Version 2 heavier on resources ?

I use to use nod32 version 1 before and it took barely any resources, and only had one service running , then i recently tried version 2 and it has 2 services running and the resource usage is double or a little more is this suppose to be like this ?
sorry if this has been asked but if anyone can tell me what the great improvements are on version 2 except for interface and email scanner , is detection still the same because right now with the resource usage i rather just keep nod version 1.

 

I would have preferred to keep version 1 too, since version 2 is incompatible with my pc, but you HAVE TO switch to version 2; in a month or two you will not be able to get the virus updates with version 1. There is at least one thread about this in this forum in the past week or two. BTW, if you want a great antivirus that is has VERY little impact on your system, I recommend ETrust EZ Antivirus; this had even less impact on my system than NOD did. But it does not have the number one spot in detection that NOD does, plus it does not scan email. I will probably come back to NOD once I get a new puter but in the mean time I am very impressed with ETrust; as one reviewer called it, it is a "lean, mean scanning machine". Good luck.

Acadia

 

I'm getting 2 processees each running at 10mb. I thought nod was supposed to be light weight.

 

Compared to NAV, Nod v.2 is still very light on resources
Regards
Ole

 

I agree with the last response, having just check my Task Manager (in Windows XP Pro), where nod32krn.exe at 10,560K and nod32kui.exe at 4,516K - a long way behind Outlook at 33,560, Explorer at 26,584, IExplore at 23,688.
I love the new version, it's is much easier to understand & operate, imho

 

Compared to the recent NAV, Outlook and Explorer most AV programs are lighter in resources

As regards the original thread, I found that NODv2 was slightly heavier on resources usage than v1. But this is probably not noticeable on recent systems.

On an older Pentium II box, 192MB Ram, I found v2 was more demanding, both in boot-up time, resource and memory usage. However, on a Pentium IV, with 1GB memory, v2 flew along!

It's a pity that Eset are not keeping v1 alive as regards updates. Those people with low spec systems may wish to stay with the first version.

For example I know a number of people, with older systems, who have stayed with the old AVP3.5, instead of the more resource hungry KAV4, 4.5.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Completely, 100% totally agreed.

Acadia.

 

Yeah me too. Pls continue the 1.x series (oh and btw. i'm one of those who still use avp 3.5 (.ch edition) as backup scanner - not because i have a old machine, i just like resource efficient programs like ie. the LnS Firewall (or NOD32 1.x )

-tBB

 

Let’s face it fellows, I have a bad feeling we’re hitting our heads against a brick wall. Like so many companies (Microsoft, Symantec, etc) NOD is only looking ahead, to new customers and not totally caring for the old customers (heck, that’s how I ended up coming to NOD in the first place, when Pc-cillin stopped caring). But in all fairness to NOD, at least they gave all version 1 customers a FREE upgrade to version 2 and how rare is THAT! (Did you hear that Symantec?). Everyone, enjoy what’s left of your weekend.

Acadia

 

I agree, the free update to 2.x is fair nowadays but my problem is, the reasons why i registered NOD32 were the constantly high detection rates (not better than avp tho) and the small memory footprint.

Now i would switch to AVP as on-acess scanner and use NOD32 v.2 as backup scanner - BUT - the NOD 2.x (+10mb) service HAS to be installed or the whole NOD32 wont work. It will render my (2 month ago renewed) license useless anyway when they discontinue 1.x, because i wont use the bloated 2.x

-tBB

 

Well, wont you call a useless 10mb service bloated too if you need only the scanning part of NOD32 because of another installed on-acess scanner? I would.

 

I don't think ver. 2 uses much more resources. Of course, I had to immediately turn off Windows graphics! Why is that enabled by default in the W98 and WME version That was an issue for us W98 users during beta testing. I would have thought it would have been disabled by default. With it on, I had only 78% resources free at boot (I usually have 88% free). After disabling it, I now have 87% free at boot. [/me]

You can always choose also to not install IMON. That is what I did. IMON is not needed.

 

@mele20:

errrm..sorry dude but it seems you have no clue what we're talking about. i would suggest you to read the whole thread before posting.

What he meant is, the nod32 *SERVICE* is essential for running *EACH* of the nod32 parts. And the *SERVICE* alone consumes more than 10mb memory, even if you havent a single NOD32 program running!

 

Hi, Mele20! (She's a female, BTW, errrmm).

From NOD's "Help": "IMON's primary role is to monitor incoming email. The key advantage of IMON, compared to its predecessor (POP3 scanner), is its ease of use. There is virtually no setup necessary since this module is email client independent. IMON works on the winsock level."

So, if you are not using something else to scan your email - and you are using a supported email client - I would say that IMON is definitely needed (at least if you want any email protection).

Unless I misunderstood what you were getting at. Pete

 

Hi spy1

I cannot speak for Mele20 but I think she means she relies only on the RTM to catch any e-mail nasties, so reducing the overhead of the primary AV program.

Even when a particular AV has an e-mail checking component some people decide not to use it.

Layered defense or not? Take your choice!

For example, I run Dr Web on one of my boxes here but I do not run the resident SpiderMail component. This was mainly due to stability problems I had with Spidermail.

But I still feel I am protected by the RTM- SpiderGuard. I hope .

Maybe she thinks that AMON gives her sufficient protection without running the background resources of IMON, therefore reducing the overall demand of NOD.

 

Hi, Blackcat!

Yes, that is one way to go with it, protection-wise, especially if resources are a problem.

I could probably do the same thing here, since I generally am pretty careful with email (MailWasher, Benign and common-sense) - but I'd much rather have something malicious nailed as early as possible in the chain.

I guess everyone does whatever works for them.

Thanks for bringing that up! Pete

 

Hi Guys! I feel perfectly comfortable with trusting AMON and the NOD32 on demand scanner to do their jobs. I think IMON is redundant and is offered to users mostly because many users are nervous Nellies, (which is perfectly understandable and ok) when it comes to viruses and want the virus grabbed instantly. I used to feel that way too. I have been testing RoadRunner's av scanner for several months now so I get viruses that make it past the scanner and into my email box. If the infected attachment is zipped, there is no way AMON will let me open it after I unzip. AMON is there in my face instantly. If the attachment is not zipped, I save it to a folder on my hard drive. I then scan it from Explorer using the wonderful tool that I got from Paolo, which allows me to scan, using advanced heuristics right from Explorer. Nod32 on demand scanner also, like Amon, gets right in my face and isn't about to let me open the infected file. So, I don't see the need to use IMON. I don't even scan my email folders when I do an on demand scan of my C drive as I have infected attachments sitting in email folders and I don't want IMON alerting. Those attachments are harmless until executed which I have no intention of doing plus Amon and/or NOD32 scanner wouldn't let me.

As for my not understanding about the topic of this thread, the title of the thread says "...heavier on resources?" Not heavier on “MEMORY.” They are two different things in W98/ME. I believe I rightly assumed that the thread starter was concerned about the drain on resources not memory. My answer was right on the button. Now if Hawkins actually meant memory usage then the wrong term was used in the title of the thread. From reading Hawkins comments and the comments of Acadia and Madsen they all appear to be discussing resources in Fat32 based OSes. Then there were several posts from users of NT based OSes where resources refers more to actual memory usage. So there is a mixture of comments on two different things here. I was responding to Hawkins who asked about the amount of free resources when using NOD32 version 2 as opposed to version 1.