F

ForgottenSeer 823865

Very light? they use over 260 megabytes, thats as much as kaspersky and norton combined.
Lightness of an AV has nothing to do with RAM usage... it is even better if an AV uses lot of RAM, it means signatures are loaded in the RAM instead of the disk (hence reducing the various I/O) so the AV and the system will respond faster.

Some useless AVs tricks the average users by hiding their RAM usage, and people say "WOW it uses only 5mb of RAM!! awesome!!! best AV in the market 111!!!!!" ... poor people...
 

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
nonsense
see here:
That's not the real ram usage. Maybe few totally cloud dependent AV might use that much low ram. For checking the appropriate amount of ram usage use Process Explorer/Process Hacker and check the Working bytes, Private bytes section. Even those are not necessary, use Resource Monitor of windows it's even better for this. Open it, go to Memory section and check all the columns. Which column means what everything is very nicely explained there. This would show you the more accurate amount of ram usage. Don't trust Task manager.
 

Raiden

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
Finally!

TBH I am both surprised and happy that Google actually did something good. I am also happy that Avast is finally being put on notice, for their stupidity. Avast was (key word was) a great company, but they have strayed so far from that, that I can no longer recommend them to anyone. Theres absolutely no need for this, especially from a security company. The sad, but ironic part in all of this is that they are probably not alone in this, a, and b, most of these companies constantly promote how good they are protecting your privacy from hackers, yet they do the same thing.

As to whether this will impact their userbase. it will probably be a yes and no answer. Yes they will lose customers, but you can't argue with free and the vast majority of their userbase is just there for the free version. So I'm sure Avast will come out with some sob story of how they are sorry, AGAIN, and things will continue as they do, sadly.
 

plat1098

Level 21
Verified
Yes, "lightness" I associate with the cpu horsepower and how optimized the real time components are in utilizing the cpu. Weaker cpus in conjunction with a lot of installed software and an hdd are going to make the exact same antivirus seem "heavy" relative to someone else with an i9 and SSD. On the other hand, there's only so much memory a program can/will use, unless there's a leak somewhere.
 
B

BVLon

I recall that a few years back, Avast also was accused of collecting data through its chrome extension. But in those days I was not into security like nowadays, so maybe I am confusing Avast with another security company. Can some of the seasoned members provide some insights on this. Am I imaging something or is this the second Avast is caught with their hand in the cookie jar?
It was AVG, which is now part of Avast. They clearly announced that in their privacy policy. Rumors were surrounding TrenMicro and Kaspersky as well.
Kaspersky reacted by opening a transparency centre and moving some core operations to Switzerland. Allegations towards Trend were proven.
360 was also known with data collection used for advertising purposes.
Avast has always done it, regardless of when it's been uncovered.
I have always commented how quickly the company actually grew up from a basic antivirus with the interface of a car audio player to a top-notch solutions provider. Company is mostly known with their free product. If you don't pay for the software, you'll pay with your data.

Very light? they use over 260 megabytes, thats as much as kaspersky and norton combined.
They cleverly combined the best of AVG with the best from Avast... they still can't beat the competition and I still don't like or recommend.
It's not too light. With few exceptions, all av's got the same impact and the AVG-Avast duo is no different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top