Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
Old Kaspersky vs New ESET ?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dex4Sure" data-source="post: 851762" data-attributes="member: 79841"><p>Well ironically, one of the only reasons to consider 3rd party AV is performance. Eset for instance is lighter than Windows Defender. Its not about security (at least for me) cause I'd have trouble getting infected even if I did not run any AV. </p><p></p><p>As I said before, WD has some real problems with file transfer speeds. It attempts to scan every single file you're transferring and I see close to half of my SSD being used by WD and up to 25% of CPU used by WD whenever I do larger file transfers, like moving around large games from one Steam folder to another. In contrast, Eset was using less than 1% of my CPU and barely using the SSD at all during exact same file transfer I did just to test it.</p><p></p><p>This could be a major reason to still use 3rd party AV especially if you're working with large files. You're getting massive performance penalty with WD.</p><p></p><p>But yeah I agree AV companies are in trouble its pretty obvious. WD is already enough for any normal user, and once they manage to sort out some of its shortcomings and make the scanner more efficient, there will be no room left for 3rd party AVs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dex4Sure, post: 851762, member: 79841"] Well ironically, one of the only reasons to consider 3rd party AV is performance. Eset for instance is lighter than Windows Defender. Its not about security (at least for me) cause I'd have trouble getting infected even if I did not run any AV. As I said before, WD has some real problems with file transfer speeds. It attempts to scan every single file you're transferring and I see close to half of my SSD being used by WD and up to 25% of CPU used by WD whenever I do larger file transfers, like moving around large games from one Steam folder to another. In contrast, Eset was using less than 1% of my CPU and barely using the SSD at all during exact same file transfer I did just to test it. This could be a major reason to still use 3rd party AV especially if you're working with large files. You're getting massive performance penalty with WD. But yeah I agree AV companies are in trouble its pretty obvious. WD is already enough for any normal user, and once they manage to sort out some of its shortcomings and make the scanner more efficient, there will be no room left for 3rd party AVs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top