Small Footprint Antivirus

W

WintersFury

Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
555
Hey guys,

I'm currently using AVG on my laptop and recently re-installed Vista and used it for a bit before putting the antivirus on and after I put it on the computer feels a fair bit slower.

So what are some good programs that are a bit more lightweight?

I've heard good things about both Avast! and Nod32 with people generally saying that Nod32 is a bit faster than Avast!


Though I'd like opins from some other people that just reading random reviews on newegg and sites on the web that I know little to nothing about. Thanks!
 
I heard Nod32 is suppose to be pretty lightweight. Avast is good but its not that light.

I use the free Avira. Has 2 processes that take up around 15MB memory total. But the free one comes up with a window that shows features of the paid one every time it updates. Doesn't really bother me.
 
NOD32 is a LOT faster than Avast, Avast is pretty decent, but it's a bit on the heavy side. Much better detection than AVG though, AVG is heavy, and not good in detection.

AntiVir (Avira) is very light.

Current versions of NOD32 weight in at 44 megs, but low CPU utilization...you don't feel it much. Prior version 2.7 is wicked light.

Much as everyone including me ragged on Norton antivirus for bogging down PCs for the past several years, they actually got it right with the current 2009 version..it weights in at UNDER 8 megs. VERY light on your system.
 
I'm less worried about memory footprint and more about how much it bogs down my CPU / HDD.

We use symantec (norton) where I work and at least the version we run bogs down systems quite a bit in both cpu usage and especially disk usage.


So I'm thinking that Nod32 may be what to go for as everything seems to point to it bogging down cpu / disk IO the least.
 
Tbird87 said:
I heard Nod32 is suppose to be pretty lightweight. Avast is good but its not that light.

I use the free Avira. Has 2 processes that take up around 15MB memory total. But the free one comes up with a window that shows features of the paid one every time it updates. Doesn't really bother me.
Click to expand...

The update annoyance can easily be turned off with a simple google search and a minute of your spare time. But yes, I use Avira on my old X31 laptop and notice no slowdowns because of it unless I am doing a full system scan of course.
 
I currently use NOD32 and don't even know it's on through gaming, graphics, ripping, whatever. The only time something happens is if it detects something (or if it updates, but you can turn that off). You might be able to find it cheaper than normal. Newegg will run it for $20 every now and then.

If I were going free, I'd have to look real close at Avira.
 
I went from AVG to Avira and haven't looked back.

You're going to want the free version, then do the simple trick to disable a weekly ad.
 
I was (and still am, to some degree) a supporter of Eset and NOD32, but lately for my own machine I've been trying out Avira (www.free-av.com) and I'm "happy" with the results, especially under Windows 7. It's light, fairly quick, updates fairly regularly, and seems to get the job done without much if any intervention on my part. As it's totally free, as it's now got malware/spyware protection as well, it has earned my recommendation for a free AV solution.

I still recommend Eset Smart Security for a paid "suite"-style product, however.
 
Joe Average said:
I was (and still am, to some degree) a supporter of Eset and NOD32, but lately for my own machine I've been trying out Avira (www.free-av.com) and I'm "happy" with the results, especially under Windows 7. It's light, fairly quick, updates fairly regularly, and seems to get the job done without much if any intervention on my part. As it's totally free, as it's now got malware/spyware protection as well, it has earned my recommendation for a free AV solution.

I still recommend Eset Smart Security for a paid "suite"-style product, however.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother with the security suite...you're getting a poor firewall anyway. Just spend the money on a quality AV and download Commodo firewall (just tick the firewall option only when installing) or OnlineArmor Free.
 
Another vote for Avira + Windows Firewall. Should be plenty especially if you have a broadband router providing NAT.
 
Avira is lighter than NOD32, but NOD32 is still good.

Avira for home use, NOD32 for business. (Actually, I'd use Avira for both, but you can't use Avira free for business, and they didn't respond to my emails about purchasing it at work, whereas Eset and the reseller they recommended were very fast and helpful, so Avira lost a sale there)
 
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but here it is anyway.

