# What Antivirus Program Uses The Least Resources?



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

I'm looking to install one of the big name companies trial antivirus product but want to know the one that uses the least or low resources.


----------



## bonk (Sep 8, 2005)

*Norton* is a memory hog......


----------



## radspanner (Jun 29, 2005)

im not sure how these things are measured,but most folks swear by AVG


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

radspanner said:


> im not sure how these things are measured,but most folks swear by AVG


I am looking for a big campany product though.


----------



## redoak (Jun 24, 2004)

Why?


----------



## ceri sheeran (Aug 15, 2003)

Take a look at NOD32

http://www.nod32antivirus.com/

hth

Ceri


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

person said:


> I am looking for a big campany product though.


AVG is big. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anti+virus&btnG=Google+Search


----------



## TOGG (Apr 2, 2002)

Check the ratings of the various products here; http://www.av-comparatives.org/ (the 2006 summary).

I use NOD32 because it is light on resources (essential when you have a 450Mhz CPU and 128 MB of Ram!) and routinely achieves ADVANCED+ in the various tests.


----------



## Moby (Mar 19, 2002)

Nod32 came out best on resources in a UK mag review I read this year so I third that. Excellent detection rates too.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

I was wondering is BitDefender an antivirus program?
Also how do you cope with today's programs with a computer like that? Then again it was only a few years ago I was using a Pentium II 233 or 234Mhz computer with 40mb ram, wasn't connected to the net with it though.


----------



## ceri sheeran (Aug 15, 2003)

Hi,

From what i read of this

http://antivirus.citationsoft.com/google/welcome_version_10.htm?gclid=CPWdlKq0q4kCFR2AMAodtQ-ENA

Bit Defender is a full Internet Security package with a variety of components. AV & Firewall

Why pay very good free alternatives are available.

hth

Ceri


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

I was referring to just the antivirus package, for some reason I thought BitDefender products were more additional security orientated rather than traditional style. I have downloaded the free version 8, I assume it's free because it's a bit out of date but I haven't installed it yet. I realize free products can be very useful but I have found that they often don't compare in features or security to paid for products.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Panda isn't that heavy. Personally I would just stick with AVG free.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

Ages ago I used the free version you spoke of but I can no longer find it and there updates weren't very regular


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/5390/lng/us/tpl/v5#avg-anti-virus-free

they have good updates.


----------



## Frank4d (Sep 10, 2006)

bonk said:


> *Norton* is a memory hog......


McAfee is worse, especially if your PC has multiple user accounts logged on at once.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

I would definitely stay away from mcafee and norton.


----------



## Frank4d (Sep 10, 2006)

I guess while we are bashing McAfee and Norton, we should say what is wrong with them.  The main problem is that they do a very good job at what they are supposed to do... protect against viruses and spyware. So well, they tend to hook themselves into every nook and cranny of the Windows OS, choking the system. Norton also has a nasty habit of reporting that it has found a virus or trojan but cannot delete it (what use is that?).


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

In one word... bloated


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

I use F-Secure and I love it! No complaints, no reason to change. It has never said it couldn't remove something but then very little gets by it in the first place. I have been recommending AVG to friends who don't wish to fork out cash but I have been noticing that most people who are looking for help with viruses are using this or NOrtON. AVG does not have real time scanning after trial is over. I think I will start recommending Avast to them after I look into it a bit more. I would like to prevent a virus from getting on in the first place rather than having to remove it. Practice safe browsing habits. Don't open email you aren't expecting or from people you don't know. Scan attachments b4 opening even from friends. I use IE7 and Firefox but just came across an add-on for Firefox called NoScript which seems to work excellent. So I will probably just use it except for windows updates which must be used with IE. Firefox also has a rendering engine add-on for use with sites that only want to work with IE making it possible to use Firefox on those sites. My computer came preinstalled with NOrtON and I cannot get over how much faster my computer is now compared to then. Another reason I personally didn't like NOrtON is because I accidentally denied access to web for a program once and had a real problem reversing it. HPs' solution to this was to do a restore as they couldn't figure any other way to reverse it either.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

You were probably using Norton Internet Security, I've used and have found its firewall to be very annoying but then that was the 2004 versions, it might have improved by now. I prefer to use separate programs for different things rather than bundles as I think they're more affective. I don't actually use Norton but I use Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition(full version) but it's a few years out of date. It doesn't seem to use many resources but then again Norton products seem to. Because it's so old automatic updates only work after almost a week in between each update but I can get daily ones online.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

AVG anti virus free (not anti spyware) *does have *realtime scanning.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

TOGG said:


> Check the ratings of the various products here; http://www.av-comparatives.org/ (the 2006 summary).
> 
> I use NOD32 because it is light on resources (essential when you have a 450Mhz CPU and 128 MB of Ram!) and routinely achieves ADVANCED+ in the various tests.


