# What's the Lightest AV Software: AVG vs. ESET NOD32 ?



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

They're all pretty good, and nothing will save you from yourself. And it makes no sense to paralyze a system with AV software, in order to prevent malware from paralyzing your system.

I don't care about "best". I'm tired of hearing nOObs argue about what's best. What's best is if you press the OFF button, and go outside and do something else. GUARANTEED you won't get malware if it's turned off.

I'm looking for some substance. Is there an objective way to measure "lightness" ? Is there some 3rd alternative to AVG and NOD32 that should be considered ?


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

In terms of memory used, AVG (free) seems to be using way less. On my work computer here AVG is registering about 5-6mb of memory. My NOD32 at home seems to usually be around 45mb. 

I believe NOD32 is doing more, of course -- last time I checked it scored infinitely higher than AVG at detecting unknown viruses (at legitimate testing facilities), via its heuristics -- basically the ability to catch a virus because it appears to be one even though it's not in the AV's database/updates already. I know you don't want to talk about which is better, but if thats still the case in the new version of AVG, then its an apple-orange comparison. Not so much that NOD32 is 'better' but that it's more ambitious. It's trying to do more. It may also be plain better, but we can avoid discussing that part of it. This is all assuming AVG still doesn't do heuristics. 

Btw, I'm no expert, this is all 2nd hand knowledge, my own layman's understanding of what I've read elsewhere.


----------



## sobeit (Nov 11, 2007)

It is all going to depend upon your computer, features within the particular antivirus program thats activated, and what else is running at the time. The larger internet packages of course will use more resources because they have more features. Even when you compare the free version vs their own retail version you will see differences because of additional features. 

IMO, there is really no objective way to measure lightness unless you run them on your own system and even then it will vary.


Personally I use AntiVir's free version on all of my systems.


----------



## wicket (Mar 10, 2009)

Just wanted to add that av comparatives has a performance section which says coming soon =)


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Hey wicket
Yes av-comparatives just added that review and AVG turned really bad on it while Avira dipped as well, surprisingly.
Only ESET, McAfee, Symnatec, and Kaspresky got advanced PLUS as I am sure you know
It will be interesting if TSF will continue to mention AVG which got standard to Avira which got Advanced as did Avast
My brother uses ESET 4, the very new one, and boy is it beautiful
And very low on resources


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 16, 2005)

wolski888 said:


> It will be interesting if TSF will continue to mention AVG which got standard to Avira which got Advanced as did Avast


 Can you kindly clarify your statement about AVG? What do you mean by "TSF will continue to mention"? :4-dontkno


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Hi Glaswegian

I just realized how stupid my reply was.
I'm sorry. I just meant that since it did not get very good marks it would not be very recommended. That TSF would probably be more towards Avira or Avast.
I did not mean anything bad though.
Once again, I'm sorry.

wolski888


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 16, 2005)

No worries - no apology required. I was only concerned that you think TSF is somehow promoting AVG. Is there something that brought you to that conclusion? I'm just curious because I wasn't aware that we were promoting AVG.


----------



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

Glaswegian said:


> No worries - no apology required. I was only concerned that you think TSF is somehow promoting AVG. Is there something that brought you to that conclusion? I'm just curious because I wasn't aware that we were promoting AVG.


Yeah, actually I kind of got the impression there was staff support for ESET.


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

I can't remember ever having to use Support for an anti-virus program. 

Do you guys often use support? 

Of course, AVG has a free product and NOD32 costs $30 a year. It's definitely lighter on the wallet. ;-)


----------



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

Fren Banklin said:


> Yeah, actually I kind of got the impression there was staff support for ESET.





billermo said:


> I can't remember ever having to use Support for an anti-virus program.
> 
> Do you guys often use support?
> 
> Of course, AVG has a free product and NOD32 costs $30 a year. It's definitely lighter on the wallet. ;-)


When I said "support", I did not mean the act of providing technical support. I mean "support" in the more broad sense, as in "in favor of" or being a "fanboy", or possibly having come to a consensus that it is definably and technically superior by some objective standard.

In fact, at least in the case of Norton (at least it used to be this way) TSF refuses as a matter of policy to provide support for at least one AV software, Nortons Anti-Virus. More than likely due to the fact that it is a complete MESS, and also Symantec failed to support it's own product adequately and I wonder if perhaps there wasn't a bit of "Why should we do their work for free ?" attitude in play.


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

Ah , sorry, misunderstood what you meant by support. I wasn't meaning to denigrate using tech support. I mean, I come here often enough myself seeking just that. It's just that I haven't needed to use any AV's tech support in the past. Maybe once when I was on McAfee. 

My NOD32 is at 17mb at the moment. Maybe I was wrong about it usually being at 44mb.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 16, 2005)

Fren Banklin said:


> Yeah, actually I kind of got the impression there was staff support for ESET.


 The forum as a whole does not support or endorse any specific application.


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Yes Thanks Glaswegian
I never suspected any type of support for AVG or other AV software.

