Not the Usual Anti-Virus Discussion

Bronco Leonard · 23 May 2012

I'm using Windows 7 Pro 32 bit with Kaspersky Internet Security. For various reasons, I view Kaspersky as at least as good as any of the mainstream commercial software packages. I switched from Norton a few years ago because I was unhappy with the degree to which it bogged down my system. I now find myself in the same situation with Kaspersky.

I'm satisfied with Kaspersky's performance, but I'm wondering if the price I'm paying for protection is too much: a significant slowdown in e-mail, internet, and sometimes even general general computing tasks. It's frustrating to pay for things like broadband and SSD's only to have their speed advantages negated by the protection software. have we all been frightened into using more protection than we really need?

This is a difficult discussion because not everyone will agree about how much protection is enough, and not everyone will experience the same degree of slowdown (or have the same level of tolerance toward it). Nevertheless, I ask the following questions:

Does the average user need a full protection suite as mentioned above?

Are there alternatives to these programs that give acceptable protection with a much smaller resource footprint?

Is MS Security Essentials adequate for general computer protection?

Can Kaspersky (or any of the other big names) be modified or limited in order to speed things back up without compromising the protection they offer?

richc46 · 23 May 2012

Welcome
Your question requires a subjective answer and here is mine. I truly feel that my protection is at leas as good as the so called paid Suites.
I have Avast (testing now, previously had MSE), the Windows Firewall, Free Malwarebyts and a free program that warns you of any changes, authorized or not, Win Patrol.
BillP Studios - WinPatrol 2012
I seem to like Avast over Security Essentials. It has a smaller footprint, checks email in and out, has real time streaming and is customizable. The choice is yours. I think, however, that you can do better than pay for the protection that you need.

seavixen32 · 23 May 2012

As Rich says, all answers are subjective, but since I've been using Windows 7 I've used Microsoft Security Essentials and Malwarebytes.

MSE is much improved since it was launched to replace Microsoft Live Onecare and I've been happy with it as it has kept my computer virus-free.

Admittedly, I'm very choosy as to what I download and what sites I visit, but for free software I think MSE is pretty good.

Sir George · 23 May 2012

Bronco Leonard said:

I'm using Windows 7 Pro 32 bit with Kaspersky Internet Security. For various reasons, I view Kaspersky as at least as good as any of the mainstream commercial software packages. I switched from Norton a few years ago because I was unhappy with the degree to which it bogged down my system. I now find myself in the same situation with Kaspersky.

I'm satisfied with Kaspersky's performance, but I'm wondering if the price I'm paying for protection is too much: a significant slowdown in e-mail, internet, and sometimes even general general computing tasks. It's frustrating to pay for things like broadband and SSD's only to have their speed advantages negated by the protection software. have we all been frightened into using more protection than we really need?

This is a difficult discussion because not everyone will agree about how much protection is enough, and not everyone will experience the same degree of slowdown (or have the same level of tolerance toward it). Nevertheless, I ask the following questions:

Does the average user need a full protection suite as mentioned above?

Are there alternatives to these programs that give acceptable protection with a much smaller resource footprint?

Is MS Security Essentials adequate for general computer protection?

Can Kaspersky (or any of the other big names) be modified or limited in order to speed things back up without compromising the protection they offer?

I have used several AV programs throughout the years and recently installed Kaspersky on 2 systems. Both systems displayed symptoms of unacceptable behavior afterwards. I have since unintalled, which was problematic on one of the systems. I have used and been satisified with Avira Antivir and MSE.

Just my .02 cents.

elstupido · 23 May 2012

Pick the lightest A/V you can find, and then add Sandboxie.

Worry no more my friend.

Golden · 23 May 2012

Hi,

Its an interesting discussion, and as alluded to the answers are quite subjective. I think the "suites" do an excellent job, but as you have experienced it comes at a price, usually a bit more hogging of the system. There are good alternatives already mentioned here, specifically MSE and Avast, which have excellent reputations, and for the average user this is more than good enough.

An additional important consideration is to adopt a layered approach to security. For example : you might have MSE as you primary resident anti-malware software, but also keep a second option (usually not real-time protection, but not exclsuively so) handy that you would run occasional scans with. The principle here is that a single anti-malware product cannot catch everything out there (despite them having you believe that it can), and that the second product might - its no guarantee, but you improve the probability in your favour.

Kaspersky could probably be tweaked with its own settings in an attempt to reduce you hogging you see, but you will only know for sure by experimenting with these settings on a trial and error basis.

You haven't asked specifically for examples, and I'm loath to include it here as it tends to end in a flood of suggestions, but my own smaller footprint system is:

MSE (resident)
Malwarebytes (resident)
WinPatrol
Occasional scans using ESET on-line scanner

Regards,
Golden

DBone · 23 May 2012

elstupido said:

Pick the lightest A/V you can find, and then add Sandboxie.

Worry no more my friend.

Couldn't have said it better myself! For me, the lightest AV that I could find is none at all.

richc46 · 23 May 2012

Sandboxie does cost money to have, and not that easy to use for beginners.

wanchoo · 24 May 2012

AutoSandbox comes integrated with Avast! Free A-V. That said OP should please indicate whether he uses the computer for personal, business or other use.

If for personal use the degree of security needed is not that great especially if he keeps back up images. In my case I use Avast! Free A-V, Malwarebytes that I run once in a way and Comodo Firewall for personal use and I have never suffered a crippling virus attack in over a decade. I understand that MSE is as good as Avast! Free A-V but I have not used it and is I think without the AutoSandbox.

The main thing for personal use to look for is a program which is not a resource hog. I have therefore used McAfee, Norton, ZASS, Kaspersky and many other A-Vs and then abandoned them all for their resource-hogging.

DBone · 24 May 2012

richc46 said:

Sandboxie does cost money to have, and not that easy to use for beginners.

It comes in both free and paid versions. The free version is just as robust as the paid version, but lacks a few features such as always starting a particular browser in the sandbox. The paid version is a lifetime license, so it's a one time purchase for a very reasonable price, and you "own" the software forever. Also, there are many good tutorials on YouTube that would help even the newest computer user to use sandboxie.