The site doesn't seem to have any information of the amount of resources each program uses.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

MMJ said:


> AVG anti virus free (not anti spyware) *does have *realtime scanning.


I will admit that two of the people I recommended it to have had no problems. Safe browsing habits have to help. AVG was originally suggested to me by a friend who is an expert and says that myself and anyone else who pays for security needs to have their head examined with all the free stuff available. lol. F-Secure is free for me supplied by my ISP.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

person said:


> You were probably using Norton Internet Security, I've used and have found its firewall to be very annoying but then that was the 2004 versions, it might have improved by now. I prefer to use separate programs for different things rather than bundles as I think they're more affective. I don't actually use Norton but I use Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition(full version) but it's a few years out of date. It doesn't seem to use many resources but then again Norton products seem to. Because it's so old automatic updates only work after almost a week in between each update but I can get daily ones online.


Mine was 2005.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I would use AVG Free.



Frank4d said:


> I guess while we are bashing McAfee and Norton, we should say what is wrong with them.  The main problem is that they do a very good job at what they are supposed to do... protect against viruses and spyware. So well, they tend to hook themselves into every nook and cranny of the Windows OS, choking the system. Norton also has a nasty habit of reporting that it has found a virus or trojan but cannot delete it (what use is that?).


What's wrong is that many *less-techy* computer users don't know about different AVs and they just go with a big name brand like Norton or McAfee. Lot's of people use Norton or McAfee so when hackers want to gain control of a system (or whatever) they target and comprise those two AVs because most people are using them. And there's an added bonus for the bad guys: Since most people using Norton and McAfee *less techy* they may not know or care that they have viruses.


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Yeah, in my less techy I thought Norton was the *only* true antivirus program.


----------



## pedum (Dec 30, 2006)

I've used AlarmZone, which worked okay, but I wanted to "downsize", so I switched to AVG Anti Virus free. A few weeks after I upgraded to v 7.5 it began to crash at times. So now I am using PC Tools Antivirus program. I also use their Registry Mechanic and Spyware Doctor programs, and have been pleased with them too.

pedum


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Alarm Zone??? You got a link?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

pedum said:


> I've used AlarmZone, which worked okay, but I wanted to "downsize", so I switched to AVG Anti Virus free. A few weeks after I upgraded to v 7.5 it began to crash at times. So now I am using PC Tools Antivirus program. I also use their Registry Mechanic and Spyware Doctor programs, and have been pleased with them too.
> 
> pedum


Did you mean ZoneAlarm?


----------



## TOGG (Apr 2, 2002)

person,

I didn't mean to suggest that AV-comparatives.org provided resource use figures (I'm not sure how anybody could, given that it all depends on the individual computer?).

My point was that NOD32 (and some others) get consistently high ratings at detecting malware (much better than some others mentioned here). It is a matter for each individual as to how much notice they take of 'tests' such as these, but I'm very happy with NOD.

My computer is ancient and has limited resources because I'm running Zone Alarm Pro and the free version of System Security Monitor with NOD (and there are a couple of other things watching the Registry - well I did say I was paranoid!). 

I have no doubt that, if I attempted to run one of the 'big name' AV's, my computer would grind to a halt. Although I consider myself to be a safe surfer, I will not entrust my online safety to a free AV. Lots of people do and are, apparently, happy to do so, and that's fine by me.


----------



## pedum (Dec 30, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> Did you mean ZoneAlarm?


Yep. ZoneAlarm.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

TOGG said:


> person,
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that AV-comparatives.org provided resource use figures (I'm not sure how anybody could, given that it all depends on the individual computer?).
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that the system resources used by programs was around about the same for any system except for different OS versions.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

What about connection speed? I am sure most AV programs can handle 28Kb/s, but what about broadband? That is another reason I like mine as it is my ISP supplying and my connection is usually very close to max. I was thinking that was one reason NOrtON was so much slower than this as maybe it couldn't handle the speed. Does this apply?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

XPSP2 said:


> What about connection speed? I am sure most AV programs can handle 28Kb/s, but what about broadband? That is another reason I like mine as it is my ISP supplying and my connection is usually very close to max. I was thinking that was one reason NOrtON was so much slower than this as maybe it couldn't handle the speed. Does this apply?


 Besides when you update your AV, your download speed does not matter at all.......


----------



## PainInThe... (Jun 24, 2006)

Have tried looking at Kaspersky.......................:up:


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

ferrija1 said:


> Besides when you update your AV, your download speed does not matter at all.......


