Re: AV overhead

From: Catamount (Nope_at_notgonnaspam.me)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:04:42 -0500

Marc Hoffman wrote:
> We have see similar issues. Upon testing, this product seems to be the least
> "hoggish":
>
> http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=156
>
> It even works well under a emulated virtual machine (such as Microsoft
> Virtual PC).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> On 1/31/05 11:24 AM, in article eClUam7BFHA.1260@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
> "Syncme" <syncme@nojunk.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I was wondering what people use for their antivirus solutions. I find that
>>some of them are becoming more and more resource hogs and launcing more and
>>more services. Every time I get a new version the systems become slower. I
>>realize that there are more and more viruses out there but I wonder if there
>>are some that are more efficinetly written than others.
>>
>>Are there any comparisons with a kind of benchmarks/footprints on antivirus
>>software?
>>
>>Syncme
>>
>>
>
>
Where CA products may be less of a resource hog, their software is also
very unstable, I have found. AVG Antivirus is no memory hog, and its
free. Just as good as any AV software out there, cept its free. Free.
  Free. http://www.grisoft.com

Quantcast