[jassi]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Not that its not vulnerable, but linux was the only OS left standing at the end of the pwn to own contest

thats the same where mac was had in 10 secs. I am not really aware of the linux left standing, but in general unix/linux based systems offer tremendous flexibility for security (via hardening) over MS
I'd prefer hardened linux over other OS any day !

[Raj1008]

Originally Posted by babhishek

whats your bandwidth?

10mbps but with Avast switched on its 4-5Mbps

Originally Posted by Prowler

Standard edition of Avast will not slow down your net connectivity. It downloads virus definition table periodically and at this time, it may hog the net connection. But this is normal and this happens about once in a day. When dormant (protection mode) it has a typical memory footprint of about 27 MB which is probably one of the lowest in Antivirus software.

I did some investigations and with the websheild switched on the speeds get dragged down big time. Funnily it doesnt happen on my other laptop which has Vista and is newer. I cant seem to find any difference in settings on both. Any suggestions?

[Prowler]

I did some investigations and with the websheild switched on the speeds get dragged down big time. Funnily it doesnt happen on my other laptop which has Vista and is newer. I cant seem to find any difference in settings on both. Any suggestions?

If you analyze the network connections, you will find that Avast interposes itself between your computer and the outside world for every net transaction. As a result, it may skew the subjective feel of net connectivity.
The newer machine running Vista may have fewer software installed which may appear to present a faster throughput for a different reason.

You should check TCP/IP connection through this nifty tool from Sysinternals.com - TCPView. It will tell you at a glance what process uses your netconnection.

Another tool to check for real time net speed is the Internet Speed meter - Bandwidth Meter from bestnetcraft.com

^^^ 27 MB is nowhere close to the lowest!

These days the minimum configuration for most PC is about 1 GB RAM. 27 MB is relatively speaking - low. Right now my computer at which I am typing this has the following memory footprints:
Firefox: 187 MB
Yahoo messenger: 45 MB

[Raccoon]

Well, just because the PC has 1 GB RAM does not mean that its ment to run just security software. I hate bloat...

The new Norton takes up something like 10 MB, if I remember correct. NOD32 is also pretty low... but can't recall the footprint offhand. Dr. Web, FProt, take up just about 1 MB!! So, relatively speaking, 27 MB is quite high.

[raamki]

AVAST HOME EDITION, been using this for 3 years without any problems. Highly recommend it to everyone looking for a FREE AV solution! The best! avast! - Download antivirus software for spyware and virus protection

[Raj1008]

Originally Posted by Prowler

If you analyze the network connections, you will find that Avast interposes itself between your computer and the outside world for every net transaction. As a result, it may skew the subjective feel of net connectivity.
The newer machine running Vista may have fewer software installed which may appear to present a faster throughput for a different reason.

You should check TCP/IP connection through this nifty tool from Sysinternals.com - TCPView. It will tell you at a glance what process uses your netconnection.

Another tool to check for real time net speed is the Internet Speed meter - Bandwidth Meter from bestnetcraft.com

Thanks for the links. But that doesnt still solve the problem of Web sheild gulping half of my speed. Any settings to change?

[aburagohain]

Originally Posted by Raj1008

Thanks for the links. But that doesnt still solve the problem of Web sheild gulping half of my speed. Any settings to change?

Along with Avast free edition, try the Advanced System Care free version, I have been using the AV for the past 4-5 years and the later for half an year at least, one stop solution for all registry cleaner, defragmenter, network optimizer, general admin tasks, security and many more. I use the same on four machines, one win7 (used earlier on vista) and three xp, makes the machines a great deal more responsive as I can feel, no hardcore performance data available though, try and evaluate for yourself on an already sluggish machine and connection.

[sohail99]

I use :

Antivirus - ESET NOD32 antivirus

Antispyware - Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and Spybot S&D

Firewall and Defense+ - COMODO Firewall.

Truly an impenetrable combination

[benbsb29]

I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 (3 licences version) for Rs.750/-. I've been happy with Kaspersky over the past year, and decided to stick on with the same.

