Problems with Kaspersky

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by RJB, Sep 26, 2003.

  1. RJB

    RJB Guest

    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
     
    RJB, Sep 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RJB

    °Mike° Guest

    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/archives/products.xml?antivir.xml

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

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


    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:51:28 -0400, in
    <>
    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
     
    °Mike°, Sep 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RJB

    RJB Guest

    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/archives/products.xml?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/archives/products.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/archives/products.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
     
    RJB, Sep 26, 2003
    #3
  4. RJB

    °Mike° Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:01:58 -0400, in
    <1j5pqmf6sl17r$>
    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/archives/products.xml?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/archives/products.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/archives/products.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
     
    °Mike°, Sep 26, 2003
    #4
  5. RJB

    RJB Guest

    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
     
    RJB, Sep 26, 2003
    #5
  6. RJB

    °Mike° Guest

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:23:43 -0400, in
    <w4zyqbn122p3$>
    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
     
    °Mike°, Sep 26, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slacker

    Kaspersky question, maybe problem

    Slacker, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    468
    reid decker
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. joevan

    Differing opinions about Nod 32 vs. Kaspersky.

    joevan, Jun 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    5,625
    °Mike°
    Jun 4, 2004
  3. Nick

    Kaspersky

    Nick, Jun 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,569
    °Mike°
    Jun 8, 2004
  4. Andy

    Kaspersky Anti-Virus

    Andy, Jun 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    470
    °Mike°
    Jun 21, 2004
  5. JF

    Problems with Kaspersky

    JF, Feb 24, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    8,302
    Ed Mc
    Feb 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page