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: 1120620" data-attributes="member: 121355"><p>First of all, respect to you for your great knowledge. WOW</p><p></p><p></p><p>It is clearly visible that Eset is faster. Although I do not hide the fact that I used to use the BD plug-in in my browser. Fortunately, I have been loyal to Firefox for years and I do not intend to change that <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is just shocking. BD is like a fat bear on a computer. I am shocked. The last time I had BD on a computer was about 6 or 7 years ago. And I remember that it took up about 1GB in the system. The installer was well over 500MB. And this constant downloading of a lot of data with each update. And the most annoying thing was when you turn on the computer, BD updates and immediately screams to restart.</p><p>I am also surprised what you are writing about. BD is now slower than it used to be and has lost the speed of launching applications?</p><p>I am not a programmer and it seems to me that keeping these signatures in RAM is so that in the event of a threat, BD is ready to act faster <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite132" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure :unsure:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":unsure:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now I looked at the Eset folder in Program Files. It also weighs quite a bit. Currently, the total is 1.06 GB. Adding Eset in the Program Data folder 0.46 GB to that, we have about 1.5 GB of Eset on the computer. Eset has become fat after so many years <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite118" alt=":oops:" title="Oops! :oops:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":oops:" /></p><p></p><p>It is known that BD with Photon needs time to optimize with the system. Although on the BD forum you can read more than one case that over time their computer with BD installed does not work faster but slows down even more.</p><p>Just so it does not turn out that Photon is a spy on your documents on your computer <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite126" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL :ROFLMAO:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>BD has quite a big problem with these signatures. I know that. You can read a lot about it on the web. And apart from that, problems with various programs. Some even complained that they couldn't connect an external drive because BD blocked etc</p><p>Overall, BD is not a pleasant program, it has a lot of problems and flaws. It had and still has.</p><p></p><p>I agree here. Signatures are one thing. Behavioral protection is another. And despite these numerous flaws under the BD mask, it still manages to be at the forefront in this regard. For years.</p><p>It should also be noted that [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER] does what a regular user does. First, it scans the folder. AV detects the threat and removes it. And only then does it work on the files, checking whether AV will block the malware.</p><p></p><p>In the network, testers do the opposite. First, they perform the operation on the files and then they scan. A regular user does not do this.</p><p>Besides, no one at home clicks on 1500 or more files (threats) at once.</p><p></p><p>If you don't know what it's all about, it's probably about money. They wrote on the BD forum that they've given up on beta testing. Today, the tester is the user. Rebuilding the engine means spending money. And BD is also one of the cheapest paid solutions today, at least in my country.</p><p>6-7 years ago, the default amount of RAM for Windows was 8GB. Today, the default is 16GB. Ideally, when someone buys a new computer, it's best to have 32GB.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In conclusion.</p><p></p><p>On paper, Eset seems to be a much more modern solution for today's times. Now they have invested a lot of money in the cloud. This is also visible in the prices they are shouting for their software. Eset is not afraid to invest in newer solutions.</p><p>Considering the pros and cons, Eset has definitely more of them.</p><p>BD as of today (because we have known it for years) is definitely a mega solid AV with great behavioral protection. And it seems that it has better technical support. I tested it thanks to emails. All answers in one day. You have to wait at least 24 hours for Eset to respond.</p><p></p><p>That is why I am very interested in LiveGuard in Eset and whether it is at least as high a level in behavioral protection as BD. Even if Eset were slightly worse, it defends itself with many other advantages.</p><p></p><p>[USER=78686]@SeriousHoax[/USER] - Today, considering that you know these solutions and have a lot of knowledge, which solution do you prefer? Or what do you use on your computer?</p><p></p><p>Looking at these guys on YT who conduct tests, (apart from Leo) in the comments they prefer or use Eset.</p><p></p><p>BTW</p><p>I'm also not surprised that [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER] is so happy with Eset <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IceMan7, post: 1120620, member: 121355"] First of all, respect to you for your great knowledge. WOW It is clearly visible that Eset is faster. Although I do not hide the fact that I used to use the BD plug-in in my browser. Fortunately, I have been loyal to Firefox for years and I do not intend to change that ;) This is just shocking. BD is like a fat bear on a computer. I am shocked. The last time I had BD on a computer was about 6 or 7 years ago. And I remember that it took up about 1GB in the system. The installer was well over 500MB. And this constant downloading of a lot of data with each update. And the most annoying thing was when you turn on the computer, BD updates and immediately screams to restart. I am also surprised what you are writing about. BD is now slower than it used to be and has lost the speed of launching applications? I am not a programmer and it seems to me that keeping these signatures in RAM is so that in the event of a threat, BD is ready to act faster :unsure: Now I looked at the Eset folder in Program Files. It also weighs quite a bit. Currently, the total is 1.06 GB. Adding Eset in the Program Data folder 0.46 GB to that, we have about 1.5 GB of Eset on the computer. Eset has become fat after so many years :oops: It is known that BD with Photon needs time to optimize with the system. Although on the BD forum you can read more than one case that over time their computer with BD installed does not work faster but slows down even more. Just so it does not turn out that Photon is a spy on your documents on your computer :ROFLMAO: BD has quite a big problem with these signatures. I know that. You can read a lot about it on the web. And apart from that, problems with various programs. Some even complained that they couldn't connect an external drive because BD blocked etc Overall, BD is not a pleasant program, it has a lot of problems and flaws. It had and still has. I agree here. Signatures are one thing. Behavioral protection is another. And despite these numerous flaws under the BD mask, it still manages to be at the forefront in this regard. For years. It should also be noted that [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER] does what a regular user does. First, it scans the folder. AV detects the threat and removes it. And only then does it work on the files, checking whether AV will block the malware. In the network, testers do the opposite. First, they perform the operation on the files and then they scan. A regular user does not do this. Besides, no one at home clicks on 1500 or more files (threats) at once. If you don't know what it's all about, it's probably about money. They wrote on the BD forum that they've given up on beta testing. Today, the tester is the user. Rebuilding the engine means spending money. And BD is also one of the cheapest paid solutions today, at least in my country. 6-7 years ago, the default amount of RAM for Windows was 8GB. Today, the default is 16GB. Ideally, when someone buys a new computer, it's best to have 32GB. In conclusion. On paper, Eset seems to be a much more modern solution for today's times. Now they have invested a lot of money in the cloud. This is also visible in the prices they are shouting for their software. Eset is not afraid to invest in newer solutions. Considering the pros and cons, Eset has definitely more of them. BD as of today (because we have known it for years) is definitely a mega solid AV with great behavioral protection. And it seems that it has better technical support. I tested it thanks to emails. All answers in one day. You have to wait at least 24 hours for Eset to respond. That is why I am very interested in LiveGuard in Eset and whether it is at least as high a level in behavioral protection as BD. Even if Eset were slightly worse, it defends itself with many other advantages. [USER=78686]@SeriousHoax[/USER] - Today, considering that you know these solutions and have a lot of knowledge, which solution do you prefer? Or what do you use on your computer? Looking at these guys on YT who conduct tests, (apart from Leo) in the comments they prefer or use Eset. BTW I'm also not surprised that [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER] is so happy with Eset :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
