Impact of security software on system performance investigated

Quote:

---

AVG, Avast, Panda, McAfee and more have been tested by AV Comparatives.

---

Read more.

Makes me glad I've used Avast for the past 3 years (for free too). Though my low powered chromebook (compared to my R9 280x equipped pc) is much faster when it comes to web browsing. If windows didn't dominate the games industry they'd be dead.

huh, just yesterday I dropped my free version of avast and went back to windows defender 'cause it seemed like avast was bogging down my laptop performance. after seeing this, i don't know what to think... i'll wait a few days before deciding if i should switch back again.

I bet they didn't bother testing Norton as it would have scared the jewels out of them!

Quote:

---

Security software of one kind or another is widely regarded as a necessary evil for PC users. I remember, back in the 90s, trying out various AV solutions that had a terrible impact on my PC's performance.

---

Linux+ClamAV - don't even notice it's there. Actually the only security software that does make it's presence felt are the various browser plugins (like ABP) that I use.

(Yes, I know it's a cheap shot, but I don't feel up to anything more strenuous at the moment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke7

If windows didn't dominate the games industry they'd be dead.

---

I think you misspelt "corporate enterprise".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

I bet they didn't bother testing Norton as it would have scared the jewels out of them!

---

I mentioned this to my friend as soon as I saw this article. They're not included in any of their other tests either other than the Enterprise tests in which Norton scores top marks (As they actually have to keep their enterprise version resonable rather than a bloated pile of junk the general consumer version is).

But ye, wouldve been nice to include Norton, I suspect it would have messed up the scale of the results too much however, akin to making the rest of the results a lovely field and then Norton becoming Mt.Everest.

I stopped using kaspersky (had it free from bank) because that bogged my system down and went back to windows defender...

Might give avast a try before reinstalling but can't see a reason to change my usual approach (common sense) if I'm honest.

Quote:

---

The system under test was an HP branded PC...

---

They missed a trick there, should have detailed how much HP's crapware Windows version hits performance compared to the Retail version of Windows that they tested with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v0j4

huh, just yesterday I dropped my free version of avast and went back to windows defender 'cause it seemed like avast was bogging down my laptop performance. after seeing this, i don't know what to think... i'll wait a few days before deciding if i should switch back again.

---

windows defender is pretty useless

I also thought its "good enough" until saw random window opening on top of screen that was changing home pages on browsers... was quicker to just kill the .exe via task manager, defender didn't even notice anything was weird even after full scan.. installed avast - cleaned all that crap out

im still using defender tho but only because i cant disable it on windows 10 because its mandatory there -_-

No Comodo ?
Used them for years and never had a problems with virus or malmare ! Not even system hogging ..

Quick Heal and ThreatTrack !! Never heard of these guys .

I've found that a combination of Defender/MSE, Malwarebytes and common sense have worked very well for me.
AVG has memory leaks, and the nags are annoying and obtrusive - something that never gets mentioned.
Kaspersky is way too invasive on too many fronts. And while it *may* be tinfoil hat territory, there are some political issues there.
Norton Enterprise is decent - Norton Home and McAfee make me want to poke hot needles in someone's eye...
Never thought much of Avira. It's not bad - it's just meh - or was, anyway.

And I'm going to presume that a professional outfit removed all the HP bloatware, but even if they didn't, that would probably be a good thing. Real world demonstrations on real world machines.

I have used Avast in the past and it was fine, but I didn't think it was particularly lightweight. I've been running Bitdefender free for years now and I love it, I mainly switched due to it consistently topping the charts on another AV league table. Windows defender seems generally awful, and I don't like Panda either - as I run that on my works laptop.

As said above though, realistically any of the main players plus an occasional run of Malwarebytes seems to do the trick for me, but nothing can replace common sense.

Do check out the detection rate reports for the softwares as well - system impact is but one factor and for an overpowered gaming machine probably the least important. Avira does especially well in those tests, AVAST not bad either, but both have quite high false positive rates (AVAST especially).

I'm quite happy with Avira - the daily nag pop up is potentially too annoying for some, I'm OK with it. It did think RaceRoomExperience on Steam was a virus though and the O2 broadband installer was potentially unwanted - how it knew I'd swapped providers I'll never know ;)

I remember using ESET for a while, long ago, but that's it - I just don't run any AV programs.
Unless you count windows Defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lil-Diabo

I remember using ESET for a while, long ago, but that's it - I just don't run any AV programs.
Unless you count windows Defender.

---

According to the results, no it shouldn't probably be counted.

Quite struck by the number of posts on this thread from folks using multiple products, with MalwareBytes being popular, wonder if it's worth paying for that? (I've got the free version backing up my McAfee install).

