OP
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2003
- Location
- Centennial, Colorado
- Thread Starter
- #21
Don't worry peeps, havent forgotten, RL got in the way several times this week(end) but Im back on top of things and moving right along 
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Antivirus Benchmarking v1.0
- Thread starter pik4chu
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
johan851 said:
So you would rather get the job done faster, then properly and potentially leave something behind, just to be faster..... remind me not to let you scan my system.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
^^
what would be the point to scan if you leave behind icky boo boo's ?
what would be the point to scan if you leave behind icky boo boo's ?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Yup, you caught me. I'm evil, untrustworthy, and unintelligent. I clearly haven't thought this through.
*Edit* Screw it, it's not worth the time to explain. Quit trolling.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
I ran a test today. I've been using AVG solely for about two years, so if what you're saying is right, my system must be just full of virii.
I think there's something to be said for benchmark-like synthetic results and real-world results.
I think there's something to be said for benchmark-like synthetic results and real-world results.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
johan851 said:I ran a test today. I've been using AVG solely for about two years, so if what you're saying is right, my system must be just full of virii.
I think there's something to be said for benchmark-like synthetic results and real-world results.
well how do we know you didnt run that test twice ?? once to get rid of all your left-overs and again to prove to us that your clean ..
just kidding man .. its all good !! just teasing ya a bit 
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
We shouldn't take things personal with any product. We defend its use based on facts, right?
So we had a guy take a computer box in which he dumped the virii available to people who go to the same places to download them, right?
He then run all the programs and posted the results, no emotions, right?
Those results showed Nod32 you mentioned performing worse than 75% of the programs tested. They also suggested AntiVir was the best.
Now me, I don't care about getting personal with what I am using so I installed AntiVir. What happened? It found several virii on my very own system that was scanned regularly with updated definitions using Norton 2003.
I then saved the virii and used them to test other AntiVirus programs, most of which could not detect them, so why bother with anything other then AntiVir as far as that goes...
Of course should this scenario change and some other product show itself to perform better, I would drop praising AntiVir in a minute, why would I defend it?
So we had a guy take a computer box in which he dumped the virii available to people who go to the same places to download them, right?
He then run all the programs and posted the results, no emotions, right?
Those results showed Nod32 you mentioned performing worse than 75% of the programs tested. They also suggested AntiVir was the best.
Now me, I don't care about getting personal with what I am using so I installed AntiVir. What happened? It found several virii on my very own system that was scanned regularly with updated definitions using Norton 2003.
I then saved the virii and used them to test other AntiVirus programs, most of which could not detect them, so why bother with anything other then AntiVir as far as that goes...
Of course should this scenario change and some other product show itself to perform better, I would drop praising AntiVir in a minute, why would I defend it?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Location
- Seattle, WA
I've used antivir since the first test because it is free and also because it seems to be a competent performer. Scan speed isn't such a big deal, just schedule the jobs to run at off-peak times. Also, since it would seem that virus scanning is primarily an I/O bound task it would be reasonable to suspect any program running substantially faster must be cutting corners, and the ****tiness of NOD32 corrobrates these claims.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
we should send symantec a email of your results ..
and then ask them to refund the world !! LOL
and then ask them to refund the world !! LOL
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
johan851 said:
Trolling? nice lame attempted at a come back, fact is you stated you would rather have speed when it is shown the program you use lacks in being thorough.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
Yeah, for that application I would rather have speed.
Lame attempted at a comeback? You're trying to provoke a reaction from me. I'm not going to give it to you.
Lame attempted at a comeback?
You're trying to provoke a reaction from me. I'm not going to give it to you.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2001
c627627 said:
Never a truer word.. is this not why we are all interested and participating with this thread, lets not provoke each other and wait to see what discoverys and made... its wise to question things even the results if applicable.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
^ Thanks Unseen.
So I downloaded AntiVir and installed it, and inside the control panel deal it says "License valid until 11/30/2006". Do you need to reinstall every four months or something?
The internets are everything.
So I downloaded AntiVir and installed it, and inside the control panel deal it says "License valid until 11/30/2006". Do you need to reinstall every four months or something?
Something's getting optimized somewhere, though. AVG finds less virii according to that chart, yet takes like 3-4 times as long to do a full scan. AntiVir seems to be about 50% (give or take 10%) faster than AVG based on a very quick little test I did. Maybe the moral is that AVG just sucks?
You got me. I'm just trying to impress everyone so they'll like me.
The internets are everything.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
Guys, I did not run any tests you have prescribed, but allow me chime in with my experience with two flavors of NAV. The home edition is a super duper resource hog. I was using this on Xaotic's X41 Tablet. Windows took a full 139 sec to load up. It completely slowed down my system. When I uninstalled that and started using CE 10.1 (free from my Uni), the startup time became an incredible 71 sec and everything seems a lot faster now.
The home edition has e-mail scanning, script blocking and other crap (I think), whereas the CE is more straight up, reactive response. So, IMO Norton are screwing their home users whilst keeping the CE a LOT more efficient.
The home edition has e-mail scanning, script blocking and other crap (I think), whereas the CE is more straight up, reactive response. So, IMO Norton are screwing their home users whilst keeping the CE a LOT more efficient.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
johan851 said:You got me. I'm just trying to impress everyone so they'll like me.
dude !! did you not read my full post ??
i was just kidding !!
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Location
- Seattle, WA
I know. My sarcasm never comes across online.
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Location
- Oklahoma City, OK
Are you going to be able to test the norton corporate edition? We have it at our office pushed from a dc to all the clients. I get really annoyed at it because once i logon to windows and reach the desktop, My computer is virtually unusable for at least 1 1/2 min because norton is hogging all resources to run some scan. If i click on any program when the desktop first comes up, it will wait until norton is done to even open it.