I wasn't talking about updates and don't know where that came from.
I meant for real time scanning of everything coming to computer. Does not everything go through the anti-virus program first? I am sure it does on my computer as I have had my anti-virus program come up and tell me a file is infected, do I want to continue with the download or delete? This is why I will not open documents from College at home anymore. I think the A drive is still spinning on my old computer.
So I guess I am to assume all AV programs can process information at the same speed?
There is no difference whether it is coming at approx. 28 000 b/s or 10 000 000 b/s?
I am a beginner so an explanation would be very welcome!


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

It depends on the overall specs of the computer.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

All traffic out of your computer to the internet is checked by a firewall and when you download things, it may be checked by your AV.


----------



## Jazza (Jan 2, 2007)

I suggest AVG!!!!


----------



## Panda2894 (Jan 8, 2007)

Avg free is at cnet.com avast is also available there and doesn't require you to download updates manually. I like avast better. Norton and mcaffee have both failed me and so has bit defender.


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

Here is what i suggest. For free, look no further than avg. Caught everything so far and havent had problems yet. But if you insist on forking over cash i suggest computer ascociate's ez trust security. I had it with verizon yahoo security at one point and it worked beautifully. Caught everything ran great on my small 600 mhz computer with 512 RAM and caught everything that attempted a infection as well.


----------



## Lowtechie (Jan 6, 2007)

As I'm in the midst of a thread related to problems which manifest themselves when scanning with AVG, can I say that apart from that AVG has to be the winner. And the problems I am having are more related to the amount of junk I hav accumulated than with AVG itself. "You got it, I'll scan it"


When I first installed it it found stuff that had been missed by Norton

It's Free

Except when it's scanning the system, it does not degrade performance, unlike Norton

It's Free

You don't find that after one year the version you are using is no longer supported, so you have to fork out more cash - because -

It's free

Am I developing a theme here? I really do hate paying good money for software that does things I don't realy want it to do, gobbles up memory on my pc and slows it down, provides me with a user help site which is virtually impossible to understand and [oh - did I mention] charges $£$£$$££$£ for the privelege

c


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

My only problem with AVG is: Look at the security forum. Most people requesting help to remove spyware and virus' are using AVG or NOrtON. AVG, after trial runs out does not provide realtime protection. I like the idea of not getting it as opposed to needing it removed.


----------



## MeTweety730 (Jan 7, 2007)

I'd recommend Avast. It's a commercial anti-virus software company that offers its product free to home users. I used to use McAfee, but it sucked up all my resources and had too much hidden stuff going on in the background.... not to mention the annual cost! Avast updates itself every day and I believe it to be a much better product. It snagged a few things that had slipped right past McAfee. Avast is clean, straight forward, and does the job without interfering with your system resources.


----------



## Lowtechie (Jan 6, 2007)

XPSP2 said:


> My only problem with AVG is: Look at the security forum. Most people requesting help to remove spyware and virus' are using AVG or NOrtON. AVG, after trial runs out does not provide realtime protection. I like the idea of not getting it as opposed to needing it removed.


I've been using AVG for 18 months and it hasn't "run out" (unlike Norton)
But it doesn't claim to prevent spyware (nasty little cookies that report back to their masters on everything you do).
Try Adaware, or SpyBot, or both. Between them they catch most of the nasties unless you are really into swimming in the nude. They will tell you who is watching you, and remove their little agents, and you can then use your internet security options to keep them out


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

The only thing i found with avg and probably the reason everyone gets infected all the time is this: if you open the control center then open the resident shield's properties you will find a setting with two options: scan all files and scan infectable files. Well, by default it is on scan infectable files. Just swap that over to scan all files and resident shield scans everything then i turn on all the other availible options. Save settings and close the control center. That will patch up any holes with the scanning in avg. You also can get cookies and stuff with it but you need pro for those features to be enabled.


----------



## lister (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm using avast and atm all the modules combined are using just under 8mb RAM.

AVG _does_ has a faster on demand scanner, so you could always install that as well and disable it realtime scanning (2 AVs with realtime scanning running will conflict) .


----------



## bjhrc (Jan 5, 2007)

What's the general opinion of Zone Alarm?
Installed it and have experienced problems, but as yet have not confirmed that the two things are related. There was a time lag


----------



## MMJ (Oct 15, 2006)

Zone Alarm AV? I am not too sure.


----------



## new tech guy (Mar 27, 2006)

I know zone alarm has a whole security suite. I have never used it before except for the free firewall, but i know zone labs is a excellent firewall but a little big on recource hogging and if your a gamer you dont want it because it can lag up games like World of Warcraft. I think that zone alarm has good software but when it comes to size, its a bit bloated. I would like to find a smaller firewall actually. Anyone have any suggestions?


----------

