Recommendations future changes you would like to see

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by bradtech, Mar 11, 2009.

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

    bradtech Guest

    Here are mine...

    I have used NOD32 for a long time.. I was a Symantec/Norton user, and really liked their products until it started missing a lot, I ran into a lot of issues uninstalling it on some machines, and it just started to become a big time resource hog that would slow down and take over machines..

    I then started doing a lot of research, and ran into Kaspersky, and NOD32. I really like both but I preferred NOD32 over Kaspersky due to resource utilization. I'm worried about NOD32 starting to use more resources than it used, and even it's counterparts in the AV software world.

    Right now it's using 45-51MB on my computer. I just really hope that ESET can come up with something that will use less memory, and CPU power in the future. It seemed that when 2.7 rolled around is when I first started to notice it.

    I know with added features comes more resource utilization. However Norton 2009 Gamers edition barely uses anything at all 5-10 MB. This is not a bash of ESET just come constructive requests from a long time user, and someone who has managed two IT Infrastructures, and brought ESET in the door.. Probably made ESET 20-30K since the 2.5 era :)

    Needless to say the remote administration has really improved and headed in the right direction.. Along with Rip and Replace.. Here would be my wish list

    1. Cut the memory footprint down.
    2. Offer programs that addon to memory footprint as addons through website
    3. Improve CPU utilization when extracting/installing programs.. I've noticed slow installs/extractions watched task manager and saw NOD32 hung for 5-10 seconds scanning stuff.
    4. Improved Detection rates
    5. HIDS/HIPS

    I just really hate to see ESET head in the direction that Spyware Doctor did, and hit the point where the program is using 100 MB in the background. I know in an era where 3-4 GB is nothing anymore that it main seem silly to care so much about memory background usage it is just hard to defend the product I want to bring into a place.
  2. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Apr 25, 2005
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    I don't see comparing memory footprints of products years ago to todays versions as being a big thing. For one thing..a few years ago WinXP was the average OS, and most people had 512 meg systems, gamers/powerusers a gig or so..more than a gig was really a tiny minority. These days the average Vista rig is 2 gigs, with powerusers/gamers having 4 or more.

    20 megs on a 512 meg system = what percent?
    50 megs of a 2048 meg system = what percent? ('s smaller)

    The percentage of your overall system RAM being dedicated to AV is dropping.

    And with such smaller really doesn't affect system performance, which is another thing..CPU utilization. Unless you have some product that consumes 100 megs of RAM on a system that only has 256 megs of total doesn't relate with system performance much.

    Would be neat to see it utilize multiple cores better...with most people having dual core, core 2 duo, and quad cores now.
  3. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Apr 5, 2004
    You're going to have to face the cold fact it is going to increase, especially if new features such as HIPS are added. It was already announced that a new archive module update will be released that takes more memory, so that is uses less CPU. Personally I feel that is the way to go. I'd rather use more memory if it means less CPU!
  4. Cosmo 203

    Cosmo 203 Registered Member

    Mar 3, 2008
    Was this one person, who wrote that?

    Sounds like "Wash me, but don't make me wet."
  5. GrammatonCleric

    GrammatonCleric Registered Member

    Jan 8, 2009
    Add the ability to ID the files that cause the AV AH to choke.

    A log where you can see:
    NOTICE: FILE JohnsPortaJohn.AVI has caused 100% CPU utilization for longer then 10 seconds.
    Followed by: Would you like to submitt the file to ESET so it will be analyzed (max 20mb upload).

  6. bradtech

    bradtech Guest

    Yes I understand more features will add memory footprint. I'd like to be able to disable them or add them as plugins though.. Don't get me wrong, I just see Norton cutting into the users that have left them in the past because of their bloat issue.. Since they are now releasing all in one Virus/Spyware protection, and only using 5-10 MB memory footprints, and have improved detection rates.

    Yes, I would rather NOD32 use more memory to cut down on the issues of CPU utilization myself but not at the cost of eating up 50+ MB of RAM..
  7. jimwillsher

    jimwillsher Registered Member

    Mar 4, 2009
    Memory utilisation for me is the main thing too.

    I travel a lot with work and I use a laptop with 4GB. Laptops with more than 4GB are very, very expensive.

    4GB sounds like a lot - but my job involves using VMware images of whole servers - Windows, SQL, Project. As such, VMWare images of 20GB are commonplace, and as these are server images I need to dedicate as much RAM to them as I can. I already have all Vista's unnecessary services disabled, and now ESET is frequently the biggest process on my system.

    Just my 2p.

  8. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Jan 4, 2009
    I suggested something like that, except for the part to submit.

    So far, no replies from Eset.

    As far as they're concerned, and I haven't seen any other information to make me think otherwise, the users are the ones who should figure out what is causing the CPU spikes.

    It seems we're all very technical folks.

    Edit: And, it seems you've replied on that thread. :D
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2009
  9. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Apr 5, 2004
    Don't be discouraged by the "no reply". A lot of the v4 features which were adopted by forum user suggestions never got a reply either.
  10. bradtech

    bradtech Guest

    Yes, most of the time aside from Firefox ekrn is using 20-30 MB more ram than any other process if I am in Windows XP.. Vista on the other hand SVCHOST by default turns into a memory hog unless you kill off a lot of the unneeded services..

    The "Light on resources" label is hard to back up if the program has the largest memory footprint, and eats up CPU/hangs.. Don't get me wrong I don't regret, nor would I sway away from ESET right now but I would like to see a re commitment to using less resources kind of like Norton desktop products have in the 2009 version. Kaspersky, and ESET need to worry about Symantec making this move, and not responding. I use VMware a lot also.. I have a Kaspersky 2009, Norton 2009, and other AV products I play with to test just because it's my job to stay on top of Systems Security at the higher end of the OSI Model, and work with Network Security Admin. Norton 2009 uses about 5-10 MB..

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.