cosmos

Level 1
What I mean is how much faster or slower do you "feel" your system is with cloud free (vanilla options), compared to a windows defender installation on the same system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDE_Server

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
Andy Ful is our Windows Defender expert and the creator of ConfigureDefender, Hard_Configurator so I'll just share what he wrote in another thread regarding WD performance. Of course the experience may vary from user to user but this is a very accurate summary.
WD has amazing performance results for most of daily activities:
Bootup time, application startup time (already installed), CPU usage / Memory usage / Physical disk usage / Network usage (on idle), web browsing, document viewing/editing, gaming, playing/ watching media.

WD has below average performance for file management (copying/moving many files), making archives/backups of many files, opening folders with many executables (first time after reboot), installing/uninstalling complex applications, full scans. These activities are not performed frequently, so they are not so important for many users. For example, making a full scan is required only after being infected.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 36
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Used both on the Dell Inspiron 570 MT(D005744) of my parents.
It has an AMD Athlon X2 240, 2GB of ram and a 320GB HDD.
Very underpowered by today's standards.
Kaspersky was unworkable for me, but the system is still running Windows 10 1909 with Windows Defender set to high by ConfigureDefender and the commended settings of Hard_Configurator. Boot and program launches are slow, but when they are running there is absolutely no issue anymore. I would suggest you try them both (KSC Free and WD) each for a week and see what works best for you.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
Looking mainly for usage on underpowered systems. Best case are i3/i5 laptops, with up to 3rd/4th gen CPUs.

@SeriousHoax thanks for the information.
My laptop has a i5-5200U with two cores so not a very powerful one and WD runs very well for day to day activities.
Kaspersky isn't heavy but it slows my PC down a bit after windows bootup for a minute or two and it almost always uses 1% CPU even when idle but that's not really an issue and I think this is due to System Watcher and its rollback feature. This is for KIS btw as I haven't tried KSC free in a while.
 

cosmos

Level 1
I use an i3 laptop 8th Gen + HDD. I don't copy loads of files. WD runs fine. K did too when I tried it.
Used both on the Dell Inspiron 570 MT(D005744) of my parents.
It has an AMD Athlon X2 240, 2GB of ram and a 320GB HDD.
Very underpowered by today's standards.
Kaspersky was unworkable for me, but the system is still running Windows 10 1909 with Windows Defender set to high by ConfigureDefender and the commended settings of Hard_Configurator. Boot and program launches are slow, but when they are running there is absolutely no issue anymore. I would suggest you try them both (KSC Free and WD) each for a week and see what works best for you.
Just the type of hands-on experience I was looking for, much appreciated :)
 
Looking mainly for usage on underpowered systems. Best case are i3/i5 laptops, with up to 3rd/4th gen CPUs.

@SeriousHoax thanks for the information.

@SeriousHoax 's i5 5200U is a low-powered 5th Generation Intel CPU.

If you are looking for performance on 3rd and 4th gen Intel CPUs, then the results reported here in this thread won't apply.

On those families of Intel CPUs, both WD and Kaspersky will run slowly. Back then, the RAM was like 2 - 4 GB on entry-level systems. And they were still using HDDs for entry level. You'd have to get into a 4th Gen i7 4720HQ or equivalent, with 12 GB RAM and SSD for either Kaspersky or WD to be un-bothersome.

I know you are trying to be efficient and get a blanket answer, but the fact of the matter is that it is going to vary based upon the hardware as well as the OS.
 

cosmos

Level 1
Nope, in the latter cases I'd have to prioritize performance, losing scanning efficiency obviously.

What could one use in th that scenario?
 
Nope, in the latter cases I'd have to prioritize performance, losing scanning efficiency obviously.

What could one use in th that scenario?

First thing you have to start with is the OS that is installed. That will be your first limiter. Next will be the hardware.

On a lot of older hardware, W10 is blocked by MS from installing - which means you won't have WD as an option. And everybody who has been push Windows Defender here is talking about Windows Defender on W10.

There's nothing out there that meets your initial criteria made to work on low-capacity hardware, except for maybe Cylance - which is paid.

I would test WisVector since it is free.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

Looking mainly for usage on underpowered systems. Best case are i3/i5 laptops, with up to 3rd/4th gen CPUs.
One of my laptops is an i3-32030/6gb RAM, WD was ok, and i rather use it with WD than any 3rd party AVs.
However, now it run Linux MX18, which is way more safer and lighter than any Windows. It doesn't need any AV, i slightly hardened it with AppArmor and Firejail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harlan4096

cosmos

Level 1
First thing you have to start with is the OS that is installed. That will be your first limiter. Next will be the hardware.
Definitely!

On a lot of older hardware, W10 is blocked by MS from installing - which means you won't have WD as an option. And everybody who has been push Windows Defender here is talking about Windows Defender on W10.
Even though I'm writing this on my Ryzen desktop pc, in the morning I read your posts and replied using an Atom Z-based Dell tablet. Had W8, upgraded to W10. Also have a 7-year old Celeron netbook, "revived" back to life by the graces of a small SSD, on which I have webroot installed.

I would test WisVector since it is free.
Is this a released thing? Can it be used without a AV alongside? Do you trust it (Chinese startup company and the like)

[/QUOTE]
One of my laptops is an i3-32030/6gb RAM, WD was ok, and i rather use it with WD than any 3rd party AVs.
However, now it run Linux MX18, which is way more safer and lighter than any Windows. It doesn't need any AV, i slightly hardened it with AppArmor and Firejail.

A small number of friends did that. Most can't due to the need for gaming etc. I'd agree with safer btw, not necessarily with lighter (graphics in mind).
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

A small number of friends did that. Most can't due to the need for gaming etc.
When i was an Hardcore Gamer, i had a dedicated gaming rig , only games and required softs to communicate with my teammates, i did nothing sensitive on it.

I'd agree with safer btw, not necessarily with lighter (graphics in mind).
MX runs XFCE which is the lightest desktop available on Linux. you don't need a dedicated graphic card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harlan4096
Top