Battle Best antivirus for low memory

[superboy123]

hello everyone...
I would like to ask which antivirus is better for a low spec computer (low ram/ CPU specs).

 

[Deleted member 178]

agreed with what Littlebit said:

take this analogy:

who will hit the target at 1.5km?

1- a expert sniper with a world war 2 snipe rifle
2- a beginner shooter with the latest ultra-tech sniper rifle

same apply to everything, skills & knowledge matters, the gear just help.

 

[Exterminator]

Try them all and you will have 9 months free protection and the answer you are looking for

agreed with what Littlebit said:

take this analogy:

who will hit the target at 1.5km?

1- a expert sniper with a world war 2 snipe rifle
2- a beginner shooter with the latest ultra-tech sniper rifle

same apply to everything, skills & knowledge matters, the gear just help.

Words of wisdom.I couldnt agree more

 

[Jaspion]

Of course it depends more on the user than on anything else. For a fact, most people here could do everything they need on a computer for years with no AV and still not get infected.

That doesn't change the fact Avast's detection rate isn't good.

 

[Littlebits]

Of course it depends more on the user than on anything else. For a fact, most people here could do everything they need on a computer for years with no AV and still not get infected.

That doesn't change the fact Avast's detection rate isn't good.

Detection rate is not important as already stated, what is important is the protection rate. Avast has features that still makes its protection rate better than most others and still maintaining a user-friendly experience.

Doing on-demand scans of malware samples with any AV product and then see what it detected and missed is not an accurate way to test any product.

The correct way is to test its real-time protection features on a real system not in a virtual environment. After using all of the real-time features you will find that many samples that were missed by on-demand scans are still blocked by real-time components.

That the whole point of having an AV to to block infections!!

Just think about it: would you rather use an AV that does excellent on AV tests or use an AV that does well blocking most common infections with a simple user-friendly environment and doesn't slow down the system or have compatibility problems? believe me both are not the same.

Maybe you need to quit reading stuff on the web and try Avast for yourself on a real system, don't try to download any malware samples to test it just use it for awhile and see if it protects you.

On-demand scans of malware samples means nothing and will not get you the full picture.

Thanks.

 

[FlyToAllWorld]

the best solution for low memory is to buy more memory.

 

[DaZa9]

Comodo FTW!

 

[Jaspion]

Of course it depends more on the user than on anything else. For a fact, most people here could do everything they need on a computer for years with no AV and still not get infected.

That doesn't change the fact Avast's detection rate isn't good.

Detection rate is not important as already stated, what is important is the protection rate. Avast has features that still makes its protection rate better than most others and still maintaining a user-friendly experience.

Doing on-demand scans of malware samples with any AV product and then see what it detected and missed is not an accurate way to test any product.

The correct way is to test its real-time protection features on a real system not in a virtual environment. After using all of the real-time features you will find that many samples that were missed by on-demand scans are still blocked by real-time components.

That the whole point of having an AV to to block infections!!

Just think about it: would you rather use an AV that does excellent on AV tests or use an AV that does well blocking most common infections with a simple user-friendly environment and doesn't slow down the system or have compatibility problems? believe me both are not the same.

Maybe you need to quit reading stuff on the web and try Avast for yourself on a real system, don't try to download any malware samples to test it just use it for awhile and see if it protects you.

On-demand scans of malware samples means nothing and will not get you the full picture.

Thanks.

I know all about that. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. The question is, can you compare Avast's protection to Comodo's? Last I checked CIS was leagues ahead, and that's what I'm talking about.

 

[Littlebits]

Of course it depends more on the user than on anything else. For a fact, most people here could do everything they need on a computer for years with no AV and still not get infected.

That doesn't change the fact Avast's detection rate isn't good.

Detection rate is not important as already stated, what is important is the protection rate. Avast has features that still makes its protection rate better than most others and still maintaining a user-friendly experience.

Doing on-demand scans of malware samples with any AV product and then see what it detected and missed is not an accurate way to test any product.

The correct way is to test its real-time protection features on a real system not in a virtual environment. After using all of the real-time features you will find that many samples that were missed by on-demand scans are still blocked by real-time components.

That the whole point of having an AV to to block infections!!

Just think about it: would you rather use an AV that does excellent on AV tests or use an AV that does well blocking most common infections with a simple user-friendly environment and doesn't slow down the system or have compatibility problems? believe me both are not the same.

Maybe you need to quit reading stuff on the web and try Avast for yourself on a real system, don't try to download any malware samples to test it just use it for awhile and see if it protects you.

