Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecchi22
Those are just numbers & statistic.
By my own experience, I've seen lots of infected machines and helpless anti-viruses. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but whenever I see some running antivirus on infected machine that isn't able to detect, or it detects BUT CAN'T REMOVE the virus, I decide not to use it again.
I've seen Avast and ESET helpless, trying to remove the same viruses over and over, every minute, even with full scan. I switched to trend micro and I was confident almost a year (until I got infected with simple autorun shit).
I've NEVER seen Kaspersky helpless, he'll REMOVE the viruses, even if that means damaging the operating system. I hated it before because it sucked my resources, but that was 5 years ago. Now it doesn't slow down the performance.
At the end what's more important to you, just a little bit speed increase or security? Its not possible to go with both. If you got 3 GB RAM, why would you care if antivirus takes 50 MB? What's wrong with you people? 
Oh, by the way, personally, I'm using linux 90% of the time, so I don't really care. |
Ram wasn't the issue, I have 8 gigs. It wasn't a problem really when just sitting in the background. The problem was when you set it on high or if you told it to scan. I'm guessing it took up HDD resources more than anything else. If you're HDD resources are all taken up then your PC is likely to run like shit no matter what CPU/Ram you have. I used it not that long ago, maybe 6 months.
Btw numbers and statistics is what it's all about. I'm not saying kaspersky sucks, just that nod32 doesn't. That site doesn't fuck around with those test, you can find out way more there than just about anywhere else when comes to antiviruses. A lot of people say oh well cnet said or pcmag said, blah blah blah. But how much time did they spend using those to write a review or two? Not near the time the people of that site did.
If ESET was really useless for removing most viruses I doubt that site would rate it so highly.
