Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?

Reply
Thread Tools

Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?

 
 
Muze Groops
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2008
Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?

I've googled for info on this and get people from AVG and Avast camps
both claiming that their AV is lightest. But I thought I'd get the real
deal here from the Gods on Mt. OlympiCPUs
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Easter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2008
Muze Groops wrote:
> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?
>
> I've googled for info on this and get people from AVG and Avast camps
> both claiming that their AV is lightest. But I thought I'd get the
> real deal here from the Gods on Mt. OlympiCPUs


I think I've read more places that say AVG is lighter than Avast, which
is not a resource hog like Norton. In comparisons of many AV agents,
both of them have been consistently beaten by others, but both are
decent AV agents.

--
Mike Easter

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
darkrats
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2008
Almost any AV program is light on resources, as long as you disable all the
auto functions like automatically scanning email, or scheduled scans, or
auto-updates. I still run Norton AV 2003, with every auto function turned
off, and it uses no resources when not actually scanning a file. Whenever I
get a new file, I just right-click and scan it for anything bad. I've never
been infected. Just have to remember to scan everything before opening or
running it. It's the auto functions that kill you.

That being said, if you really have to have something always running in the
background, I'd go with AVG, the free edition. Seems to work fine, and
doesn't hog a lot of CPU time.


"Muze Groops" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?
>
> I've googled for info on this and get people from AVG and Avast camps both
> claiming that their AV is lightest. But I thought I'd get the real deal
> here from the Gods on Mt. OlympiCPUs



 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2008

"Muze Groops" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?
>
> I've googled for info on this and get people from AVG and Avast camps
> both claiming that their AV is lightest. But I thought I'd get the real
> deal here from the Gods on Mt. OlympiCPUs



Though Avast is pretty good on resources...AVG is probably the lightest one
out there.

I do volunteer work for a non-profig org...and setup a lot of low end
machines...
and have always gone with AVG...
Though it may not be perfect...all the machines have stayed virus free


 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2008
"Muze Groops" wrote in message
news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?
>
> I've googled for info on this and get people from AVG and Avast
> camps both claiming that their AV is lightest. But I thought I'd get
> the real deal here from the Gods on Mt. OlympiCPUs



Go use virtualization software (Virtual PC and VMWare Server are both
free) and go test for YOURSELF!

 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2008
Muze Groops <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed):

> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?


F-Prot for DOS. I run selected items in my download directory
through it after going off-line and BEFORE I do /anything/ with
them.

Since F-Secure used to employ the same engine as F-Prot, even
though that appears to have changed, the definition files
continue to be compatible and updates of those should continue
to be available, even though the DOS version of F-Prot is no
longer being developed. The non-DOS versions were never free.

IMHO, continuously running /any/ AV program while on-line is
pointless unless the user is a complete idiot (the fact that
many complete idiots have brand-new Vista machines with 4GB's of
RAM must be a happy coincidence, I suppose; but they should be
more worried about MS spyware than viruses anyway).

I bet MANY of the more knowledgeable members of this group might
agree that if one takes proper precautions, /no/ AV program is
/really/ and /absolutely/ necessary. (I /may/ have opened a can
of wriggly slime here... Who goes first?)

Needless to say, the majority of the above statements do not
apply if you are unfortunate enough to be a MSIE/OE and Office
user.


--
"As you know, it is considered bad form to discuss the latest
news with persons from the beyond."
Karel Capek
 
Reply With Quote
 
catchme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2008
thanatoid wrote:
> Muze Groops <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?

>
> F-Prot for DOS. I run selected items in my download directory
> through it after going off-line and BEFORE I do /anything/ with
> them.
>
> Since F-Secure used to employ the same engine as F-Prot, even
> though that appears to have changed, the definition files
> continue to be compatible and updates of those should continue
> to be available, even though the DOS version of F-Prot is no
> longer being developed. The non-DOS versions were never free.
>
> IMHO, continuously running /any/ AV program while on-line is
> pointless unless the user is a complete idiot (the fact that
> many complete idiots have brand-new Vista machines with 4GB's of
> RAM must be a happy coincidence, I suppose; but they should be
> more worried about MS spyware than viruses anyway).
>
> I bet MANY of the more knowledgeable members of this group might
> agree that if one takes proper precautions, /no/ AV program is
> /really/ and /absolutely/ necessary. (I /may/ have opened a can
> of wriggly slime here... Who goes first?)
>
> Needless to say, the majority of the above statements do not
> apply if you are unfortunate enough to be a MSIE/OE and Office
> user.
>
>

no av?, well i suppose you CANT get any lighter than that!
seriously though i dont trust an av program that markets itself as light
on resources for many reasons- the main one is that one EXPECTS a
trade-off in terms of cpu calls, a slight slowdown etc. in return for
the added security. its like taking the time to find your keys to lock
or unlock your door...would you suggest leaving your back door open?
in my case, i have the internet equivalent of a new-york apartment
equipped with a series of deadbolts, chainlocks and special gadgets
aimed at preventing home invaders: a full load of av, anti-spyware,
anti-keyloggers and a couple of rootkit detectors, most of which are
constantly running...i even found myself a sandbox to play in!
i am also looking to getting an equivalent of a shotgun, so as to turn
the tables on intruders.
 
