Annoyances.org
Home » Windows 2000 Discussion Forum » Message 1200773023 Search | Help | Home
  
re: A good, low resource, virus scanner
Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by C K (5974 messages posted)


The virus scanners have been pretty well covered, but I use one from www.free-av.com.. 
 It has had pretty good reviews for the past several years now.  (I've used it for 
about 4 with no problems)  on many systems and recommend it to my customers.  It's 
a little lighter on resource use then any of the precious mentioned and has a good 
feature set.  They aslo have a paid suite that isn't bad if you want to intigrate 
a FW.  I use AVG for Win 98 as Win 9X support is all but disappearing from most and 
eventually all scanners.

As for 10 gig being enough HDD space?  That all depends on how you use your system 
and how you store your data, plus what programs you have loaded.  Ten gig may be 
enough for most  users, but not enough depending on other factors in your system. 
 For instance, defragging may take a lot longer the larger the drives capacity or 
if you get  under about 30% free space (even though MS may state 10%), depending 
on the size files stored on the drive.

Overall there are many factors that could be effecting your speed.  Hard to tell 
from a form..  :-(

BTW, the lastest version of Norton is better than previous "hog" versions of Norton 
as it has been competely rewritten, but is still not a good choice IME.





On Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 3:15 am, 2000_man wrote:
>I've been wading through all of the reviews I can find on the current gen virus scanners
>and still can't reach a decision on which one to use. In most of the reviews I've
>read BitDefender is currently top ranked with Mcafee and Norton/Symantec in the top
>three or four. Now, I've tried both BitDefender Total Security 2008 and Norton 2005
>(which is problematic because I can't get it to update) and both seem like insane
>resource hogs. I'd just like some input on was seems to work well for you guys
>- providing good protection (I'm frequently on a friend's network and his computer
>is riddled with viruses) without completely devouring resources.
>
>
>
>



Written in response to:
A good, low resource, virus scanner (2000_man: Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 3:15 am)

Responses to this message:
*re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (2000_man: Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 12:48 pm)

All messages in this thread [show all]
-A good, low resource, virus scanner (2000_man: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 3:15 am)
-re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (Deb: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 6:09 am)
*re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (DEX: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 7:34 am)
*re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (Jim O'Calaghan: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 9:04 am)
-re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (C K: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 12:03 pm)
-re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (2000_man: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 12:48 pm)
-re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (C K: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 1:58 pm)
-re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (2000_man: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 7:10 pm)
*re: A good, low resource, virus scanner (C K: Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 7:20 pm)
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum

All content at Annoyances.org is Copyright © 1995-2008 Creative Elementtm All rights reserved.
Please do not plagiarize; redistributing these pages without permission is strictly prohibited.