Security suite with lightest performance hit

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by mraeryceos, Sep 25, 2011.

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

    mraeryceos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    Regardless of the quality of security, what is a free or paid *security suite* that has the least performance hit on the system (does not slow down the computer)? I have feeling the free ones will be better performing LOL.
     
  2. lordraiden

    lordraiden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Posts:
    3,075
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Security suite is kinda vague. The lightest thing you can do is not use 3rd party software. Or you the simplest software. If we're talking about suites I think the idea is to put as many features as possible.
     
  4. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    s.s.'s suck big time. not recommended.
     
  5. drhu22

    drhu22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Posts:
    343
    For me Comodo, Norton, and Avast are the fastest i know of, although im not sure if Avast has as solid protection as the other two.
     
  6. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Avira is another light Sec. Suite with very solid protection...:thumb:
     
  7. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    "lightest" isn't easily quantifiable. i'd suggest searching wilders for "light" or "lightest" and spend the next three weeks to a month reading every single post that mentions "light" or "lightest". you'll see what i mean. what's light to one person, isn't to another and so on and so forth.
     
  8. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Kingsoft PC Doctor, Twister, Norton, and Comodo IS.
     
  9. Zyrtec

    Zyrtec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Posts:
    534
    Location:
    USA
    Hey,

    Just a thought. I guess if you continue to delve deeply into this subject it might as well end up as an A vs. B and the whole thread be locked by the Lone Ranger or LWM.

    Just a thought.


    Regards,


    Carlos
     
  10. mraeryceos

    mraeryceos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    Norton has improved? It used to suck systems dry.
     
  11. mraeryceos

    mraeryceos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    I don't know, but I wouldn't go with just an antivirus. Blacklisting just isn't that effective. So I guess that's why Suites were born.

    A lot of people make their own suite, which I think is often superior, but in this case I was making the topic specific to a suite from one company that has the best performance... not in how fast it can do an offline scan, but in how little resources it uses in real time security.
     
  12. Cloud

    Cloud Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    1,030
    Location:
    United States
    As you said: "It used to"
    Norton 2009 was the first step foward. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
  13. NRProia

    NRProia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Posts:
    111
    Location:
    Lowell, MA
    Hello,

    Norton has definitely improved. I find that it runs pretty fast on my system. Comcast recently dumped McAfee in favor of Norton for their free security suite.

    Regards,

    Nathan
     
  14. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I agree that norton has improved a lot. Give it a try. I'm pretty sure that you'll like it.
     
  15. chris1341

    chris1341 Guest

    Webroot Secure Anywhere. Many will say it is not a 'real' suite i.e cloud based with rudimentary outbound firewall control but it has many nice features including good keylogger and screen capture protection on https sites and in terms of RAM, CPU, disc utilisation etc it is almost unnoticeable.

    I've been online for around 15 hours so far today - heavy p2p, web-surfing, watching video and office document creation all included and CPU time is currently 58 seconds with total disc activity - read, write and other very low for both the Medium and System integrity wrsa.exe's combined.

    Still in beta but if you prize performance above all, can't beat WSA IMO.

    Cheers
     
  16. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Linux! Just joking, you can check out Outpost Security Suite Free or Forticlient Standard in additional to what's already mentioned if you want.
     
  17. mraeryceos

    mraeryceos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    Thanks, that was helpful. However, their methodology for statistics leaves a lot of room for smudging. Like the way "very fast" file copying is anywhere between 0 to 10% slower than without any security software, and then they apply a whole 15 points for that. Almost all the security software was "very fast". I would have preferred they use the actual numbers than rounding anything. If the statistics for the test are that inaccurate (high error range), then they shouldn't have included that test.

    Sorry, I am remembering statistics concepts but not the terminology
     
  18. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I fully agree. It's I/O usage is double as low as some traditional AV's that I have tried lately. And yes the performance impact is not much noticeable, if at all :thumb: Not to mention the RAM usage for the two processes wich lands on 1MB total :cool:

    But if the OP want's to try it out he/she would need to sign up for the BETA: http://info.prevx.com/downloadcsi.asp
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
  19. AaLF

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
    Avast felt light. Kasperky felt heavy. For me. Come up with a short list and download their 30-Day trials. You'll probably have a feel within a day or two which ones are good for you.
     
  20. 22ndcitysaint

    22ndcitysaint Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    62
    Location:
    PH
    NIS 2012. 20MB/0-2% CPU usage on idle, 70-90MB while scanning 45-50% CPU usage.

    But a lot of people complaining that it is buggy.
     
  21. EboO

    EboO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Posts:
    287
    A good security suite is vipre premium.
     
  22. mraeryceos

    mraeryceos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    Okay, as a review, people mentioned the following:

    Vipre Premium
    Comodo IS
    Avira Premium Security
    Norton Internet Security
    Webroot Secure Anywhere
    Outpost Security Suite
    Forticlient Standard
    Avast Internet Security
     
  23. sm1

    sm1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    520
    You can add Eset Smart Security to the list:) Better to try the programs suggested here in your system:)
     
  24. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Eset is also extremely light, unnoticeable in my dummy OS :D
     
  25. fict0n

    fict0n Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Posts:
    11
    AV Comparatives methodology is terrible. Copy speed? PC Mark? Give me a break. You need to look at software responsiveness and IO footprints. What a stupid and pointless report - evidenced by the fact that all of the results are about the same across AVs, which we all know is far from the truth.

    The advice to 'test it out' is bogus too, since many AVs take time to acclimate and build a file whitelist database. That said, I use Panda Cloud on my netbook.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.