Which Free Anti-Virus is lightest on resources?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Muze Groops, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. Muze Groops

    Muze Groops Guest

    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
    Muze Groops, Jan 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Muze Groops

    Mike Easter Guest

    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
    Mike Easter, Jan 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Muze Groops

    darkrats Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:479e2968$0$6512$...
    > 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
    darkrats, Jan 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Muze Groops

    philo Guest

    "Muze Groops" <> wrote in message
    news:479e2968$0$6512$...
    > 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
    philo, Jan 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Muze Groops

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Muze Groops" wrote in message
    news:479e2968$0$6512$...
    > 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!
    VanguardLH, Jan 29, 2008
    #5
  6. Muze Groops

    thanatoid Guest

    Muze Groops <> wrote in
    news:479e2968$0$6512$:

    > 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
    thanatoid, Jan 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Muze Groops

    catchme Guest

    thanatoid wrote:
    > Muze Groops <> wrote in
    > news:479e2968$0$6512$:
    >
    >> 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.
    catchme, Jan 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Muze Groops

    Guest

    On Jan 29, 7:21 am, catchme <> wrote:
    > thanatoid wrote:
    > > Muze Groops <> wrote in
    > >news:479e2968$0$6512$:

    >
    > >> 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
    , Jan 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Muze Groops

    mrjohnpaul84 Guest

    I am using Avira Antivir and have no problems with the performance.
    mrjohnpaul84, Feb 27, 2008
    #9
  10. Muze Groops

    trek777

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    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.
    trek777, Sep 4, 2011
    #10
    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. Nicole Carbonara
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    941
    Nicole Carbonara
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. DA

    Anti-virus that's light on resources

    DA, Sep 9, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    11,206
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    764
  4. marjun

    free anti-spam/anti-virus

    marjun, Apr 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    756
    Toxic Beth
    May 1, 2007
  5. smithfam1
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    497
    smithfam1
    Jan 7, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page