Re: Antivirus-like background applications and their overhead
- From: "Karl Strausser" <Karl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:37:53 -0000
Countering what Kerry said : Norton is not the #1 on the strength of
home user systems only. AND it has next to zero false positives each
year compared to every single other product.
But your question is not about Norton, it is about a view on the
payload of antivirus-like products (AV, anti-spyware, etc). There is
only one view : they are necessary, so if you like the product,
whatever it is, and have no problems with it, but your PC is too slow,
then upgrade your hardware ! Above all, do not change to an AV you
know nothing about simply because you read "very very small payload"
somewhere in the description. What you want from your antivirus-like
software is acceptable payload coupled with rock solid detection,
removal and minimal to zero false positives. For example, although I
am a Norton convert (in the corporate environment as well), I like
everything I keep reading about NOD32. It has a small payload but my
main concern is that, so far, everything I have found points to solid
detection and removal and very few false positives (false positives
can create absolute mayhem and terrible loss of business time). This
is not a recommendation of NOD32, just an indication of my own
priorities when choosing this type of software.
One thing you must bear in mind is that in most cases where
antivirus-like product have an unacceptable effect on performance it
is because they are configured with all the defaults. A lot of those
defaults, like heuristics, are not necessary and have a serious impact
on performance. I have my own list somewhere of the configurations I
use but I noticed recently that one of my favorite bookmarks has a
recommended configuration for Norton (if that is what you're using).
Check them out at www.answersthatwork.com.
Karl
"BillW" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ms6dneVpjq94vLnZRVn-pQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is a question about the overhead of antivirus-like background
applications running under XP.
I'm not a computer novice, so I ask this question more from a more
detailed
technical/performance perspective. This is a question for those who
are
very much aware of the affect processes can have on the overall
performance
of a system. With that said, my question is related to a system like
the
one I have at home - 2+ghz, 1gb memory on a "home system" running XP
SP2.
What is the general opinion of when a background application (like
Norton
Antivirus) will impact the overall performance of a system. "When"
meaning
at some memory or processor power threshold. If home applications
such as
Office and email are running on the computer, what is considered not
enough
resources where something like Norton is a factor or enough resources
where
Norton is not a factor at all. I can see a concern with a server
servicing
hundreds of computers, but is the impact significant in a single PC
running
home application? I have my opinion, but was interested in what other
knowledgeable computer users might know or think. I'm having a
friendly
debate with another IT friend of mine and other opinions would be
interesting in this very open-minded discussion. I'm sure some of you
have
run performance measuring tools at the office that might shed a more
objective light on this subject, so that information would be very
interesting. Thanks again.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Software Distribution Service 2.0
- Next by Date: Re: 4Gb RAM
- Previous by thread: Re: Antivirus-like background applications and their overhead
- Next by thread: Black Screen of Death
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
