Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Problems with Kaspersky

Reply
Thread Tools

Problems with Kaspersky

 
 
RJB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
Hi all I sent this to alt.comp.anti-virus but didn't get much in the way of
answers so I'm posting it here:

I just bought Kaspersky AV because it was in the top two ratings for
detecting viruses. My system is XP Pro, AMD XP2000+, 1 gig RAM; I seem to
have a problem with memory. Kaspersky's monitor seems to take over my
processing way too much. For example, I was installing a game last night
and was not able to finish several times. During the install the process
for Kaspersky was frequently over 80%. Finally I killed the AV and
installed. I have checked for patches and installed the new virus sigs so
it is completely up to date.

I've used several AV programs in the past and have never had the monitor do
this. Anyone have any insight on this? I'd like to know if there is an
alternative that is easier on the processing yet provides adequate
protection. How does AntiVir, AVG and Avast compare? Being all free I'd
rather use one of them of course having just "wasted" $50 on KAV.

TIA for any help.
--
RJB
9/26/2003 8:07:16 AM

Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war
--Latin Saying
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
Unless you are on-line, downloading etc., turn off your scanning
engine, and use it 'on demand'. Explore the options, and use
them intelligently - there's no point having a virus scanner running,
if all you are doing is word processing, and you know that your
system is already clean.

AntiVIr is the pits, in regard to detection *and* false positives.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ml?antivir.xml

AVG is not very good at detection, and often guesses.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml

Avast is dismal, period.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv....xml?avist.xml


On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:51:28 -0400, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>
RJB scrawled:

>Hi all I sent this to alt.comp.anti-virus but didn't get much in the way of
>answers so I'm posting it here:
>
>I just bought Kaspersky AV because it was in the top two ratings for
>detecting viruses. My system is XP Pro, AMD XP2000+, 1 gig RAM; I seem to
>have a problem with memory. Kaspersky's monitor seems to take over my
>processing way too much. For example, I was installing a game last night
>and was not able to finish several times. During the install the process
>for Kaspersky was frequently over 80%. Finally I killed the AV and
>installed. I have checked for patches and installed the new virus sigs so
>it is completely up to date.
>
>I've used several AV programs in the past and have never had the monitor do
>this. Anyone have any insight on this? I'd like to know if there is an
>alternative that is easier on the processing yet provides adequate
>protection. How does AntiVir, AVG and Avast compare? Being all free I'd
>rather use one of them of course having just "wasted" $50 on KAV.
>
>TIA for any help.


--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RJB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:18:13 +0100, °Mike° wrote:

> Unless you are on-line, downloading etc., turn off your scanning
> engine, and use it 'on demand'. Explore the options, and use
> them intelligently - there's no point having a virus scanner running,
> if all you are doing is word processing, and you know that your
> system is already clean.


Good advice. But I'm online a lot so I prefer to have it running
continuous. Granted I haven't RTFM yet so maybe I'm missing something as to
why it's bloating up like that. Matter of fact it made a 3 GIG temp file on
my C:\ drive (which is only 6gig), and that was what probably caused the
system to bog down. I guess I'll read up and figure a way to stop the temp
file from forming.... if possible.
> AntiVIr is the pits, in regard to detection *and* false positives.
> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ml?antivir.xml


Certainly looks horrid doesn't it? NO passes? Why bother releasing it?

> AVG is not very good at detection, and often guesses.
> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml


I used to use this, but I've heard they're going pay only so I dumped it.
And WinXP fail isn't appealing.

> Avast is dismal, period.
> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv....xml?avist.xml


I find this surprising. I use WinXP and none of the fails are XP so I would
say of the three this is actually the best option. At least the 4.0
version.


Thanks Mike.
--
RJB
9/26/2003 1:54:40 PM

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and
get used to the idea.
--Robert A. Heinlein
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:01:58 -0400, in
<1j5pqmf6sl17r$(E-Mail Removed)>
RJB scrawled:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:18:13 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
>
>> Unless you are on-line, downloading etc., turn off your scanning
>> engine, and use it 'on demand'. Explore the options, and use
>> them intelligently - there's no point having a virus scanner running,
>> if all you are doing is word processing, and you know that your
>> system is already clean.

