Kaspersky Internet Security Review (Level 4-Good)

[Chromatinfish 123]

Kaspersky Internet Security 2014 is a product made by Kaspersky Lab and costs $79.99 for a license. I am currently improving my product review system, I'm adding a performance category. My ESET review will be updated ASAP.

User Interface (5 points)
Kaspersky's interface is a metro-like interface, but it heavily relies on a back button, which makes it very hard to navigate (-2 points). The only interface I found worse than Kaspersky's was Bitdefender Internet Security and Norton Internet Security. The UI froze up when I was testing (-1 point), and the UI takes forever to start up (-1 point). Kaspersky really needs to go back to the drawing board with the Interface! User Interface: 2 out of 5 points

Malware Prevention (10 points)
Kaspersky ultimately does excellent in Malware Prevention. It has a record of ADVANCED and ADVANCED+ awards, AV-Test Certifications, and VB100 awards. Dennis Technology Labs rates it at 300, the top score. There's nothing bad to say about Kaspersky's Malware Prevention. I've yet to see a user complaining about bad prevention from Kaspersky. Malware Prevention: 10 out of 10 points

Malware Detection (8 points)
Again, Kaspersky is great at this. It's a straight-forward antivirus and does very well in tests. Kaspersky doesn't do too bad in MT tests, although it isn't perfect. Kaspersky PUP detection is either not there or horrible, didn't detect any Conduit or Ask Toolbar I installed purposely for the test (-1 point). Overall, it's great, however. Malware Detection: 7 out of 8 points

Performance (8 points)

This category is a newbie. Kaspersky is pretty bad when it comes to performance, and performance is pretty important when satisfying users! What's the use of an antivirus if it makes the computer as slow as there is a virus! It's better than Norton Internet Security though. It takes 5 whole minutes to start up (-2 points) and drastically slows down bootup time (-1 point). Thunderbird also slowed down when Kaspersky Anti-Spam was on (-1 point). Performance: 4 out of 8 points

Total Points Possible: 31 points
Points Earned: 23 points

Levels:
Dismal: 0-6 points
Poor: 7-10 points
Fair: 11-16 points
Good: 17-22 points
Very Good: 23-27 points
Chromatinfish's Choice: 28-31 points


Thanks for surviving this review

 

[cooldoctor2007]

Do a review for the 2015 version too

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

Do a review for the 2015 version too

Haven't tried that yet, will get to it.
Reviews Coming Up:
ESET Smart Security 7
Lavasoft Ad-Aware Pro
Bitdefender Total Security 2014 or 2015
Norton Internet Security 2014
Norton Security Beta 2015
Stay Tuned

 

[cooldoctor2007]

And for Bitdefender 2015 version please, because thats the one i use.

 

[illumination]

These types of reviews, it would be helpful to know what OS they are reviewed on and if in a virtual environment, as these two things will make a difference, not to mention all of these programs run differently on different hardware/OS's

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

These types of reviews, it would be helpful to know what OS they are reviewed on and if in a virtual environment, as these two things will make a difference, not to mention all of these programs run differently on different hardware/OS's

I do the performance, PUP, and User Interface on my laptop. My desktop for testing and virtual machine tests is down for quite a while, so I'm using data from testing labs and MalwareTips tests. I use data from:
-AV-Comparatives
-AV-Test (Sometimes)
-Dennis Tech Labs
-MT User Tests

 

[illumination]

I do the performance, PUP, and User Interface on my laptop. My desktop for testing and virtual machine tests is down for quite a while, so I'm using data from testing labs and MalwareTips tests. I use data from:
-AV-Comparatives
-AV-Test (Sometimes)
-Dennis Tech Labs
-MT User Tests

Sorry, i should have been more clear in my statement/question.. What operating systems, windows 7, windows 8, ect

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

Sorry, i should have been more clear in my statement/question.. What operating systems, windows 7, windows 8, ect

I use Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1 for regular testing
I use both Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1 and Windows XP x32 Standard SP3 for testing.

 

[illumination]

I use Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1 for regular testing
I use both Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1 and Windows XP x32 Standard SP3 for testing.