I'm usually pretty sceptical about these website based AV comparisons because usually the website has a preferred product that they'll give top spot to.

Would personally say you really can't go wrong with Malwarebytes, I'm running pro Malwarebytes with free Avast and to be fair I think its Malwarebytes doing the brunt of the work (though again, common sense means it very rarely has to do anything anyway). Its less of a great deal now its subscription based rather than lifetime license however, but still worth the price I think.

I've used Avast for many years, such a great product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke7

Makes me glad I've used Avast for the past 3 years (for free too). Though my low powered chromebook (compared to my R9 280x equipped pc) is much faster when it comes to web browsing. If windows didn't dominate the games industry they'd be dead.

---

Between my Macbook Pro and my own 280X equipped desktop, I notice no noticeable difference between the speed of the internet. I don't use any AV programmes though. Not even Windows Defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke7

Makes me glad I've used Avast for the past 3 years (for free too). Though my low powered chromebook (compared to my R9 280x equipped pc) is much faster when it comes to web browsing. If windows didn't dominate the games industry they'd be dead.

---

I can't be the only one that lol'd at this :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Quite struck by the number of posts on this thread from folks using multiple products, with MalwareBytes being popular, wonder if it's worth paying for that? (I've got the free version backing up my McAfee install).

I'm usually pretty sceptical about these website based AV comparisons because usually the website has a preferred product that they'll give top spot to.

---

No one product is 100% - it's doubtful that multiple products together are 100%. If they were, they'd be so invasive that your machine would drag to a halt. This poll isn't showing any kind of efficiency in actual virus/malware protection - just the footprint the product has on the system. Apples and oranges. And you are correct about the bias factor - it's huge across the board. I can't remember if it was MaximumPC or PC Magazine that had the nerve to put Norton Home at the top of the chart one year, with an incredibly small print disclaimer about being paid to do so, but since that point, I pay zero attention to any once print now digital publications on the subject (or pretty much any other 'review/comparison').

The biggest issue these days, especially to the home user, isn't virii or trojans or the like - it's the new age malware/0day stuff, usually brought in from e-mail phishing and Flash vectors - stuff that can generally be caught and managed via MalwareBytes alone. A small footprint A/V with excellent heuristics is all that's needed for virus control. That, and the common sense to not click on executables and certain types of spreadsheets, etc, from people you don't know. As far as the Flash issue goes, simply uninstall it and use HTML5. Unless your business absolutely demands it, uninstall Java while you're at it.

But as with all things, the more any product claims to do, the less it will do well overall.

@aniilv `im still using defender tho but only because i cant disable it on windows 10 because its mandatory there -_-`

sorry mate, go to `settings/update and security/windows defender` you can turn it on/off there.

(win 10 pro insider preview build 10162)

I find it interesting that there are no studies on the performance of impact from various virus, trojans, spyware and other malware attacks on a system. I would have thought that the small performance hit from running a security package would be well worth the protection when compared to the potential performance hit of falling victim to a threat and that's before the risks of data loss, invasion of privacy or other stability issues with the OS are considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeyboardDemon

I find it interesting that there are no studies on the performance of impact from various virus, trojans, spyware and other malware attacks on a system. I would have thought that the small performance hit from running a security package would be well worth the protection when compared to the potential performance hit of falling victim to a threat and that's before the risks of data loss, invasion of privacy or other stability issues with the OS are considered.

---

Pretty sure every article ever done pretty much says that malware is bad (I'm not sure there's been a real virus, in the wild, in years - discounting Stuxnet)... interestingly, it's only the most obnoxious ones that have any real impact on the home system, such as bitcoin miners. The lightweight stuff, like keyloggers, etc, have almost nil for a footprint, and unless you are specifically looking for them, they don't show up in 99% of the a/v products out there. You need a specialized product.

Programs like Kapersky can be set to do deep packet inspection, which is no big deal if you have the horsepower and internet speed to ignore it. An even slightly lower spec'd machine on the typical slow US internet services can bog to a standstill. Another common free one, Panda, is a resource hog regardless of system age. Norton.. McAfee... even AVG. They all use whatever resources they feel they are entitled to, often to the detriment of the user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuidoLS

Unless your business absolutely demands it, uninstall Java while you're at it.

---

If you look in the Java control panel, you can turn off support for java in the browser. That eliminates the regular drive-by infection threats that it is famous for.

Our local rubbish tip has a webcam that requires a java app to see if you will be queueing if you go to dump stuff. I think that is the only legitimate Java app I have seen in years, I don't miss it one bit.