On-demand scans of malware samples means nothing and will not get you the full picture.

Thanks.

I know all about that. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. The question is, can you compare Avast's protection to Comodo's? Last I checked CIS was leagues ahead, and that's what I'm talking about.

Like I said before, it depends on the user, for myself and many others Comodo doesn't provide any better protection.

Just comparing what software can do on a test and real user environments is much different. Most of the things that Comodo would block or protect the user from that other security products would not are things that are common sense. If you are fooled into downloading malicious infected.exe, then decide to run it, ignore UAC and Windows digital file check warning then why would you even need to pay attention to Comodo's warning? might as well just disable Comodo and add the infected.exe to Comodo's safe list.

The bottom line is malicious files don't just magically appear or download themselves to systems, the user has to do this.

So if the user is cautious and never downloads these malicious files, utilizes UAC and Windows digital file check warnings then Comodo does not offer that user any better protection then other security products.

Thanks.

 

[Jaspion]

Like I said before, it depends on the user, for myself and many others Comodo doesn't provide any better protection.

Just comparing what software can do on a test and real user environments is much different. Most of the things that Comodo would block or protect the user from that other security products would not are things that are common sense. If you are fooled into downloading malicious infected.exe, then decide to run it, ignore UAC and Windows digital file check warning then why would you even need to pay attention to Comodo's warning? might as well just disable Comodo and add the infected.exe to Comodo's safe list.

The bottom line is malicious files don't just magically appear or download themselves to systems, the user has to do this.

So if the user is cautious and never downloads these malicious files, utilizes UAC and Windows digital file check warnings then Comodo does not offer that user any better protection then other security products.

Thanks.

You're welcome. But from this point of view, why are you choosing any AV at all? My choice for Comodo is 1) for performance, because that's the subject here, lest we forget. It's not the lightest of all, but definitely one of the lightest. And 2) for protection, Comodo doing a good job on all ends. Avast I see getting bypassed way too often.

 

[cdnsempre]

the best solution for low memory is to buy more memory.

I agree!
Buy more 2 Gbytes for RAM and choose Trend micro Titanium or Norton AV.

 

[DaZa9]

For those who voted for ESET as its light. I'll say NO. it takes about 75MB-100MB while not using it.
when COMODO Internet Security takes about 7MB-20MB.

by the way I was ESET fan, but when it failed to remove a trojan from a USB (tried about 10 times) it says error while cleaning lol.
from this I uninstalled it at the moment. installed COMODO removed it in 1 sec.

 

[Ink]

Thought I'd say; Low RAM =/=* Lightness and High RAM =/=* Heaviness.

(*) =/= (does not equal)

I've seen you say both Emisoft and ESET fail to remove some malware and consequently you've switched to Comodo. You should be more careful.

 

[rebel4life]

a little off topic but how about this combo

Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.0 + Comodo Firewall 6.2 + AntiBrowserSpy

 

[FlyToAllWorld]

a little off topic but how about this combo

Emsisoft Anti-Malware 8.0 + Comodo Firewall 6.2 + AntiBrowserSpy

no because you are john madden

 

[Ink]

AntiBrowserSpy sounds like a gimmick, plus it's not free at €30.

Why not use an open-source browser, or Mozilla Firefox in Incognito/Private mode, then create a Sync account so you don't lose any settings?

Borderline paranoia going on.

 

[Amiga500]

For those who voted for ESET as its light. I'll say NO. it takes about 75MB-100MB while not using it.
when COMODO Internet Security takes about 7MB-20MB.

by the way I was ESET fan, but when it failed to remove a trojan from a USB (tried about 10 times) it says error while cleaning lol.
from this I uninstalled it at the moment. installed COMODO removed it in 1 sec.

it was not ESET that failed.
It was you that failed for getting yourself infected in the 1st place.
There is no security product in the world that can defend wreckless users.

Thanks.

 

[nastavnikhe]

VIPRE is also good (no impact on the system)

 

[WalterWolf]

MSE+TinyWall + brain.exe.
This should do job very good if you just think.

 

[dwarfin]

UnThreat 2013. Using it for something around 2 months now. Decent detection, very low memory usage, general low impact on your pc, its even lighter than webroot on my old laptop.

 

[cdnsempre]

UnThreat 2013. Using it for something around 2 months now. Decent detection, very low memory usage, general low impact on your pc, its even lighter than webroot on my old laptop.

And if you have Windows 7 Ultimate computer run like lightning!