- May 1, 2012
- 322
hello everyone...
I would like to ask which antivirus is better for a low spec computer (low ram/ CPU specs).
I would like to ask which antivirus is better for a low spec computer (low ram/ CPU specs).
Best antivirus for low memory
- Thread starter superboy123
- Start date
- Status
I would suggest to go with Comodo Internet Security because COMODO Internet Security Premium is an antivirus system that aims to protect your system, files and folders against online threats. It includes an antivirus module, combined with firewall features build an unbreakable shield.
In an AV test conducted recently based on protection, performance and usability Comodo Security Software is the only free Security Software to rank top in perfection, Others have trial version but not for life time!
Here is the link for your reference!
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/marapr-2013
In an AV test conducted recently based on protection, performance and usability Comodo Security Software is the only free Security Software to rank top in perfection, Others have trial version but not for life time!
Here is the link for your reference!
http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/marapr-2013
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Carolinaeliz said:
Comodo didn't really get a good total score on that test, look at useability where it got the lowest score out of all that was tested.
Useability is the most important feature, if it isn't useable then all others features are useless to the user.
Thanks.
That's what all Antivirus' aim and should do.
The way I see it is Comodo users like to glorify the product more than it's worth. And sure I recommend Avira, Avast or MSE, but I don't glorify the product based on AV ratings and such.
Carolinaeliz said:
The way I see it is Comodo users like to glorify the product more than it's worth. And sure I recommend Avira, Avast or MSE, but I don't glorify the product based on AV ratings and such.
Install it and do a full sys scan ... Tell me if you have any FPs.Littlebits said:Carolinaeliz said:
Comodo didn't really get a good total score on that test, look at useability where it got the lowest score out of all that was tested.
Useability is the most important feature, if it isn't useable then all others features are useless to the user.
Thanks.
- May 1, 2012
- 322
Avast's Community IQ is optional and can be disabled, during installation or via UI.
- Jun 5, 2013
- 841
Amiga500 said:
Avast most definitely does not have better detection than Comodo. Do a quick browse in this very forum on the malware testing threads. Or compare them yourself on your machine. Even AVG is better than Avast, although much heavier.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Jaspion said:
Avast does have better protection features then both Comodo AV without D+ and AVG. I don't see AVG with an auto-sandbox to run files without digital signatures. It is the only use-friendly free AV that has this feature and it is very effective. Results on malware testing threads don't really mean anything but entertainment for malware hunters you can not apply the results to end users systems and expect to have the same results. Most of the time the results are the complete opposite when applied to real world end users.
Thanks.
- Jun 5, 2013
- 841
I had forgotten about the Avast sandbox, and that would place it above AVG, although Avast's detection is inferior. Comodo AV comes with sandbox/D+, so saying Avast is better than Comodo without D+ is only valid if you forget about Avast's sandbox...Littlebits said:Jaspion said:
Avast does have better protection features then both Comodo AV without D+ and AVG. I don't see AVG with an auto-sandbox to run files without digital signatures. It is the only use-friendly free AV that has this feature and it is very effective. Results on malware testing threads don't really mean anything but entertainment for malware hunters you can not apply the results to end users systems and expect to have the same results. Most of the time the results are the complete opposite when applied to real world end users.
Thanks.
And saying the tests here are no more than entertainment is stretching the truth a little in my opinion. Is this real-world testing? No, this doesn't exist does it? It's either real-world, or it's testing. I test samples I find here, and I test samples that find me in the wild, and Avast does have the habit of not detecting stuff. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, I've seen Avast get owned by malware many times even with auto-sandbox. If Avast's sandbox were as solid as Comodo's (which isn't 100% either), it would be a good recommendation.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Jaspion said:I had forgotten about the Avast sandbox, and that would place it above AVG, although Avast's detection is inferior. Comodo AV comes with sandbox/D+, so saying Avast is better than Comodo without D+ is only valid if you forget about Avast's sandbox...Littlebits said:Jaspion said:
Avast does have better protection features then both Comodo AV without D+ and AVG. I don't see AVG with an auto-sandbox to run files without digital signatures. It is the only use-friendly free AV that has this feature and it is very effective. Results on malware testing threads don't really mean anything but entertainment for malware hunters you can not apply the results to end users systems and expect to have the same results. Most of the time the results are the complete opposite when applied to real world end users.
Thanks.
And saying the tests here are no more than entertainment is stretching the truth a little in my opinion. Is this real-world testing? No, this doesn't exist does it? It's either real-world, or it's testing. I test samples I find here, and I test samples that find me in the wild, and Avast does have the habit of not detecting stuff. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, I've seen Avast get owned by malware many times even with auto-sandbox. If Avast's sandbox were as solid as Comodo's (which isn't 100% either), it would be a good recommendation.
AV testing whether it is done by armatures on forums or so-called professional testing sites is more for entertainment because you just can not apply the results to each individual user or a group of users. If just one infection gets pass any AV then it is a fail. So all are failures at protecting users that also includes Comodo. You have to think what is the main reason a system gets infected? it all amounts to user error and no security suite or AV can protect the user from their own errors. If a user wants to run a file and it is blocked by their security protection then they will just disable their security protection and run the file anyway or find a way to allow it to run. AV's are just their to try to catch as many user errors as possible but if the user continues to make a lot of errors then nothing will protect them.
Some users can only run MSE/ Windows Defender, AVG or Avast with Windows Firewall and never get any infections, while other users can run a full security suite like Comodo, BitDefender, Norton, Kaspersky, etc. and still get infections regularly. I know for a fact since I have customers that use many different security solutions. What is important is that user's actions not what security software they use. I have tried to compared AV testing results with different AV's and security suites and it never correspond to my customers. AV testing gives the impression that one product provides better detection than another product for all users which is false. What any product can detect in a sample test may not apply to any users since they may never be exposed to any of the malware in that sample pack but will be exposed to other malware not included in the sample pack. It is impossible to come to any conclusions on how well any product will protect most users.
Enjoy!!
- Status
Similar threads
