Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by cheater87, Sep 10, 2008.
Superantispyware free version or Adaware 2008 free version
SAS, when idle, it uses less than 1MB of RAM. When scanning, it may use between 60-70MB, but the CPU usage is very low and you can do everything else while performing a full scan.
I don't know about Ad-Aware but I doubt that it uses less.
wouldn't it be a better to have an antispyware program which detects the most??
What good is a antispyware program that uses little hardware resources but fails to find all the malware on your pc
if your worried about an antispyware program using to much ram when you are not doing scans etc why not disable it in your windows services??
SAS is better both in resource usage and detection
and you can also make it so as SAS uses 0 Ram as in zero Ram by disabling it in administrative tools in the control panel by going into services.
that said, I personally don't bother with any antispyware programs because nothing ever gets passed Sandboxie.
A forum regular should not have to ask this question.
Well I have a friend who has very low ram and was wondering what program would be best. I tried looking at the program's sites for the system requirements but could not find them. Thanks for your help everyone.
Saw this the other day that seems to support your statement:
Ad Aware 2008 free aawservice.exe used > 300 mb during scanning on my computer that only have 512 mb internal memory which resulted into an unresponsive computer. Even when I disable some scan settings the memory usage was very high.
i think the winner is SUPERAntiSpyWare free and spyware terminator
SAS system requirements
AAW 2008 system requirements
ANTI-MALWARES on my PC
STARTED, IN WAIT :
HazardShield : 33360 Kb
MBAM: 23164 Kb
Nemesis: 15776 Kb
HazardShield: 26972 Kb
MBAM: 17876 Kb
Nemesis: 13664 Kb
DURING THE SCAN :
HazardShield: 31300 Kb
MBAM: 29020 Kb
Nemesis: 15864 Kb
HazardShield: 28336 Kb
MBAM: 21700 Kb
Nemesis: 13720 Kb
... approximately ...
...and: SpywareBlaster: 0. Just.
Given the hard fact that SAS goes above and beyond any other ordinary scanners to dig out the worse (and latest) malware, (rootkits, savage hijackers, etc.) i don't mind the taxing of my system from it's scan. Plus this AS is formidable in pulling out the worse of these malwares in addition to discovering them.
That says a lot for a security scanner program because some if not most might find them, but the real payoff is that SAS also rips them out, so it's core makeup definitely has some unique technological blueprint in order to accomplish such a daunting task.
I would venture to say even a manual removal could prove less then fulfilling compared to SAS's capabilities in many respects.
I would say it's a fair trade-off, if any, for it's abilities to do what many if none others can do to rid an intruded machine of forced malware. Anyhow, thats how i view it.
Separate names with a comma.