Which antivirus

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by kloshar, Feb 9, 2004.

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

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    Is good for home use on slow computer (p233 mhz, 160mb/ram, 2gb disk) with an inexperienced user?
     
  2. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
  3. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    ...and has a low detection rate. ;) I think there are better programs out there on the market. Even free one's. :)

    wizard
     
  4. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I agree with you. I prefer AntiVir Personal Edition, but the updates is bigger that AVG and have a little more recources...

    Or try F-Prot...
     
  5. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    1.DrWeb32 ( with Heuristics off)
    2.F-Prot
    3.EZ Antivirus
    4. KAV 3.5 Swiss edition (not supported by kaspersy lab)


    tECHNODROME
     
  6. kloshar

    kloshar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Posts:
    279
    Location:
    Europe, Slovenia, Bre?ice
    Code:
    Or try F-Prot... 
    Oh, please, don't ...
     
  7. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    So far AntiVirPE never won a VB Award (okay this might change hopefully in the near future ;)) but anyhow from this perspective even AVG looks better than AntiVirPE at the moment

    I think this one is at the moment even the better choice out of this three. :)

    wizard
     
  8. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Why?


    tECHNODROME
     
  9. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
     
  10. c0ltran3

    c0ltran3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Posts:
    172
    Command Antivirus. The program is very light and its results in tests are good.
     
  11. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I prefer mcafee I have never had any problems with it and it has a very good detection record. It really seems to be fairly light on resources. ;)
     
  12. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Watch for mshield.exe CPU usage when you are using your computer and running programs. ;)



    tECHNODROME
     
  13. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I started up a few things and had three web windows open and this is what it shows. (screen shot)
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    Well I don't think you’ll be able to capture it since CPU usage goes to 0 pretty quickly. Everytime when I open something mshield.exe CPU usage goes up to 80%. I got pretty fast machine but its overkill on my old IC 333 machine.


    tECHNODROME
     
  15. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I just don't notice it with a 2.3 proc. and a 1 ghz of ddr. of course I probably wouldnt notice hardly any of them. but truthfuly even on my old box with a 500 mhg and 128 ram mcafee didn't seem to pull it down any. It has just always worked very well for me. (knock on wood).
     
  16. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Well it's like less than a second of 80% cpu usage (sometimes it doesn't go that high), so you can't really notice it. The only time it seems noticeable is with zip/rar etc. archive scanning on, on some larger type archive.
     
  17. Technodrome

    Technodrome Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    2,140
    Location:
    New York
    We are talking about P233 machine and the current version of McAfee would kill it without any doubt.


    tECHNODROME
     
  18. nameless

    nameless Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Posts:
    1,184
    If you could find any modern, Windows-based AV software that ran truly well on a P233, I'd have to seriously wonder why that AV vendor wasn't making use of the more-powerful hardware we have these days, and using that power to make a better product. I don't think you should need a mainframe to run good, modern AV software, but at least a CPU with "GHz" on the tail end of its description. (To use an analogy, if you were shopping for a 3D game, and it listed a P233 as the minimum requirement, would you think it was a worthwhile 3D game?)

    I'm wondering if it won't be necessary to simply use a DOS-based scanner on that machine. The AV software that was designed to run on a P233 is really outdated now, and not being updated anyway (if there are any exceptions to that rule, I'm not aware of them).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.