Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dex4Sure" data-source="post: 851645" data-attributes="member: 79841">Time wise yes, but writing in assembly is still way more efficient today than using various compilers to do it for you (if you just know how). Of course, one must be well versed assembly programmer, but just cause there aren&#039;t many around doesn&#039;t mean there aren&#039;t any. Would be interesting to know though how much is true of ESET being mainly written in assembly.Yep. I just don&#039;t get how people still mistakenly use RAM usage as reference to how light or heavy a program is. Its down to CPU and disk usage more than RAM usage. Few 10s of MB here and there mean absolutely nothing today. ESET uses extremely few resources. Just testing their internet security version out of curiosity and its considerably lighter than Windows Defender from my testing. Pretty impressive I must say, I might end up using ESET for longer period of time simply due to its lightness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dex4Sure, post: 851645, member: 79841"] Time wise yes, but writing in assembly is still way more efficient today than using various compilers to do it for you (if you just know how). Of course, one must be well versed assembly programmer, but just cause there aren't many around doesn't mean there aren't any. Would be interesting to know though how much is true of ESET being mainly written in assembly. Yep. I just don't get how people still mistakenly use RAM usage as reference to how light or heavy a program is. Its down to CPU and disk usage more than RAM usage. Few 10s of MB here and there mean absolutely nothing today. ESET uses extremely few resources. Just testing their internet security version out of curiosity and its considerably lighter than Windows Defender from my testing. Pretty impressive I must say, I might end up using ESET for longer period of time simply due to its lightness. [/QUOTE]

Verification