SweX

Link to my post: Link to the whole thread: Now when I pushed on the edit button to edit, no links visible now either. And the link that were supposed to go the whole thread was copied straight out of the adress bar in the browser. No links seen here after editing I guess: https://forum.eset.com/topic/330-eset-smart-security-7-beta-eset-nod32-antivirus-7-beta-released-%E2'>

Ok this is silly, I will now copy the link from your quote. and paste it right here: https://forum.eset.com/topic/330-eset-smart-security-7-beta-eset-nod32-antivirus-7-beta-released-%E2%80%93-give-feedback-and-win/page-9#entry2315 That worked now I will try again, by going to the thread and do it the right way by clicking on that posts nr and then copy. I bet it will work this time.

Yes I feel so lonely.... Nah I am doing some testing as I am not able to link to posts in the thread I posted above you in bold, or even the thread itself...for some reason.

Hehe, so I can't even link to the thread itself. So now for the admin to test...try to link to a post in this thread, or even the thread it self. I can't do any of them. ESET Smart Security 7 Beta & ESET NOD32 Antivirus 7 Beta Released – Give Feedback and win It's in the Beta section.

Right, the post I am trying to link to is post Nr #169 in this thread : https://forum.eset.com/topic/330-eset-smart-security-7-beta-eset-nod32-antivirus-7-beta-released-%E2'>

same link but in a new post... Do you see it: https://forum.eset.com/topic/330-eset-smart-security-7-beta-eset-nod32-antivirus-7-beta-released-%E2'>

that one worked now let's try another one... here is the lnik I was trying to link to before when it didn't work: OK there is the problem again I can't link to that particular post it seems.

and now I am testing some more... and here I post a link to the post above: https://forum.eset.com/topic/745-this-is-a-test-thread/?p=3579

just testing....

According to some users yes, but they don't know the reason behinde the higher than average RAM usage. That's why I keep explaining the reason over and over lol. IMO using the RAM is a good thing, not bad. BTW. Read this useful post by Fabian W from Emsisoft and you will get more details: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2257357&postcount=135

And here too: hxxp://www.eset.com/us/threat-center/threatsense-updates/

Here it is in English translated by Google Translate so take it for what it is.

Haha, no it's by designed, you should know about this being an ESET user for quite some time. Yah ive been on eset since ver 4 I just recently started to familiarize myself with security more, and had not in the past. Edit: Ok i feel we have borderline hijacked this post although its all related, this is my last Apologies Lonegeek810. I see no problem, but now you know anyway Hijacked or not, it was you that mentioned the "low on memory" so I just wanted to "correct" you on that and apparently ended up explaining a bit more about it

You're welcome. I agree and I surely don't complain! But you see, when people starts to compare Avast using 5-10MB or Webroot using 2-5MB. Then it's easy to say ESET is too "heavy" on my system it uses too much RAM. Well both you and I know that's not true. It's designed so everything engine, modules etc.. is loaded into the RAM to speed up the system performance (The RAM is faster than the HDD), and also to be low on CPU usage, and HDD I/O usage. So it doesn't use the disk as often as other AV's that might use less RAM but they can still cause a drag on the system because they reads/writes a lot more to/from the disk. I said I wouldn't explain this again but since I cannot copy links to my previous post I felt I needed to. So there you go

Haha, no it's by design, you should know about this being an ESET user for quite some time.

That is literally impossible lol. Well you need to look at the virtual mem usage too. Looking in the task manager at this very moment ekrn.exe -> Mem usage 80MB, Virtual Mem usage 98MB Sometimes the Mem usage can show 28, 50, 35MB(or whatever), BUT the virtual mem usage always stays around 85-95 MB as it should. FYI. ESS or NOD32 AV only doesn't matter as the engine is the same in both.

Hmmm not even in a new post can I include the link to a post I posted at this forum, so mods can delete this post as it serves no purpose

Correction, ESET is not low on memory using about 100MB (i am not complaining, only informing.) because everything is loaded into the RAM to speed up the system performance, etc etc.... sorry I have explained this so many times it's time for an ESET KB article about this. lol Like this time: Ehh supposed to be a link to a post here but it doesn't stay in place after editing, ah what a shame

I did that yesterday, it worked great.

You're welcome beethoven

That's good to know Marcos. Thanks.

Before you do so, I would wait to hear if ESET has implemented support for Mavericks in ECS.

Haha, same to you Sir. Yeah they could have tried the V7 Beta before changing vendors, I would not count this as a major issue as the rest of the product worked as expected. And since it came so unexpected out of the blue, but for me it's not too hard to pinpoint it down to one thing knowing that I had not done any Windows updates, driver updates installed/uninstalled any softwares. So that only leaves ESET as the only software that have received updates in terms of VSD's and module updates. So that's were we stand I guess

I hope ESET never goes that route, as having everything tightly integrated is one of ESET's stong parts if you ask me! If you want to get the full power out of Avast including their web protection, http scanner, url blocker etc, and on-access protection, behavior blocker, you pretty much need to installed the whole product anyway, so having the modules separated like that becomes less useful. And it's much easier for users to end up with a product that doesn't protect them as well as they think if they leave out the wrong modules. Besides I don't think Avast recommends users to install just 2 modules out how many they now got, and leave the rest out. All you do when leaving some of the shields out is that you will end up with a crippled product. Also, I don't think AV-C is testing Avast with just 2 "shields" and think "the rest of the shields is not important". They test the whole product as it is meant to be used. This turned into an Avast post, but it's not really about Avast, it's about that I don't like AV's that have their modules spread out all over the place. Or that you need to install a browser plugin to get web protection as some other vendors do, "the plugin is not compatible with that browser you will not get any web protection". Integrated is so much better in many ways, and that's a huge reason why I have stayed with ESET so many years. And I guess that's why I always post a long useless post like this when someone wants the modules to be separated. But if you actually like that, then all I can say is keep using Avast This is not a negative post about Avast and the level of protection they offer, it's way above average, its only that I am not a fan of their product design if you will. It might be good to say something else regarding your Beta question. Yes, Beta build 104 is stable IMO.

@KOR and Flew! I had the exact same problem, and I wanted to find out if I would see the error in the V7 Beta so I uninstalled V5 that I had the error with and made sure no drivers were left behind, and installed the latest Beta build (104) of V7, and FYI, THE FIREWALL ERROR IS GONE! So what ever it was that went wrong with maybe an VSD or Module update, the Firewall works OK in V7 now. I still have no idea why it started just like that. But since the three of us use Win XP SP3 the problem must be connected to XP SP3 somehow, maybe not SP3 but at least to XP. The service pack may not play a role at all but we don't know that as all of us use SP3.