Jump to content

ESET v7 - a resource hog


Super_Spartan

Recommended Posts

further to my complaints in the past and totally ditching my 3 year NOD32 license and switching to Webroot SecureAnywhere, this is just to prove that it's not just meh

 

Microsoft Security Essentials AKA Windows Defender doing the worst as usual (check the bottom of the chart)

Avast's detection has gone really bad these months

NOD32/ESET remains a resource hog after the update to v7

AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Jan/Feb 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm glad you found the product that works great for you.

 

 

On the other hand ESET 7 is working like a charm on my three PCs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

ESET v7 has worked like a charm for a vast majority of users who praise it for low system footprint compared to most of the competitors. Unfortunately, you refused to troubleshoot your issue so we were not given a chance to find out what was actually causing the performance drag in your case. I simply don't find it fair that you keep complaining here after you've already moved to another product and all our users are more than happy with v7 performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ESET v7 has worked like a charm for a vast majority of users who praise it for low system footprint compared to most of the competitors. Unfortunately, you refused to troubleshoot your issue so we were not given a chance to find out what was actually causing the performance drag in your case. I simply don't find it fair that you keep complaining here after you've already moved to another product and all our users are more than happy with v7 performance.

just wanted to make a point clear, because I do want to retrn to NOD32 once it becomes like it was in the past

 

Loved v2, v3, and v4....then v5 onwards, kept getting heavier and heavier but it was acceptable until v7...it was way too much

 

not the reason I made this thread, is I want your opinion, why did the performance test in the above link show poor performance? there must be something wrong. like seriously wrong when Kaspersky for example which is known to be one of the heaviest, and McAfee, get way better results.

 

what is the reason? there are many others tests that I've seen but this is the latest one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tweak Arena,

 

"...and switching to Webroot SecureAnywhere.."

 

Can you point, please, in the test indicated (AV Test) what is the performance of Webroot SecureAnywhere?

 

Thanks,

Claudiu

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine you are not running 64 bit windows 8, or you may have noticed Windows explorer is running 300/ 500 meg and you browsers crawl.

Stick with what works on your system.

I have ywo year webroot license I cannot use.

That's computers, I don't think Microsoft make it easy for anyone these days, but that's just my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine you are not running 64 bit windows 8, or you may have noticed Windows explorer is running 300/ 500 meg and you browsers crawl.

Stick with what works on your system.

I have ywo year webroot license I cannot use.

That's computers, I don't think Microsoft make it easy for anyone these days, but that's just my thoughts.

And I have 3 Webroot licenses I would gladly pass on to anyone who wants them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I'd like to post two independent opinions of users from Wilders':

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, I would like to commend ESET for their detection results. ESET is a rock solid, mature product with excellent detection and minimal impact on system performance. My experience with it is different than the performance results reported by AV-Test. My desktop computer runs noticeably better with ESET loaded than it does with any of the other products for which I currently have licenses (Kaspersky, BullGuard, Avira, Avast).

My experience is exactly the same. There was only WSA which was lighter on my system than ESET. I don't know how they test this aspect of AVs

If someone's experience is way different and v7 is heavy on their system, we'd really like to examine it and determine the cause. So far we don't know of anybody with an issue like that who would be willing to cooperate with us on examination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we agreed on that "a test is a test" no?

 

And that it is always best to test a product on your own hardware and get your own opinion.

 

Some people say that Bitdefender is "very light" for them and so does a couple of tests, while other users say the exact opposite that it slows them down and they just want to get rid of it.

 

In comparison, a few tests shows that ESET is "not light", but at the same time we rarely hear users say that ESET slows them down, despite what the tests like the one you link to say. 

 

How can we explain that then?

Should I trust the test results blindly? And just forget how beautiful ESET runs on my PC?

 

 

Webroot is light no doubt, but I am not a fan of browser extensions like Webroot uses (ESET does not) And I also want any threat detected as early as possible like on the web by the http scanner, url/ip blocker etc etc.. (just like ESET do), but Webroot has their focus at detection on execution even though they have started to get better at web detections too, I felt a bit of a slow down on websites mostly when there is a lot of flash content like flash-based ads last time I tried Webroot. And being 99% cloudbased is good for the RAM usage if you like looking in the task manager seeing the process use 3mb. Personally I could care less about that to be honest, 150mb or 3mb doesn't matter as long as I got the system performance on my side.

 

Another thing I love with ESET is the combination of ESET's cloud detection and Live Grid but still have the AV engine and database loaded in the RAM all the time. The best of both worlds local power in the RAM with cloud assistance!

 

For me ESET is as close to the perfect AV product you can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been big on testing as it can never replicate a user's unique environment.I have had the exact opposite experience with Eset.Eset has been,by far,the most stable,smooth running security app I have used in a very long time.I have found this years WSA to be problematic at best.I have communicated several issues to WSA support,and have also grown quite tired of opening a ticket to get an unknown file whitelisted just to get it running smoothly.Also,before I get bashed for being as Eset fanboy,understand this,i am a Webroot community guide and have been with WSA since the beginning.I build and repair pcs when I have spare time,and I still install WSA on some systems.I just will not use it on any of my machines anymore.I will periodically try it after an update,but a lot of the same issues I have had with it are still there.Rather than trolling a forum,i have maintained a continuous dialogue with support.I like to see kinks in software worked out and running smoothly.I absolutely hate buggy software.I avoid it like the plague.Every user,every environment is unique.While I am happy WSA works for some,it did not work for me.I am elated with how well Eset runs on 2 machines here.I cannot fathom at this time running anything else :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SweX,

 

"In comparison, a few tests shows that ESET is not "light" "

 

The "few test" you are referring is AV Test, recognized worldwide; I do not see how, tests done by users , usually fans of ESET are more trustworthy;

Truth is , ESET did not perform well in AV test  Jan/Feb 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Hi SweX,

 

"In comparison, a few tests shows that ESET is not "light" "

 

The "few test" you are referring is AV Test, recognized worldwide; I do not see how, tests done by users , usually fans of ESET are more trustworthy;

Truth is , ESET did not perform well in AV test  Jan/Feb 2014.

We didn't compare tests performed by well recognized testing organizations with tests performed by common users. We are speaking about the discrepancies between the results in the mentioned test and the experience of millions of users with using ESET's programs in real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SweX,

 

"In comparison, a few tests shows that ESET is not "light" "

 

The "few test" you are referring is AV Test, recognized worldwide; I do not see how, tests done by users , usually fans of ESET are more trustworthy;

Truth is , ESET did not perform well in AV test  Jan/Feb 2014.

"tests done by users" Where did I say that I have done a test? Having a "product experience" and making a test is two different things.

 

I have not done any tests, but I have used Webroot several times, and have a long time experience around 6 years as an ESET user. If that's not enough for you then i'm sorry.

 

Truth is ESET performed better this time than it did last time in the performance test. But you didn't bother to check that.

 

Now, if you are who I think you are then I hope you can behave yourself on our forum. You have some ridiculous track record following you every step wherever you go:  

 

You know Claudiu, Over the last 4 years you have been posting at DSLR Security forum..each time it has been some fantastic ###### story where you just go on and on about pretty much nothing..from you 100% security thingie and now your whining about webroot..and posting the same thing in this forum as you have in the Manufacture's forum and it was answered very well there..but you still dumped it a DSLR because you want a nonwebroot point of view.

 

 

Claudiu why are over here now saying the same things as you were at the Webroot Community Forums and DSLR security! Kit already tried to explain how WSA works and still you don't understand if he can't nobody can so stop it with the trash talk! 

 

 

Nuff said... Me thinks ~ The amount of threads that get side tracked & lose the original focus by the minority who are out just to cause exactly that is not on - Claudiu you are a very bitter troll of the highest order who not only posts his feelings in threads but also PM's (trolls) members with your comments of woe. Each & every post you have made in weeks has been on WSA yet you don't use it, get a life & or grow up. I think you should be banned.

 

First you were trolling around Webroot and spread FUD to left and right!

And now you're here in our forum how lovely....the plague has arrived.  -_-

 

I remember this thread of yours and looking back I can see you were just trolling around: https://forum.eset.com/topic/584-eset-still-detectink-ask-toolbar/

Link to post
Share on other sites

SweX,

 

How is this relevant in justifying 3.6 from 6 ----PERFORMACE SCORE---- of ESET in the test mentioned above???

 

"Better this time" is nice, but yet, performance score is 3.6 from 6!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

SweX,

 

How is this relevant in justifying 3.6 from 6 ----PERFORMACE SCORE---- of ESET in the test mentioned above???

 

"Better this time" is nice, but yet, performance score is 3.6 from 6!!!

 

I'll take the 3.6 score in a test 7 days a week, than I would chose to install McAfee that scores 5.5!  

 

If you look at it from the other side.

 

I use ESET and I say that ESET is very light. And millions more. 

 

The test says that ESET is bad when it comes to the system performance.

 

What makes the test results more relevant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SweX,

 

How is this relevant in justifying 3.6 from 6 ----PERFORMACE SCORE---- of ESET in the test mentioned above???

 

"Better this time" is nice, but yet, performance score is 3.6 from 6!!!

 

On a scale from 0-6, is 3.6 the score you would give it yourself while running on your desktop ?

 

It is my understanding that some testing companies do not reveal what scenarios they used in the testing procedures, but simply the specs of the computer and the scores of other companies as well.

Some explain that they are transferring files, or using office products like Word or Excel.

Reference for AV Test: hxxp://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/test-modules/performance/

 

Okay, so what are the specs of the testing performed recently ? No one knows ? What kind of desktops ? There are too many variables and too little information provided for myself to make a judgement on the results.

While i understand the companies performing these tests have been around a while, i cannot simply rely on what they say. Sorry, im not that gullible when it comes to my own system. I go by what i think not by what some company is saying.

 

I would not give ESET a score of 3 on my desktop, which contains the following:

EVGA 780i - MOBO

Intel qx9650 - Proc 3.0ghz Oced to 4.1ghz

Evga gtx770 - Video Card

Ultra 1000w - PSU

Mushkin 5-5-5-15 DDR2 800 Oced to 5-6-6-21 (1000mhz) - 6GB Memory

OCZ Revodrive x3 Pci-ex SSD - OS Drive

Windows 7 64bit Home Premium

 

I would rate the performance in all aspects a 6 out of 6. Not a 3.5 out of 6

 

That being said, i hope we have concluded the entire reason of the responses in this thread.

( Majority of ESET users dispute the results of said testing, stipulating they receive different results and higher performance during computer usage! )

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not give ESET a score of 3 on my desktop, which contains the following:

 

EVGA 780i - MOBO

Intel qx9650 - Proc 3.0ghz Oced to 4.1ghz

Evga gtx770 - Video Card

Ultra 1000w - PSU

Mushkin 5-5-5-15 DDR2 800 Oced to 5-6-6-21 (1000mhz) - 6GB Memory

OCZ Revodrive x3 Pci-ex SSD - OS Drive

Windows 7 64bit Home Premium

 

I would rate the performance in all aspects a 6 out of 6. Not a 3.5 out of 6

 

:)

 My system is from the stone age and I give ESET 10 out of 10 meaning it runs great on very old hardware too  B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine you are not running 64 bit windows 8, or you may have noticed Windows explorer is running 300/ 500 meg and you browsers crawl.

Stick with what works on your system.

I have ywo year webroot license I cannot use.

That's computers, I don't think Microsoft make it easy for anyone these days, but that's just my thoughts.

sorry, you were saying? I have an x64 Windows 8.1 Pro with Media Center (clean installation not upgraded from Windows 8 like many others)

post-1272-0-34750400-1395815518_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

SweX, from the posts you I see you make here, I cannot trust a single word you say. Because you blindly defend ESET.

 

I am an ESET user since the days of V2, so I am in no way a troll, or trying to bash them. I just want someone to fix these performance issues that I have experienced and pointed out here.

 

data copying from my HDD to my external HDD was hurt big time with NOD32 installed but with Webroot, the tranfers to my USB 3.0 WD HDD happen at super fast (Webroot 100 MB/S, ESET >> 10 MB/S) and I did post the thread here earlier and was told that NOD32 doesn't scan the file while it is copying, but the fact is, at the end of the day, my transfer speeds were lower by 90%

 

Secondly, this is not the only performance test I have seen bad, I don't have the link handy, but in another test posted on Wilder Security forums 3 months back, it clearly shows that NOD32 does very bad in file coyping operations, and Norton AV smoked it.

 

Thirdly, another example, I have a program called "PhotoZoom Pro". The setup files are 27 MB in size, very small..when I install it and have Webroot installed, the installation finishes in exactly 1 second and bamm. it's done!

 

when I have NOD32 installed, it hangs for 2 seconds when you hit NEXT, then you see it installed. so there IS a slow down noone can dispute that

 

Your argument about how the tests show bad results but noone here complaints has no value. Many people aren't too picky about performance like me, or don't know how fast was their system before/after NOD32, they just want an AV that works. I commend ESET for making such a stable product with 0 FPs as I for one had to conatct Webroot 4 times to whitelist some files but they do it in less than 30 mins which is good. Still, ESET wins here with no FPs and headacheless operation. It's just that performance bit. Give meh NOD32 v2 comaptible with Windows 8.1 and I'm a happy man

 

And no, I would not use Bitdefender AV, McAfee, or Kaspersky based on those tests because I know while they have no negative impact on file transfer operations and the speeds are full. they do affect internet browsing/downloading heavily due to the way they due HTTP scans.

 

I will give NOD32 one last try, I am reverting back to an image I had made before installing an AV, and will install NOD32, then will work with the mods here to see how can they help me with my slow USB 3.0 transfer speeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will give NOD32 one last try, I am reverting back to an image I had made before installing an AV, and will install NOD32, then will work with the mods here to see how can they help me with my slow USB 3.0 transfer speeds.

 

I will be interested to see this, and if it's followed through to resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I will give NOD32 one last try, I am reverting back to an image I had made before installing an AV, and will install NOD32, then will work with the mods here to see how can they help me with my slow USB 3.0 transfer speeds.

I really look forward to troubleshooting this issue and eventually reveal the mystery behind the big performance impact. While copying files, it may take longer to scan them because Advanced heuristics (AH) is used on newly created files by default and Smart optimization is not applied as copies are considered new files.

You can check if disabling AH for newly created files makes a difference or if excluding the whole target drive or folder does (just to check if it has something to do with scanning files).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...