Lowest A/V Resource Stamp

swinnie

swinnie

swinnie

Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2007
Posts
3,095
Location
Kent
Hi Guys

I am reinstalling my sisters laptop today and want to find out what is the lowest Anti-Virus memory and processor usage as the laptop only has an 800Mhz processor. It must be free.

Avast?
AVG?
AntiVir?

XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2.

Thanks in Advance
 
lowest AV footrpint is common sense -

If you don't constantly download smileys/screensavers/pron, and you're behind a router (h/w firewall), then there's really no need for a constantly running AV.

Just run a stand alone one every once in a while, like from Hiren's/UBCD :)
 
swinnie said:
Hi Guys

I am reinstalling my sisters laptop today and want to find out what is the lowest Anti-Virus memory and processor usage as the laptop only has an 800Mhz processor. It must be free.

Avast?
AVG?
AntiVir?

XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2.

Thanks in Advance
Click to expand...
I won't bother with AVG, it uses more resources than Norton Internet Security 2008!

That leaves Avast and AntiVir for you to try each one out before deciding.
 
For firewall Comodo is good.

AV wise Avast is reasonable for a freebie, or if she's willing to stump up £12 then you could do a lot worse than Kaspersky
 
Thanks guys.

I would have just used a standalone from Hirens/UBCD but she uses MSN a lot and doesn't really know what she is doing so that isn't really an option.

Will probably use Avast! thanks guys.
 
I thought NOD32 was low on resources?

I have just checked in Windows Task Manager and the process egi.exe is only using up just over 3 MB and ekrn.exe using just over 32 MB so only around 36 MB in total which is pretty good.
 
Use avast, I run it on a laptop with only 192MB of ram :O. Does not use that much memory it uses less than AVG, plus avast is a lot better than AVG in terms of detection it gives less false positives :).
 
1337z0r said:
Use avast, I run it on a laptop with only 192MB of ram :O. Does not use that much memory it uses less than AVG, plus avast is a lot better than AVG in terms of detection it gives less false positives :).
Click to expand...

I had to use AVG in the end...

Avast just wouldn't install and she needed the laptop so I had to do it all quickly and didn't have time to find out why.
 
Using Avast Home Edition on Windows XP Home. Following processes running.
ashDisp 5696K
ashWebSv 6452K
ashServ 19432K
ashWeb 6452K
aswUpdSv 340K
ashMaiSv 1788K

That's with sensitivity set to high.
 
We had this dicussion at work, you have to remember memory uses fluctuates a lot. One AV suite may seem to have a miniature footprint, but as soon as it decides to scan/update itself the footprint could be huge. Its this which needs worrying about.
 
I've been using ESET Smart Security for a couple of months now and i've not noticed any slowdown in performance which i did have with norton, avg, avast, comodo and others. It's uses very little cpu power and i only know it's on when i get a little window to tell me it's updated signatures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom