Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Wishful thinking, no Win 10 system can touch my tweaked Win 7 system. With more iterations there is more bloat, telemetry and junk. Not to say I don't have Win 10 systems but no intention of ever upgrading the 7 boxes.
  2. thanks I believe you have the same access to the hips logs as well in older version i know you do in 7 and 4. I initially started this thread about alerts but it appears there is no quick fix. I know i can find out what is causing it with some debug tools but b/c i can't repeat the issue it would take a lot of effort to run and monitor these kernel debug tools so likely I will upgrade to v12 b/c of the resources improvements.
  3. I did a quick search and found some threads about it, what ever issues were reported are moot with the changes in v12 now. That is about about double what Marcos posted, still better than v7 which is promising. I wonder what the OS was Marcos was using. Also what type of hypervisor did he create the VM on and if that makes a difference for memory allocation. Thanks I'm familiar with this option in v7 as well but its not the for the HIPS/FW alerts, not sure what the formal name of the alert window is but the notification window near the tray can also be controlled in the
  4. That is impressive, you have convinced me to test v12, if I'm not mistaking and i'll have to check an old air gapped system running v4 but those numbers are close if not better than v4. Thanks for posting the info.
  5. You have peaked my interest, apparently v11 was a hog, perhaps v12 is improved. As you know egui was never really the issue its the erkn that is the hog and has gotten bigger with subsequent releases. What is the idle ram allocation of the two services for v12? Assume proxy egui and erkn are running? is there any other services running? I'm assuming if its checking UEFI there is no some overhead for boot times too. Again features not everyone will use or need. Smart compact and efficient protection is where ESET needs to focus going back to the older version philosophy that put i on the map co
  6. Still does not address the issue at hand. As long as Eset continues to provide updates it serves its purpose. If you ask me ESS4 is even better as its lighter on system resources. I'm not a novice user, don't need ransomware protection, all systems are backed up and imaged with disaster recovery options, interactive firewall with HIPS takes care of just about everything the new version covers including network attacks etc... I find as programs evolve they get more intrusive and heavier on system resources. Going from ESS4 to ESS7 proved just that as it uses more memory and I can only
  7. Can't create a video as the window is only open for a second or two max. I have no intention of upgrading from 7.x when it works fine. As i suspected there is no way to view the logs or change the notification timeout setting. Shame.
  8. I wish that was the case, its not. Is there a log somewhere i can view manually? This is quite irritating b/c the pop up is quite random.
  9. I get this smart security what I believe is a FW or HIPS alert that pops up asking me if i want to allow/deny b/c I have set interactive mode. The problem is the alert come up and only stays there for about 2 seconds before i can select any options or even reach for the screen shot keyboard. Looking at all the logs I don't even see where it shows up, I don't believe you can view any of the logs in the GUI that will display all the FW and HIPS alerts. Question: is there a way to make the window stay up longer. If not where can i find the logs that will tell me what was actually reported? I
  10. Interesting, on my systems win 7 x64 and x86 they are about 16MB after boot and slow climb up never exceeding 68MB. I'll test v7 with jumbo frames and if there are no firewall issues with it i'll do some memory and cpu analysis and post back here. thanks
  11. So like i suspected it does not directly affect system footprint, but rather help in improving scan times using "Cloud-powered scanning" when enabled. From what I have gathered the cpu/ram usage is the same between the different versions. The jumbo frame support is something I will test when I upgrade. Cheers
  12. I'm going on a limb here to say he meant something else but time will tell cheers
  13. I'm beginning to wonder the same thing about the responses? Comparisons of LiveGrid and Threatsense have been made inaccurately which I pointed out above, yet the claim made still has not been specifically answered. I'm the least bit interested in LiveGrid/Threatsense! I'm however interested in the claim made by the Marcos with respect to system footprint. It appears to me there is no clear answer b/c the claim is false. As i explained the same system updates used by v4,5,6,7 come from analysis sent to ESET by LiveGrid & Threatsense, so how is it that LiveGrid makes v7 of Eset lighter
  14. No, not only. One can also get real-time cloud detections from LiveGrid like when you execute a file. Like "Blocked object" , "Suspicious object" etc... So LiveGrid can come into play in real-time as well. What does real-time cloud detection have to do with the claim made by Marcos? If a system is segregated to the cloud again this becomes a moot point. In one respect evertime an executable is executed internet bandwith and a delay is accounted for to check against a cloud for the file hash. The delay and tradeoff between protection is a whole different topic on its own. Please
  • Create New...