Earlier, i was on Kaspersky Internet Security (3 licences) 2007 which i had bought for Rs. 550/-. I expect 2009 to be much better.

[beejay]

I use Kaspersky 2009. 3 License version.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 (3 licences version) for Rs.750/-. I've been happy with Kaspersky over the past year, and decided to stick on with the same.

Earlier, i was on Kaspersky Internet Security (3 licences) 2007 which i had bought for Rs. 550/-. I expect 2009 to be much better.

The same license will work on the latest version - Kaspersky 2010

I have installed the 2009 trial version - just to give them time to iron out their glitches (if any) with the 2010. Once the trial period expires I will do a fresh install of the 2010 with the activation key from the KIS 2009 kit that I had bought.


At a glance the 2009 is waaay faster and better than the 2007.

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by kb100

The same license will work on the latest version - Kaspersky 2010

I have installed the 2009 trial version - just to give them time to iron out their glitches (if any) with the 2010. Once the trial period expires I will do a fresh install of the 2010 with the activation key from the KIS 2009 kit that I had bought.

Thanks KB. Why didnt you directly install a trial version of 2010, and then based on your experience either activate it using the 2009 code, or else switch over to 2009 directly?

I have a week till my 2007 copy expires. I am still in a dilemma whether to opt for the more stable 2009 version, or try out and activate the 2010 version.

Originally Posted by kb100

At a glance the 2009 is waaay faster and better than the 2007.

This is good to know.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

Thanks KB. Why didnt you directly install a trial version of 2010, and then based on your experience either activate it using the 2009 code, or else switch over to 2009 directly?

The preloaded McAfee that came with my lappy was expiring - hence I had to pick something up immediately. ON the day I was installing, I read on the kaspersky forum that the 2010 had issues with streaming video (YouTube Etc) - Hence chose to activate the 2009 trial version. THat buys me a months time - am sure the bug fixes should be out by then.

I plan to do a clean fresh install of the 2010- rather than an overwrite (2010 over the 2009).. I read this is always the best thing to do.

[Prowler]

Thanks for the links. But that doesnt still solve the problem of Web sheild gulping half of my speed. Any settings to change?

Sure. Click on the Avast icon on the task bar which will open up the panel. Select Network Shield -> Customize ->Settings - > Deselect "Allow Sending Anonymous statistical information" and if you want you can deselect logging option too. The first option would reduce the traffic bound for their server. The logging option will reduce the CPU ticks and hard drive access to some extent.

Dr. Web, FProt, take up just about 1 MB!! So, relatively speaking, 27 MB is quite high

Yes Raccoon. I am afraid that 1 MB is more like a stub which is left in the memory. On awakening it will load additional component to actually do its job. For example, the daemon in my linux server "psad" takes up barely 1 MB when dormant. It "wakes" up an additional Perl process which uses up 2 % of the CPU time and lots of memory as the situation demands it. It will die out once its job is done - only to be restarted by the psad daemon.

In Avast the "shield" is permanently loaded into memory. BTW, I am not working for Avast. I humbly present the case in fairness.

[Raccoon]

Originally Posted by Prowler

Yes Raccoon. I am afraid that 1 MB is more like a stub which is left in the memory. On awakening it will load additional component to actually do its job. For example, the daemon in my linux server "psad" takes up barely 1 MB when dormant. It "wakes" up an additional Perl process which uses up 2 % of the CPU time and lots of memory as the situation demands it. It will die out once its job is done - only to be restarted by the psad daemon.

Nopes dude, that isn't the case with these AVs. I am well aware that some AVs work the way you said, but not in this case. The ultimate test - I have used them on a 200 MHz MMX 32 MB RAM machine. And they both work in that environment without slowing down anything noticably. Dr. Web even more so! In fact you cant tell the difference in using the machine with or without it. In fact AFAIK these 2 are the only ones you can use on such an old machine. Detection is also pretty good... should be easily better than the free stuff and also some of the less than top of the line brands.

Can you beat that??