Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site October 25, 2014, 08:32:52 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2010! Download 24 custom programs!
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Is there an AV App that Doesn't Eventually Become Bloatware?  (Read 15051 times)
Defenestration
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 81

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2006, 07:40:43 AM »

Kaspersky is nice as well, but has become a bit bloated, and the way it uses NTFS streams and rootkit-like method for hiding those streams is a bit icky Sad (see sysinternals' rootkit revealer forums).
The new KAV/KIS version 6 does not use NTFS streams anymore (and so no rootkit method for hiding them). Has low memory usage and various options to optimize the scan (eg. only scan new and changed files), as well as an option to concede resources (ie. CPU)  to other apps during a scan which keeps the system running smoothly. It is truly modular, in that you only have to install the modules you actually want.

NOD32 uses more memory but is lighter on CPU.

Big problem with NOD32: it doesn't cache file status, so every time you boot your system, files have to be re-scanned, which makes first-launch of apps pretty slow (AMD64x2 4400+ here, and it *is* noticable >_<). Also, I haven't found a way to disable the background/instant file scanning that persists through reboots.
I'm sure there is an option to only scan new and changed files in NOD.


XMinus1 - It seems odd that you mention bloatware with regard to AV's, but yet use SpySweeper. From my experience, SpySweeper used massive amounts of memory (upwards of 40MB-50MB).

 
Logged
Darwin
Charter Member
***
Posts: 6,979



see users location on a map View Profile Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2006, 07:56:18 AM »

Hmmm.... I'm running SpySweeper right now and it's only using 15MB in the system tray (i.e. it's monitoring but not sweeping). A full sweep bumps that to 18MB and 1-3% CPU (I've just confirmed this on a first generation Centrino notebook  with 1024MB RAM).
Logged

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin
Carol Haynes
Waffles for England (patent pending)
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 7,958



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2006, 08:05:04 AM »

I have used SpySweeper and found it is pretty slow to start up the scanners but then seems to run quite well in use.

I have also used SpywareDoctor and that is even slower at starting and more demanding on resources.

Both are good programs but don't do what I did and try to use them at the same time - the system literally ground to a halt!
Logged

f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2006, 11:03:21 AM »

Big problem with NOD32: it doesn't cache file status, so every time you boot your system, files have to be re-scanned, which makes first-launch of apps pretty slow (AMD64x2 4400+ here, and it *is* noticable >_<). Also, I haven't found a way to disable the background/instant file scanning that persists through reboots.
I'm sure there is an option to only scan new and changed files in NOD.
Not that I've seen... Sure, it doesn't re-scan files that aren't changed while you keep your computer running, but the "scanned files database" is in-memory and doesn't survive a reboot.

New KAV version sounds interesting, perhaps I should give it a go.
Logged

- carpe noctem
Defenestration
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 81

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2006, 11:27:07 PM »

Hmmm.... I'm running SpySweeper right now and it's only using 15MB in the system tray (i.e. it's monitoring but not sweeping). A full sweep bumps that to 18MB and 1-3% CPU (I've just confirmed this on a first generation Centrino notebook  with 1024MB RAM).
When determining memory usage of a process, you should be looking at both the "Mem Usage" and the "VM Size" columns in Task Manager.
Logged
Defenestration
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 81

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2006, 11:48:12 PM »

Not that I've seen... Sure, it doesn't re-scan files that aren't changed while you keep your computer running, but the "scanned files database" is in-memory and doesn't survive a reboot.

New KAV version sounds interesting, perhaps I should give it a go.
You may already know this (in which case please excuse me for stating the obvious smiley ), but do you have the AMON  setting "Optimize scanning" enabled ?

This feature causes AMON to rescan a particular file after it's been changed, the virus signature database has been updated, if AMON's settings have been changed or an application has attempted to access the file in write mode.


You should definitely give the new KAV 6 a try.
Logged
Gothi[c]
DC Server Admin
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 857



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2006, 11:54:10 PM »

Like App said,... AVG-free has always worked fine for me. it has a very small memory footprint and it's not bloaty, and it hasn't been for a while (knock on wood).
Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2006, 01:42:24 AM »

Quote from: Defenestration
When determining memory usage of a process, you should be looking at both the "Mem Usage" and the "VM Size" columns in Task Manager.
The most important thing to look at is "private bytes" (use Process Explorer), as this is the real and exclusive memory usage for the process.

Quote from: Defenestration
You may already know this (in which case please excuse me for stating the obvious smiley ), but do you have the AMON  setting "Optimize scanning" enabled ?

This feature causes AMON to rescan a particular file after it's been changed, the virus signature database has been updated, if AMON's settings have been changed or an application has attempted to access the file in write mode.
Yes, of course smiley

And it *does* optimize the scanning - until the system is rebooted. The database of scanned files is only kept in memory, not stored on disk.
Logged

- carpe noctem
Defenestration
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 81

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2006, 10:11:11 AM »

Quote from: Defenestration
When determining memory usage of a process, you should be looking at both the "Mem Usage" and the "VM Size" columns in Task Manager.
The most important thing to look at is "private bytes" (use Process Explorer), as this is the real and exclusive memory usage for the process.
You need to look at both to get a true indication of memory usage. While "Private Bytes" tells you the amount of virtual address space allocated for the process, the amount actually committed to RAM (indicated by "Working Set"/"Mem Usage") is sometimes higher (and so this column gives you the true indication of memory used by a process).
Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2006, 10:27:58 AM »

Well, "Private Bytes" is the amount of memory that cannot be discarded and re-read from the .exe (and .dlls) - memory that in low-memory situations must be flushed to the paging file. Working set just means how much memory is currently allocated to the process working set - this includes both private bytes as well as shared bytes.

The "Virtual Size" figure doesn't matter much, as long as "Private Bytes" is low.
Logged

- carpe noctem
Defenestration
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 81

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2006, 11:20:39 AM »

And it *does* optimize the scanning - until the system is rebooted. The database of scanned files is only kept in memory, not stored on disk.
I started a thread about this over at the official NOD32 forum at Wilder's....

http://www.wilderssecurit...m/showthread.php?p=790967

Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2006, 02:29:45 PM »

Cool!

I can see a reason for NOT storing on disk, by the way - a virus could intercept this *somehow* and mark all files as "oh, but they're good to go". When scanning takes as long as it does, though, it's invaluable. (I'm on an amd64x2 4400+ here, so it's not like I'm running old hardware. I'm very picky about launch speed, though.)
Logged

- carpe noctem
imtrobin
Charter Member
***
Posts: 120

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2006, 02:11:23 AM »

I find www.bitdefender.com better. I use AVG 6  before, it didn't manage to detect a virus that is zipped within a zip.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.036s | Server load: 0.04 ]