Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
CheckPoint vs Eset Protect vs GravityZone
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IceMan7" data-source="post: 1120565" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>I just wrote about that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> The test shows that pages on Bitdefendfer open slowly because the scanner scans longer. Eset is really fast. I wrote in one topic that I currently have a 30-day trial version and browsing pages in Firefox does not slow down. Fsecure slowed down and even Firefox took longer to start because of it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That would be correct. I've noticed it too. When I scan the system through Eset, on the SSD drive where I have Windows it uses the processor a lot (80% and even more), more RAM but the disk seems to use less (something like BD). However, when the scan is transferred to the HDD, the processor and RAM usage drops but the disk load increases to at least 50%. This is with intelligent scanning. However, when scanning thoroughly, the computer feels the scanning even on Eset. BD takes more processor and RAM but saves the disk. At least that's what I remember (when the test version of Eset ends, I'll try BD Total Security and see) a few years ago. Eset takes up about 100-150MB on the disk and when working in the background you can barely feel it. Bitdefender takes up about 1GB of space and takes up 1GB of RAM and sometimes even more. But I suppose why. Since the computer on which BD is installed is a virtual machine for it, it needs to reserve such power to have something to protect behaviorally later. That requires power. So they reserve RAM. I think so. What "scares" me more is why it needs its weight after installation, where it weighs about 5 times more than Eset.</p><p>Since Eset has multi-threaded scanning, this is not surprising, that it uses more resources.</p><p>However, if I remember correctly, thanks to Photon, Bitdefender was also light while working in the background and you couldn't feel it every day. And I had it installed on the HDD then, not on the SSD.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So what do they need this cloud for?</p><p></p><p>As you can see, you can't have everything. More efficient in Eset but fewer signatures. Heavy in BD but more signatures. Does it make sense to remove the old ones? It's hard to say. But it should also be noted that BD still supports Windows 7, whereas all competitors that do not have the BD engine have long abandoned this system.</p><p>I've seen a few tests on YT where Eset didn't always detect old samples when scanning them. Removing old signatures has its advantages and disadvantages. Like in life. You can't have everything and sometimes you have to compromise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>They could finally fix it. It's very annoying. Remodel, compress or do something. Or at least change it to a more intelligent one like Eset has. It shouldn't be a problem for BD <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1120565, member: 121355"] I just wrote about that ;) The test shows that pages on Bitdefendfer open slowly because the scanner scans longer. Eset is really fast. I wrote in one topic that I currently have a 30-day trial version and browsing pages in Firefox does not slow down. Fsecure slowed down and even Firefox took longer to start because of it. That would be correct. I've noticed it too. When I scan the system through Eset, on the SSD drive where I have Windows it uses the processor a lot (80% and even more), more RAM but the disk seems to use less (something like BD). However, when the scan is transferred to the HDD, the processor and RAM usage drops but the disk load increases to at least 50%. This is with intelligent scanning. However, when scanning thoroughly, the computer feels the scanning even on Eset. BD takes more processor and RAM but saves the disk. At least that's what I remember (when the test version of Eset ends, I'll try BD Total Security and see) a few years ago. Eset takes up about 100-150MB on the disk and when working in the background you can barely feel it. Bitdefender takes up about 1GB of space and takes up 1GB of RAM and sometimes even more. But I suppose why. Since the computer on which BD is installed is a virtual machine for it, it needs to reserve such power to have something to protect behaviorally later. That requires power. So they reserve RAM. I think so. What "scares" me more is why it needs its weight after installation, where it weighs about 5 times more than Eset. Since Eset has multi-threaded scanning, this is not surprising, that it uses more resources. However, if I remember correctly, thanks to Photon, Bitdefender was also light while working in the background and you couldn't feel it every day. And I had it installed on the HDD then, not on the SSD. So what do they need this cloud for? As you can see, you can't have everything. More efficient in Eset but fewer signatures. Heavy in BD but more signatures. Does it make sense to remove the old ones? It's hard to say. But it should also be noted that BD still supports Windows 7, whereas all competitors that do not have the BD engine have long abandoned this system. I've seen a few tests on YT where Eset didn't always detect old samples when scanning them. Removing old signatures has its advantages and disadvantages. Like in life. You can't have everything and sometimes you have to compromise. They could finally fix it. It's very annoying. Remodel, compress or do something. Or at least change it to a more intelligent one like Eset has. It shouldn't be a problem for BD ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
