Bitdefender 2020 Released

[mlnevese]

Bitdefender resource usage decreases after a few days. It has been like that for a time, since version 2018, at least.

 

[AYIZEB]

bitdefender has a very good consumption, it consumes ram yes but well the ram is fast acting you will not notice it unless you just go for ram, but the good thing about the product is that if for example you are playing, bitdefender adapts to your pc and reduces your ram consumption, or at least that's how I've seen it. For me it is very light even better than many antivirus in terms of system heaviness

 

[SeriousHoax]

It doesn’t hide sigs in the page file. ESET is like 35MB in ram, but my page file usage will be near a gig.

Does your page file size reduces with Bitdefender? I have 8gb ram and my page file is 8gb at the moment with ESET. It never goes above 8gb. Haven't notice if it reduces with AVs like Bitdefender, WD

 

[blackice]

Does your page file size reduces with Bitdefender? I have 8gb ram and my page file is 8gb at the moment with ESET. It never goes above 8gb. Haven't notice if it reduces with AVs like Bitdefender, WD

Just by what I recall when glancing at task manager when I had ESET running it was about 600MB more with ESET (I have 16GB of ram). This isn’t scientific as I don’t remember what else was running in the background. Just a thought I had after the fact. They have to be putting those signatures somewhere.

 

[Wraith2020]

Just by what I recall when glancing at task manager when I had ESET running it was about 600MB more with ESET (I have 16GB of ram). This isn’t scientific as I don’t remember what else was running in the background. Just a thought I had after the fact. They have to be putting those signatures somewhere.

600MB??? I need to take a look at my task manager. I have pagefile disabled since I have 16GB RAM and I don't want unnecessary writes on my SSD. So hopefully task manager should show me the real RAM being used.

 

[LDogg]

It uses approx. 200MB ram when it settles

This is still massive amount of RAM to use compared to other AVs. As can be seen here, F-Secure only take up 36.9MB: Screenshot

Can be smooth running but is a resource hog. Hence why I stopped using it, turning my attention to using f-Secure

~LDogg

 

[Paul.R]

ESET use so much RAM because it's load updates in RAM section, better then use CPU

 

[blackice]

This is still massive amount of RAM to use compared to other AVs. As can be seen here, F-Secure only take up 36.9MB: Screenshot

Can be smooth running but is a resource hog. Hence why I stopped using it, turning my attention to using f-Secure

~LDogg

200MB isn’t a lot of RAM for everyone. I notice zero effect, but that’s having 16GB. Not everyone has that much RAM. However they are putting signatures somewhere. A lot of times caching them to the hard drive. I have a lot of programs that use massive amounts of RAM. They aren’t resource hogs, the RAM is there to be used. However, your point stands that it is not a good program for anyone with limited RAM, and that’s valid.

 

[blackice]

Tested another uninstall this time scanning with Everything to see what was left behind. Took a peek with Revo too, but used the uninstaller directly after looking at what it saw. Only about 4 extra (empty) folders and a few broken cached icons. Not bad at all. Looks like the uninstaller has improved greatly and is similar to ESET. My one concern with any AV is installing it on a laptop with all it's proprietary drivers. Not as easy to do a fresh install if I uninstall the AV down the road. It uninstalled cleanly now, but what about a few updates down the road? Still I think it's ready for primetime on Ladyice's laptop. With a web interface to keep an eye on things that's super nice.

 

[DDE_Server]

From what a learn, better use Emsisoft then Bitdefender, you have BD engine with good support, privacy, no bloatware and no HDD smash.

I will add Bitdefender to sh...t category of AV.

yes i am using it. it is good product (i mean Emsisoft).nut i complement it with Tiny wall to control windows firewall as Emsisoft only has firewall fortification and doesn't have program network communication control such as one found in any internet security suite

 

[XLR8R]

All the BD engine products use ~235 MB of memory, it's an engine quirk. I wouldn't worry about it.

BD 2020 is actually very good in terms of HDD thrash, better than for e.g. VIPRE or BullGuard but not better than eScan or Emsisoft.

Still, considering the quirks of BitDefender (region-specific support services, bugs), it may be just better to use one of the SDK products. I would go for BullGuard or eScan.

 

[elquenunca]

Bitdefender's bad reputation will take a long time to erase. They are in the same situation as Norton. Many old timers still cringe when they hear the name Norton and remember what the old versions used to be like...

in my case you are right I would never install norton, for me it is the worst av on the market
I have been using bitdefender for years and I think the best by far
1st bitdefender
2nd eset
3rd Kaspersky

 

[fabiobr]

in my case you are right I would never install norton, for me it is the worst av on the market
I have been using bitdefender for years and I think the best by far
1st bitdefender
2nd eset
3rd Kaspersky

Norton is close to Kaspersky on the most important AV tests.

 

[XLR8R]

Norton is close to Kaspersky on the most important AV tests.

I think you are aware that, Symantec/Norton relies on machine power to sustain it's malware detection engine, they do not have as skilled developers/malware analysts as Kaspersky. Do not expect that to change. Symantec will likely not be an important player the way it was before the Broadcom acquisition (same with Norton). I wouldn't recommend using Norton/Symantec in the medium term (~2-3 years).

 

[blueblackwow65]

Hi Norton is very good ,just wondering though should I try Kaspersky cloud or Bitdefender Antivirus plus? Thks

 

[oldschool]

just wondering though should I try Kaspersky cloud or Bitdefender Antivirus plus? Thks

Kaspersky if you want to tweak. BD if you're OK with less options.

 

[Mariihh]

I think you are aware that, Symantec/Norton relies on machine power to sustain it's malware detection engine, they do not have as skilled developers/malware analysts as Kaspersky. Do not expect that to change. Symantec will likely not be an important player the way it was before the Broadcom acquisition (same with Norton). I wouldn't recommend using Norton/Symantec in the medium term (~2-3 years).

What are you, comedian? Anyone who understands security knows that Norton is one of the best on the market alongside Kaspersky.

 

[blueblackwow65]

Yhks which is better performance wise, ram and cpu/Thks

 

[XLR8R]

What are you, comedian? Anyone who understands security knows that Norton is one of the best on the market alongside Kaspersky.

That does not change the entire industry's perception. Nor will your snide remarks change the ground realities. If Symantec really was the leader, they would never have put themselves up for sale. Layoff after layoff over the years, declining significance, and a product that is just holding fort are the characteristics of SYMC.

It's not me, there are many who have written with confidence that Norton will no longer play the role it did once, going forward. Consider this an industry insider tip.

 

[oldschool]

It's not me, there are many who have written with confidence that Norton will no longer play the role it did once, going forward. Consider this an industry insider tip.

Norton getting into bed with LifeLock told you everything you need to know, even before the sale. LifeLock - what a SCAM!