Antivirus programs

[PaJan]

I have had all kinds of problems trying to update my Norton SystemWorks Pro 2003. I purchased the upgrade but was unable to download it in spite of several attempts using Symantec Technical Help. I have REMOVED ALL NORTON products using their Auto Tools program.

I am considering buying and downloading "bitDefender- Internet- Security-v10.html"

I would most appreciate ANY comments about this system.

Thank you very much.

[JohnBF]

<!post=?,603,380>?<!/post> - seems like deja vu all over again. There are several AV discussions in the Forum in the past couple of months that you might review, and run Search on this Forum for Bit Defender for threads such as <post#=612117>post 612117</post#>.

[rhadin]

I made the switch form Norton to BitDefender 10 (not Plus) in October/November. Best move I've made in a long time. I also moved from Norton Firewall to Comodo Firewall and have added Diskeeper 2007 to my utilities to replace Norton Speed Disk. Also good moves.

[PaJan]

Thanx for your comments. I had just finished downloading the Trial version of BD and from first appearences it looks good. I'll probably sign up to BUY it shortly.

[PaJan]

Thanx a lot. I spent an hour or more reviewing all the links and then d/l'd the Trial version of BD. Will probably BUY it shortly.

[IanWilson]

Rich

In <post:=623,269>post 623,269</post:> on another topic, <!profile=Viking33>Viking33<!/profile> suggested that BitDefender tended to slow down Windows performance. Have you found that?

Ian

[rhadin]

Ian,

What Viking33 wrote was that he came across a study that listed BitDefender as 4th in items that slow Windows, so I am assuming that he was not reporting his own experience. Because he didn't identify the study, I don't know how accurate it is nor whether it was a true study or someone's impressions.

My experience has been that the only time BitDefender slows the system is when it is doing a full system scan and/or a deep system scan. Under normal circumstances, that is, when neither of those scans are running but BitDefender is just doing its normal protection scan, I have not found it to slow my system noticeably. I am running Windows XP on an AMD Athlon XP 2600 (1.92 GHz) with 1.5 GB of RAM. At the same time as BitDefender is running, I am also running Diskeeper 2007 Professional.

Even if the study cited by Viking33 is correct, it would be important to know which versions of Norton, Kaspersky, and BitDefender were tested and whether the conclusion is based on the effect of just the AV programs on the test systems or of the AV plus some other component such as the antispam or firewall programs that each of them can be bought with. Of course, it would also be important to know what the test system was, among other things.

Having said that, I can say only that our 5 systems run much better with BitDefender than they ran with Norton. And if there is a slowing of the system under normal circumstances, (a) having come from Norton which really slowed the systems, any BitDefender caused slowing is not noticeable -- the machines are definitely much speedier without Norton, and ([img]/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif[/img] I am willing to trade some speed for an effective AV program (Kaspersky and BitDefender were rated 1 and 2, respectively, in independent tests reported in PC World and PC Magazine, and the difference between them was negligible).

I know I haven't really answered your question but I don't know how else to answer it.

[IanWilson]

Thanks - that is helpful. I asked because I had been wondering about BitDefender. I used Avast! free at the moment. The main difference between your system and mine seems to be that you have more RAM. I'm on 512 MB and wondering about affording going up to 1 GB. I imagine having lots of RAM would make a difference in any case to how much slow down one experienced.

Ian

[rhadin]

Ian,

Increasing RAM makses a world of difference. I went from 1 GB to 1.5 GB and noticed a dramatic increase. At the end of the month I am having a new system built for me and it will have 4 GB of RAM. I haven't decided yet whether to go for a dual core or quad core processor or whether to spring for the new NVIDIA 8800 graphics board or "settle" for 7800 series boards (I am going from 2 to 3 monitors so will need 2 graphics boards) but there is absolutely no question about the RAM. If I think I can afford it after picking out the other components, I may increase the RAM but I'm not convinced that for what I do on a computer going above 4 GB would have any benefit.

[rhadin]

Thanks, Bob, for the message with the link to the article you mentioned ranking BitDefender as the 4th offender. It is worth noting that it was 4th out of 4 security suites, but not the 4th worst offender. In fact, BitDefender, if you believe the study, is an excellent program and barely causes any slowdown. The updated results of the PC Spy's tests are posted at this link: http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/other/wha..._windows_down/3 . If you go down the list, BitDefender is 8th from the bottom and is listed as causing a 4% slowdown. The author wrote: "BitDefender was another suprise. I've heard a lot of mixed things about it since I started the testing but it certainly uses the fewest resource on boot. This could mean a couple of things: Either its incredibly efficient or its a very lazy protection scheme that doesnt protect your computer all the time." My experience, FWIW, is that it is efficient because that is the only conclusion that can be drawn that fits with the high marks it gets from PC Magazine and PC World.

A couple of things, however, about the writer make me suspect this study. The writer -- at least to my thinking -- gives and takes some very bad advice: "If you can avoid them, don't install an antivirus program (especially not Norton)" although I would agree about Norton. He also wrote: "Firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware programs are where I expect to see the biggest delays from a system, so much so that I refuse to use any on my home computer." His advice and his refusal to use a security program make me wonder. I know very few people brave enough (foolish enough?) to not use any security program at all.

[viking33]

Rich,
I didn't notice that the writer made those IDIOTIC comments about AV, Spyware or Firewalls. If so, I can't blame anyone for putting his thoughts directly into the recycle bin. <img src=/S/puke.gif border=0 alt=puke width=60 height=15>

[Waggers]

I haven't tried bitDefender but my advice is fairly simple - don't pay for what you can get for free. ZoneAlarm (firewall), AVG (antivirus), Adaware (anti adware) etc. are just as good as the costly alternatives in my opinion and all <img src=/S/free.gif border=0 alt=free width=30 height=15> for personal use.