I have Norton and a mate had the same but when he changed to the free version of AVG his computer speeded up??????????

 

It all depends on how the AV software has been configured, e.g. does it scan every file when it attempts to read and/or write, only executables, only new files arriving etc. etc.

Obviously any additional checks on files prior to opening or processing will incur some overhead ... on the whole though it shouldn't be noticeable. Of course factors such as processor power and even the efficiency of your hard disk can effect the overall performance.

Bottom line: check what Norton is currently configured to do, it may be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

 

Norton used to make it feel like my pc was slow, got rid of that at home, use pc cillin now, and use mccafe at work.

All I had with norton was problem after problem anyway

 

Norton = Devils seed.

 

anti-virus will slow your machine a little whichever one you have, some more so than others, however it's an essential thing to have these days. Loads of nasties on the net

 

Shouldn't be that noticable on a PC with a Hyper-threading CPU. Although that I have the same ona AMD XP3000 without and it runs fine wthout slow down.

 

AVG will be quicker, as it is rubbish and doesn't work as well or check as much as Norton.

Having said that, if you switched to McAffee or Panda, you'll likely see a speed improvement over Norton without sacrificing security...

 

NOD32 is the best AV software, it not only found the most amount of viruses during a test in a magazine, it also uses the least amount of memory and processor power

I switched from symantec (norton) and gained back 40mb of ram !! my pc feels noticable quicker around windows as well

 

AVG can be downloaded here http://netscape.com.com/AVG-Anti-Vir...ml?tag=tab_rev

CNet ed says 573 user reviews average out at 4 out of 5...

I run an XP2400 with 1GB RAM & no problems with AVG running slow at all - automatic updayes occur most days so should be up to date...

Mick

 

Is Kaspersky Labs any good ?

 

I can't believe you believe anything cnet says in their reviews. They just give things good scores if they get a nice feebie from the company in question

I know from personal experience of trying to fix other peoples machines, that AVG does let through lots of nasty things which Panda, McAffee etc all stop very easily...

 

Very good engine and well respected labs.

 

Waste of time anyway these anti virus progs, unless you can't control who uses your PC, or don't have a firewall, or can't tell that the file some stranger has emailed you is clearly a virus...

 

Firewalls don't stop viruses

 

ehh yes they do.. a lot of viruses now scan for unprotected pc's on a network or the internet and infect them, a decent firewall will stop them seeing your pc

 

I don't bother with always running AV. I just have a brain. What I do know from talking to people and reading various things on the net is Norton would never go anywhere near my PC.

I do however do a scan from a different pc every now and then just for peace of mind and I never get infected.

 

I just use an on-line virus checker once in a while. Having said that, I use BT Yahoo for broadband, and that scans my email for me (only ever use on-line mail; with 2GB storage there's no need to download anything).

My bb router is totally stealthed too, and I try and keep windows etc. patched up to date.

 

I run Panda AV in the background. Uses very little resources, and gives me peace of mind. I've never been infected either, but there's always that small chance that I might click on something without thinking about it, or that one of those pesky virus writers comes up with a new way of infecting machines.

It's basically a safety net, and seeing as the overhead of having one is so small as makes no difference, I don't see what the problem with having one installed is.

 

I've just switched from Norton Anti Virus to Kasperky Labs on Jack's advice and it seems to have made a very positive effect on all round performance.

The system felt very sluggish with Norton, but feels smoother now.

 

norton has slowed down most of my pc`s in the past

i use AVG now and a bit of common sense and i have been fine *touch wood*

 

Anyone have any opinions on Sophos AV?

 

They're for sale.

 

Sophos is crap. I used to be a reseller when they first started up.. wouldnt go back..

Cut me in half and Id say Mcafee.. or Network Associates

As for not running a virus scanner, becuase you know whats a virus is just plain stupidity.

The only operating system I would dare do that on is a MSDOS 3.3

David

 

Are they?

 

McAfee and Norton are both very resource hungry and slow down the system. Would never use either ever again.
Also caused severe speed issues with some of our specialist software over the network which loaded via a server (disabling auto protect on the client restored performance, fiddling with the settings did diddly squat).

Kaspersky seems far less wasteful, and generally the system as a whole runs quicker, without any issues


...all 1gig PIIIs too, dumping Norton and McAfee's bloatware meant we didn't need to upgrade the hardware, as everything now runs at an acceptable speed for the intended use

 

For the right price. Allegedly.

 

I really like Kaspersky, but they're very much stuck in the middle. They can't compete in the enterprise space as their management tools and product scope is lacking. They can't compete in the home user space as... well, it's a pain dealing with home users and all that selling and supporting them entails.

This is an alright independent test web site, as good as most.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

 

@ Jack - I can see why some people don't like AVG - doesn't look very good on the test sheet comparison http://www.av-comparatives.org/seite...se_2005_11.php even the 'pro' edition with the worst total score of 4%
EDSET NOD32 Anti-Virus with a total of 62% and Softwin BitDefender Prof.+ with 49% are way out infront of all the others , (and I've never even heard of them)... - Why is this?

Cheers

Mick

 

I have access to one of the largest collections of viruses in the world. McAfee software detects 100% of the collection, all others will detect slightly less even though we share samples within the trade.

What I'm trying to say is they did well detecting a large number of threats in a certain collection, it's a good indication but it shouldn't be used on it's own as a gauge of quality.

Other things to bear in mind are some engines are not capable or have no intention of detecting certain types of threat, at McAfee we include spyware detection in our engine, most don't.

 

Agree entirely.

Once ran PC-cillin many moons ago (came bundled with the systems -should have known better). Absolutely awful, lets more virus in than a colander lets through water.

Kaspersky in some peoples eyes is probably a bit basic, but that's the beauty of it IMO - Keep It Simple. Does what it says on the tin.. scans for and stops viruses, and that's all I want it to do

In slight defence of Norton - although their software is bad, their knowledge base to fix the mulitude of bugs encountered is very well documented (although it shouldn't have any in the first place ).