Norton 2009. A customer of mine had it on her computer and I was quite impressed with how light it was compared to previous version I'd encountered. I don't know how it compares to Avira or Nod32 (I use Avira on all my machines), but for the first time in forever you could not tell Norton was installed on the system.
 
ryan_975 said:
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but here it is anyway.

Norton 2009. A customer of mine had it on her computer and I was quite impressed with how light it was compared to previous version I'd encountered. I don't know how it compares to Avira or Nod32 (I use Avira on all my machines), but for the first time in forever you could not tell Norton was installed on the system.
Click to expand...

It is lighter...it runs in at under 8 megs. NOD32 AV is 44 megs. Avira....I forget...I think it's high 20's.

Nobody was as big of a Norton basher than I've been over the past nearly 10 years..for having their software bog down your machine and make it feel like a Pentium 75 with 24 megs trying to run Windows XP. But Norton really...REALLY...did a HUGE changeup, their 2009 product has become the lightest out there for full protection. Detection is darned good too. Now if they'd improve their Corporate Edition...they'll be back in the game 100%.

I used to be a big reseller of Symantecs Corp Edition...going all the way back to version 5. Around version 8-9...I started looking elsewhere for a product with better detection..and landed with Eset....I've been a Gold Partner for years. Totally stopped reselling any Symantec Corp Edition to my clients with their bloated version 10.

Good to see them get back in the game.
 
CableDude said:
I have Avira checking in at ~ 39 megs right now.

Avguard ~37 MB
Avgnt ~ 1.6 MB

:D
Click to expand...

That's interesting, avguard is taking up 16.3 MB and avwebgrd is taking up 6 and the other minor processes for updates/scheduler takes up 1.
 
Avira is light, fast and way too sensitive.

With the heuristic detection at the lowest setting, other than off, it will still flag an annoying number of files. Files that test clean with Panda Active Scan, Kaspersky Labs free online scanner and AVG.

Don't get me wrong, it's what I use for my day to day active protection. It's just a little hyperactive.
 
I don't have that problem on the medium setting. In fact, I think NOD32 is worse if not just for catching Blocktrix (Tetrinet-based game).
 
Nod32 2.7 used to be my favorite but it kept making my computer go nuts in vista I think the search indexer would give it problems.

I tried nod32 3 and it was okay... but it wasn't quite the same as the 2.7 I knew before and often caused my CPU to spike as it scanned something strange like scan every single file of a install so it would take forever to install.

I tried Avira for a few days before my laptop's drive went POOF and it was actually quite pleasant.

I wonder how they all compare, tempted to try Kaspersky again I don't really care about ram use I just don't want it to lag me... I want low CPU use so I can cruise in power save mode.
 
Last edited:
ARom said:
I went from AVG to Avira and haven't looked back.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No freaking update problems with Antivir. AVG would systematically fail to update (manually as well) after a few months of use. Antivir is lighter and one of the highest performing free anti virus programs (actually I think it's the highest, at least in the tests I've seen).

And to add:

avgnt.exe - 1,464K
avguard.exe - 8,616K

With 4GB of RAM, ~10MB is negligible.
 
For shits and giggles I decided to try NIS 2009, and the memory usage is much, much lower when compared to old Symantec products (6MB). Since I have to protect multiple machines, it's more cost-effective for me to just get Norton licenses since each one is usable on 3 PCs in the same household. I had switched my desktop from ESET SS to Avira Premium Suite because of SS missing a bunch of detections. Avira's been great, and version 9.0 has improved things a great deal, but the cost-performance ratio just isn't there. I'm thinking I'll just give Norton 2009 a shot and if it sucks, I'll just reup my Avira license and get licenses for my other PCs.

But NOD32/ESET Smart Security, Avira and Norton 09 all have great memory utilization.
 
m0unds said:
For shits and giggles I decided to try NIS 2009, and the memory usage is much, much lower when compared to old Symantec products (6MB). Since I have to protect multiple machines, it's more cost-effective for me to just get Norton licenses since each one is usable on 3 PCs in the same household. I had switched my desktop from ESET SS to Avira Premium Suite because of SS missing a bunch of detections. Avira's been great, and version 9.0 has improved things a great deal, but the cost-performance ratio just isn't there. I'm thinking I'll just give Norton 2009 a shot and if it sucks, I'll just reup my Avira license and get licenses for my other PCs.

