remember the fairy tail about the king and the invisible clothes .... Not that prevx is invisible clothes of course ..
     
  8. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,452
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Hello solarpowered candle,

    I wish I had an answer on this one for not only you, but myself also. I personally do not have the means to do such a test. I started this thread with the v2 update because I was concerned with the huge increase in resource usage I was experiencing and wondered if anyone else was having the same issue. So far I have not received much comment as to that. Maybe someone else has done some testing or knows of testing where the effectiveness of PrevX is concerned....
     
  9. ghiser1

    ghiser1 Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    132
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    I was concerned about performance in 2.2.0.0 (from the about box) too.
    I thought I'd try out the update this morning. 2.2.0.1 was available, so I updated mine. Seems better on my box now.
    Idle processor use by the PXAgent.exe was 3-5% with 2.2.0.0 It's 0% on my box with 2.2.0.1

    I'd be interested in seeing your figures from 2.2.0.1 and how it compares...
     
  10. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,452
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Initially it looks like the CPU load has dropped considerably while the memory usage stays about the same. I am going to be fairly busy the next few days but will post some numbers on this in a day or two.

    One positive aspect of the "calling home" could be that it will give the developers more insight into how PrevX is working in the real world and allow them to post updates faster and accordingly. I say this because I noticed the last update had a component for SpySweeper compatibility added. The question is was this added from "calling home" or from emails sent in to PrevX?
     
  11. Hyperion

    Hyperion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    302
    I confirm about the new version using less resources.0-2% CPU (2500+) and a total of 5,5 MB RAM for the 2 exe.But as soon as i got connected to the net it poped up the firewall alert asking me to allow it to dial home,and i really couldn't stand it.It was the first thing that asked for internet access beating even Windows update and i just uninstalled it on the spot.LOL.
     
  12. pIMp

    pIMp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Posts:
    13
    What have you ininstalled, Prevx or Windows Update?
    :D
     
  13. Hyperion

    Hyperion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    302
    Both if i could :D
     
  14. RadicalEdward

    RadicalEdward Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Posts:
    64
    2.2.0.1 is slowly lagging my computer. Upon startup I get a CPU usage of 100%. When I shut it down and then reload it mem usage is fine, but over time it slowly leaks away memory, and when I try to exit and reload it, it fails to load....anyone else having similar problems?
     
  15. MEGAFREAK

    MEGAFREAK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Posts:
    51
    my prevx2 is working fine
     
  16. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Have unninstalled prevx 2.(whatever it is at moment!) from my system and a lot of niggling issues have gone from my system,I hadn't put them down to prevx as earlier version have been fine(have been laying blame at Outpost which I updated to v2.5 at more or less the same time as prevx update!)But now system much faster and all probs seem to have gone,none were serious just a bit annoying:- main one being Outpost icon wasnt loading some of the time on startup(Outpost still running confirmed by task manager but you shouldn't have to confirm it this way!)the same prob with intelli point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2004
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.