Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="insanity" data-source="post: 889421" data-attributes="member: 55995">I&#039;m probably going to disagree with most of the comments here. In my experience, WD is far from being the best AV when it comes to system resources. It&#039;s actually quite heavy and the impact is noticeable when you run WD on older hardware or low specs machines. There are other AVs that perform much better (like ESET, for instance)I somewhat agree with your statements, but here&#039;s the point: the real quality of a security product is seen when it is capable of running light in a mid range (or even low specs) machine. An antivirus being fast in a computer with plenty of system resources is not an achievement, it&#039;s almost like an obligation. The most efficient AVs are those which manage to do more with less. If your computer have a decent CPU, plenty of RAM and a SSD, running fast is what you should expect from any AV. Such scenario doesn&#039;t really tell very much about how good an AV can be.Here where I live,&nbsp; most low specs and even mid range PCs still come with only a hard disk. In my experience, running Windows Defender in a computer with a hard disk is a pretty bad idea. Windows Defender has a serious problem with disk usage during on-access/background scans or signature updates. Disk usage routinely spikes to 100%. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and they have been offering Windows 10 to users since 2015 (including free upgrade for older PCs). They should have come up with a solution to alleviate this problem, instead of focusing on spying on their users or pushing their useless UWP/Cortana/live tiles etc. &quot;Unrealistic expectations&quot; shouldn&#039;t be an excuse when other AVs have been performing better in this aspect. As I said before, if an AV is fast only when running on fast hardware, then this program is anything but lightweight software.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="insanity, post: 889421, member: 55995"] I'm probably going to disagree with most of the comments here. In my experience, WD is far from being the best AV when it comes to system resources. It's actually quite heavy and the impact is noticeable when you run WD on older hardware or low specs machines. There are other AVs that perform much better (like ESET, for instance) I somewhat agree with your statements, but here's the point: the real quality of a security product is seen when it is capable of running light in a mid range (or even low specs) machine. An antivirus being fast in a computer with plenty of system resources is not an achievement, it's almost like an obligation. The most efficient AVs are those which manage to do more with less. If your computer have a decent CPU, plenty of RAM and a SSD, running fast is what you should expect from any AV. Such scenario doesn't really tell very much about how good an AV can be. Here where I live, most low specs and even mid range PCs still come with only a hard disk. In my experience, running Windows Defender in a computer with a hard disk is a pretty bad idea. Windows Defender has a serious problem with disk usage during on-access/background scans or signature updates. Disk usage routinely spikes to 100%. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and they have been offering Windows 10 to users since 2015 (including free upgrade for older PCs). They should have come up with a solution to alleviate this problem, instead of focusing on spying on their users or pushing their useless UWP/Cortana/live tiles etc. "Unrealistic expectations" shouldn't be an excuse when other AVs have been performing better in this aspect. As I said before, if an AV is fast only when running on fast hardware, then this program is anything but lightweight software. [/QUOTE]

Verification