Reply With Quote
 
kapoorabhishek3@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2008
On Jan 29, 7:21*am, catchme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> thanatoid wrote:
> > Muze Groops <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed):

>
> >> Which FreeAnti-Virusis lightest on resources?

>
> > F-Prot for DOS. I run selected items in my download directory
> > through it after going off-line and BEFORE I do /anything/ with
> > them.

>
> > Since F-Secure used to employ the same engine as F-Prot, even
> > though that appears to have changed, the definition files
> > continue to be compatible and updates of those should continue
> > to be available, even though the DOS version of F-Prot is no
> > longer being developed. The non-DOS versions were never free.

>
> > IMHO, continuously running /any/ AV program while on-line is
> > pointless unless the user is a complete idiot (the fact that
> > many complete idiots have brand-new Vista machines with 4GB's of
> > RAM must be a happy coincidence, I suppose; but they should be
> > more worried about MS spyware than viruses anyway).

>
> > I bet MANY of the more knowledgeable members of this group might
> > agree that if one takes proper precautions, /no/ AV program is
> > /really/ and /absolutely/ necessary. (I /may/ have opened a can
> > of wriggly slime here... Who goes first?)

>
> > Needless to say, the majority of the above statements do not
> > apply if you are unfortunate enough to be a MSIE/OE and Office
> > user.

>
> no av?, well i suppose you CANT get any lighter than that!
> seriously though i dont trust an av program that markets itself as light
> on resources for many reasons- the main one is that one EXPECTS a
> trade-off in terms of cpu calls, a slight slowdown etc. in return for
> the added security. its like taking the time to find your keys to lock
> or unlock your door...would you suggest leaving your back door open?
> in my case, i have the internet equivalent of a new-york apartment
> equipped with a series of deadbolts, chainlocks and special gadgets
> aimed at preventing home invaders: a full load of av,anti-spyware,anti-keyloggers and a couple of rootkit detectors, most of which are
> constantly running...i even found myself a sandbox to play in!
> i am also looking to getting an equivalent of a shotgun, so as to turn
> the tables on intruders.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -





I m using avanst home edition (freeware) from last few months .. i
really like it .. it is very light no problem in doing updates

it is really best earlier i have spend lots of miney on purchasing but
now i found freeware so it is best of all
 
Reply With Quote
 
mrjohnpaul84
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
I am using Avira Antivir and have no problems with the performance.
 
Reply With Quote
 
trek777 trek777 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1
 
      09-04-2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by catchme View Post
thanatoid wrote:
> Muze Groops <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:479e2968$0$6512$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?
>
> F-Prot for DOS. I run selected items in my download directory
> through it after going off-line and BEFORE I do /anything/ with
> them.
>
> Since F-Secure used to employ the same engine as F-Prot, even
> though that appears to have changed, the definition files
> continue to be compatible and updates of those should continue
> to be available, even though the DOS version of F-Prot is no
> longer being developed. The non-DOS versions were never free.
>
> IMHO, continuously running /any/ AV program while on-line is
> pointless unless the user is a complete idiot (the fact that
> many complete idiots have brand-new Vista machines with 4GB's of
> RAM must be a happy coincidence, I suppose; but they should be
> more worried about MS spyware than viruses anyway).
>
> I bet MANY of the more knowledgeable members of this group might
> agree that if one takes proper precautions, /no/ AV program is
> /really/ and /absolutely/ necessary. (I /may/ have opened a can
> of wriggly slime here... Who goes first?)
>
> Needless to say, the majority of the above statements do not
> apply if you are unfortunate enough to be a MSIE/OE and Office
> user.
>
>

no av?, well i suppose you CANT get any lighter than that!
seriously though i dont trust an av program that markets itself as light
on resources for many reasons- the main one is that one EXPECTS a
trade-off in terms of cpu calls, a slight slowdown etc. in return for
the added security. its like taking the time to find your keys to lock
or unlock your door...would you suggest leaving your back door open?
in my case, i have the internet equivalent of a new-york apartment
equipped with a series of deadbolts, chainlocks and special gadgets
aimed at preventing home invaders: a full load of av, anti-spyware,
anti-keyloggers and a couple of rootkit detectors, most of which are
constantly running...i even found myself a sandbox to play in!
i am also looking to getting an equivalent of a shotgun, so as to turn
the tables on intruders.
Well I have to agree,even if this is old. the fact that avs have infact gotten big and many processes- does not mean that the light is not out there and still good. I use Microsoft security essentials and Vipre. Both are light and do not conflict each other. I also use spyot and malwarebytes as secondary scanners. The suite rounding off with a rootkit detector and a keylogger killer. system starts a little slower but better protected.
 
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
Ruby embeded getting the lightest Une bévue Ruby 0 01-16-2006 08:46 PM
Re: What is the smallest and lightest digital 2 megapixel camera on the market? Nicole Carbonara Digital Photography 0 07-11-2003 06:10 PM



Advertisments