But NOD32/ESET Smart Security, Avira and Norton 09 all have great memory utilization.
Click to expand...

As much as i hate to say it, Symantec's Norton Antivirus 2009 is great. They completely redeveloped it from the ground up and it shows. I guess customer feedback does eventually reach exec's.
 
Hmm, I have noticed Avira taking way more lately. Maybe due to an update? Around 30MB from avguard now.
 
dandragonrage said:
You could just use Avira free.
Click to expand...

x2 for Avira. I mainly use Windows for gaming and have it installed on my notebook (MacBook Pro running Windows 7 x64 build 7068). I just wanted something that would keep me safe, would rarely ever bother me, and has a light footprint (takes up very little system resources). Definitely go for Avira.


dandragonrage said:
Hmm, I have noticed Avira taking way more lately. Maybe due to an update? Around 30MB from avguard now.
Click to expand...

Something might not be right there. I've got Avira 9 installed and I'm seeing avguard using 11MB.
 
ESET GUI runs at 1,400K . doesn't bog my laptop at all. I highly recommend it, best detection you can buy.
 
I used to use NOD32 but then it crashed my computer. It was a known issue, but I wasn't able to find a workaround for it, so I just disabled it. I was pretty steamed because I don't like paying for software I can't use. I use avira and I love it.
 
jubalskeiki said:
I used to use NOD32 but then it crashed my computer. It was a known issue, but I wasn't able to find a workaround for it, so I just disabled it. I was pretty steamed because I don't like paying for software I can't use. I use avira and I love it.
Click to expand...

What version of NOD? And what is this so called "known issue"?
 
The new free release of Panda Cloud is supposed to have an extremely small footprint and low resource usage.

Haven't used it myself.
 
Menelmarar said:
The new free release of Panda Cloud is supposed to have an extremely small footprint and low resource usage.

Haven't used it myself.
Click to expand...

I can make a program with even lower footprint/resource usage. Doesn't mean it's going to detect viruses ;)
 
I've actually been very impressed with Norton 2009. It's very light on resources and detection from what I've seen is top notch.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Much as everyone including me ragged on Norton antivirus for bogging down PCs for the past several years, they actually got it right with the current 2009 version..it weights in at UNDER 8 megs. VERY light on your system.
Click to expand...

As long as you aren't running on a system that has apps consuming a lot of kernel page pool. Its a kernel page pool hog compared to most (the installable file system driver claims a 70 MB buffer in the kernel page pool, part of why it shows little usage in taskman, kernel page pool isn't attributed to the app that owns it...).

Shouldn't be a problem in most configurations on 32-bit OSs (350 MB of kernel page pool total) and definitely not on x64 (128 GB of kernel page pool total), but if you are running it on a 32-bit box with /3GB enabled in boot.ini (kernel page pool chopped down to 243 MB) and an app using a lot of kernel page pool, well, its a bit of a pain.

Not likely for a home user though...
 
Norton has actually been steadily improving since the 07/08 version, it wasn't an instant turn-around with the '09 version... Though that's where they made the largest strides and publicized it more. '05-06 were really the biggest pigs that just completely whored your machine, but it's been better since then. Frankly even though 09 takes less memory than '08 and has a couple nice UI tweaks and refinements, I don't notice any performance difference between it and '08 (my systems are running a mix of both, since I get 3 licenses w/each purchase).

Oh and yeah, I've been buying it as far back as the 2000 versions (when they were just version numbers I think, not years), though I've ran screaming from it a few times ('05-07... 07 wasn't that bad but uninstalling/re-installing was a PITA). Even that, installing it and uninstalling it, has improved tremendously with '09, it's actually surprisingly quick about it now (AVG probably takes longer). I haven't had a single update issue since the '08 versions either, whereas I've encountered constant issues w/AVG updates on client's computers... Gonna have to look into one of the alternatives.

One of the stupidest AVG issues I ran into was the program constantly complaining definitions were out of date because the system date was wrong, ffs, shouldn't it check the servers for the date, not the system? That's gotta be a security hole on top of being an annoyance to an oblivious user (or someone whose CMOS battery has died).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top