Thank you. The reason i asked, is that with windows 8, the performance issue is not even close to what it is on windows 7. It all will vary on different OS's.

 

[SoundJudgment]

"It's better than Norton Internet Security though. It takes 5 whole minutes to start up (-2 points) and drastically slows down bootup time (-1 point)."

with windows 8, the performance issue is not even close to what it is on windows 7. It all will vary on different OS's.

Agreed, but I was going to say that if Chrome's system takes an entire Five(5) minutes to start up with Norton IS... something is SERIOUSLY wrong with their system or setup.

 

[Neno]

Do you use palm calculator with Norton? Couse in my experience, Norton has lowest impact on system performance amongst all the AV software (including Webroot). People just troll a lot nowadays.

 

[SoundJudgment]

in my experience, Norton has lowest impact on system performance amongst all the AV software (including Webroot).

Agreed! Norton has done some amazing reconfiguration of their code in the last few years. It used to have the reputation of being a 'resource hog' on most PC systems. But as of the turn of this decade, all that has changed and Norton IS is now on the low end of system performance hits.

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

Do you use palm calculator with Norton? Couse in my experience, Norton has lowest impact on system performance amongst all the AV software (including Webroot). People just troll a lot nowadays.

For me, Norton had some serious UI spikes, however, I have to agree that it isn't the same for everybody

"It's better than Norton Internet Security though. It takes 5 whole minutes to start up (-2 points) and drastically slows down bootup time (-1 point)."


Agreed, but I was going to say that if Chrome's system takes an entire Five(5) minutes to start up with Norton IS... something is SERIOUSLY wrong with their system or setup.

I've tried it on 2 machines, on a 2008 Pentium laptop it took 5 minutes, on 2006-ish AMD desktop it took a whopping 20 minutes. Somebody should try it on newer machines though, I might try it when I finally fork over money for a new computer, I'm guessing that Kaspersky is better on new machines.

 

[GabiCRX]

Kaspersky is known for being a heavy antivirus.
It's like hungry man who gets in all you can eat buffet!
Better use GData,Emsisoft,Gomodo or Trend Micro!

 

[MrExplorer]

Kaspersky is known for being a heavy antivirus.
It's like hungry man who gets in all you can eat buffet!
Better use GData,Emsisoft,Gomodo or Trend Micro!

Try Kaspersky 2015 is too light & sometimes , Try Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9, you can see Ram usage nearly 500MB.

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

Try Kaspersky 2015 is too light & sometimes , Try Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9, you can see Ram usage nearly 500MB.

Yeah, Emsisoft is quite heavy. If you are only concerned about lightness try Webroot. It's the best for lightness,

 

[FleischmannTV]

Kaspersky is known for being a heavy antivirus.

On my computer the 2015 as well as the 2014 version (the latter once it reached a more refined level) are very light. I don't even notice they are there. Those who are saying Kaspersky is so heavy either haven't used it in a long time or their hardware in combination with their OS is struggling in general.

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

On my computer the 2015 as well as the 2014 version (the latter once it reached a more refined level) are very light. I don't even notice they are there. Those who are saying Kaspersky is so heavy either haven't used it in a long time or their hardware in combination with their OS is struggling in general.

I can't do anything but agree if I have a new computer. As you see from my above post, all my "newest" computers were from 2008 and below. My oldest active one was bought in around 2003.

 

[Mateotis]

It's actually very hard to find a good balance between detection/protection and performance. In order to be good at the former, it needs to keep lots of signatures/heuristic rules in the RAM, thus making its performance worse. Vica versa.

 

[Chromatinfish 123]

It's actually very hard to find a good balance between detection/protection and performance. In order to be good at the former, it needs to keep lots of signatures/heuristic rules in the RAM, thus making its performance worse. Vica versa.

Like I said in another post:

There's nothing that has both excellent protection, excellent prevention, excellent detection, excellent user interface, and few to no bugs.
There's kind of a tradeoff:

1. Pros= Bugs, and UI ; Cons=Detection, Prevention, Protection
2. Pros= Detection, Prevention, Protection; Cons=UI, bugs
3. Pros= Nothing; Cons= Everything
4. Pros= Detection, Prevention, Protection
...and so on