>
>Good advice. But I'm online a lot so I prefer to have it running
>continuous. Granted I haven't RTFM yet so maybe I'm missing something as to
>why it's bloating up like that. Matter of fact it made a 3 GIG temp file on
>my C:\ drive (which is only 6gig), and that was what probably caused the
>system to bog down. I guess I'll read up and figure a way to stop the temp
>file from forming.... if possible.
>> AntiVIr is the pits, in regard to detection *and* false positives.
>> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ml?antivir.xml

>
>Certainly looks horrid doesn't it? NO passes? Why bother releasing it?
>
>> AVG is not very good at detection, and often guesses.
>> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml

>
>I used to use this, but I've heard they're going pay only so I dumped it.
>And WinXP fail isn't appealing.
>
>> Avast is dismal, period.
>> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv....xml?avist.xml

>
>I find this surprising. I use WinXP and none of the fails are XP so I would
>say of the three this is actually the best option. At least the 4.0
>version.
>
>
>Thanks Mike.


Kaspersky is your best option, in that it is the best of those
you have mentioned - actually, it has *the* best archive
extraction routines, but that doesn't make it the best at
detection; it *is* good, though. If you value your safety,
I would steer clear of the three free solutions you mentioned.
It's a pity you forked out for Kaspersky, otherwise I would
have recommended eZ Antivirus - very cheap, and *very*
light on resources, not to mention top notch at detection.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
RJB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:17:07 +0100, °Mike° wrote:

<snip>

> Kaspersky is your best option, in that it is the best of those
> you have mentioned - actually, it has *the* best archive
> extraction routines, but that doesn't make it the best at
> detection; it *is* good, though. If you value your safety,
> I would steer clear of the three free solutions you mentioned.
> It's a pity you forked out for Kaspersky, otherwise I would
> have recommended eZ Antivirus - very cheap, and *very*
> light on resources, not to mention top notch at detection.


I don't mind forking out a bit more .... if it's active scanning uses less
resources than KAV. I like active scanning on at all times "just in case".
How does it compare in this regard? I'll just put KAV on my wife's computer
where she does less downloading.

Thanks

--
RJB
9/26/2003 2:21:24 PM

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer,
a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get one million miles to the gallon,
and explode once a year, killing everyone inside."
-Robert X Cringely
 
Reply With Quote
 
°Mike°
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2003
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:23:43 -0400, in
<w4zyqbn122p3$(E-Mail Removed)>
RJB scrawled:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:17:07 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Kaspersky is your best option, in that it is the best of those
>> you have mentioned - actually, it has *the* best archive
>> extraction routines, but that doesn't make it the best at
>> detection; it *is* good, though. If you value your safety,
>> I would steer clear of the three free solutions you mentioned.
>> It's a pity you forked out for Kaspersky, otherwise I would
>> have recommended eZ Antivirus - very cheap, and *very*
>> light on resources, not to mention top notch at detection.

>
>I don't mind forking out a bit more .... if it's active scanning uses less
>resources than KAV. I like active scanning on at all times "just in case".
>How does it compare in this regard? I'll just put KAV on my wife's computer
>where she does less downloading.
>
>Thanks


It's like chalk and cheese. Go for version 6.1.7, not the new
enterprise edition - that's twice the size. The "footprint" of v6
is so small, you'll be amazed, and it uses (if required) an
incremental file check at each bootup. You can read more in
the help files.
http://www.my-etrust.com/products/Antivirus.cfm

There's a 30-day free (fully functional) evaluation, and $24.95 to buy.

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problems with Kaspersky JF Computer Support 2 02-26-2005 02:41 PM
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Andy Computer Support 3 06-21-2004 12:03 AM
Kaspersky Nick Computer Support 27 06-08-2004 07:37 PM
Differing opinions about Nod 32 vs. Kaspersky. joevan Computer Support 13 06-04-2004 12:06 AM
Kaspersky question, maybe problem Slacker Computer Support 5 04-09-2004 02:39 AM



Advertisments