May I ask a question Fren,
why does Norton suck so much?
I mean, they look very good, they seem to use less than 7 MB of RAM (as it said on Staples' flyer) and also it is renowned by major companies.
I guess they bribe companies to support them right?
But what makes them bad, their protection?
Just want to have arguments when I discuss this topic with friens and family. Thanks.

wolski888


----------



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

wolski888 said:


> Yes Thanks Glaswegian
> I never suspected any type of support for AVG or other AV software.
> 
> May I ask a question Fren,
> ...


I've seen several credible reports that contradict what follows, but I remain firm in my opinion that Norton is an "avoid" software, no matter how "effective" people may think it is.

First, you have to pay for it. That automatically elevates the standards and expectations. Too many people have the false sense of security that your AV software is the end-all, be-all of malware security, when in fact it's 3rd on the list after 1) Being completely updated with Windows Update and 2) Having a firewall.

So by the time you get to #3, what's "best" is not necessarily simply a matter of detection rate.

If I gave you a software that was 100% guaranteed to find EVERYTHING, ALWAYS, and the only "catch" is that you computer couldn't do anything else besides Virus scans, would you still call that software the "best".

BEST takes into account the fact that the computer is supposed to DO SOMETHING besides run scans and find malware. System resources are what's important, and with AV software being 3rd on the list for overall computer security (unless you also want to include computing & browsing habits, and then it's #4), that means "lightness" is what's important and NOT detection rate.

If Norton has a 3% better detection rate as AVG, but your system runs half as fast, would you consider that a good trade-off ?

So I aspire to have an ADEQUATE AV software, and as much of my system resources as I can possible preserve.

There are other factors to consider.

One of the ways in which a software can be considered "superior" is in how easily it uninstalls and reinstalls. I call this quality being "clean", and software that fits this description I call "cleanware", which means that if you decide to get rid of it one day, BAM! it's gone.

One of the qualities of malware is that it resists uninstallation, and so the degree to which (so called) "legitimate" software resists uninstallation determines the degree to which it can be classified as malware.

By this (component of a) definition, Norton should be classified as malware, as it resists uninstallation. It fails to uninstall cleanly. The existance of the Norton Removal Tool (link in my sig) is the proof of that, and it only took Symantec about 4 years to provide it.

Norton has had a free ride. Dell installs their crapware on unwitting customer's computers. These people frequently believe that they are protected, even though their subscriptions have expired, Symantec wants their money, their system is inordinately slow-down but the are deriving NO benefit from having it on their system.

The quote is "A computer with an expired virus definition file is only slightly more protected than a computer that has no anti-virus software at all."

Malware has a shelf life. The malware that was rampant a year ago is virtually extinct now. The most dangerous malware is the mutation that was released last week. If your definition files are 2 weeks old, you are completely unprotected and you might as well uninstall the AV software from your computer.

Most people don't know this, and hobble along on crippled computers until one day the malware shuts them down completely, and then they pay me $50 to clean-up their system (if possible) or they format and reinstall.


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Wow thanks you Fren Banklin

That was a good read.
I agree with everything you said.
However, isnt Norton fast because they say they are?
I mean they say they take up only 7 MB which is not too large (well maybe it is).
I do believe they are the worst though.

Once again thanks for the very informative reply.

wolski888


----------



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

wolski888 said:


> Wow thanks you Fren Banklin
> 
> That was a good read.
> I agree with everything you said.
> ...


I can't comment with any degree of reliability as my opinion is the result of several years experience. "They" say that Norton is different now, better. Not as bad as it used to be.

Whatever.

There are too many other companies out there to waste time considering one that has this history. AND you have to pay for it.

Please. I run AVG, it's free, it's light and if it's only "almost" as good, then the people that are paying for Norton are putz's.

Putzi ?

Whatever the plural of "Putz" is; that's what they are.

There's a T-Shirt right there. "Don't be a Putz. Get rid of Norton."

7 Mbyte (which I VERY much doubt), is that the size of the TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) executible ?

Which one ? I think there are at least 4.

Either way, I'm no expert. I just have opinions. And they are worth what you pay for them. I have a money-back guarantee if you are not completely satisfied.


----------



## xp365 (Mar 23, 2009)

Im running panda internet security 09 and it does not use much resources at all. i can run a scan and it does not slow down my pc at all even when im on youtube streaming a video or converting a movie while watching one at the same time. give it a try


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

It seems as if the general trend these days is for anti-virus software to be packaged together with firewall and anti-spyware (which have always been programmer-centric categories anyway -- users just want something that stops all the infections, don't care if the infection is spyware or virus, or if a firewall is the most effective way to prevent it). For my mom, for example, all of these categories are just useless confusion. She just wants protection, period. So for her and probably the vast majority of users who are more like her, it makes more sense to package all of these together and pretend it's one program -- thus the current trend towad Internet Protection Suites or Complete Protection or whatever you want to call them, at least that's how I see it. Eset has it. Norton. McAfee -- actually they all do now. Even AVG. 

One fine point: it was said above that Norton uses just 7mb of memory in its current version, which seems to disagree with the idea that it slows the machine by half. I don't know, I haven't used Norton, and am not inclined to.


----------



## Fren Banklin (Nov 6, 2008)

billermo said:


> One fine point: it was said above that Norton uses just 7mb of memory in its current version, which seems to disagree with the idea that it slows the machine by half. I don't know, I haven't used Norton, and am not inclined to.


Slowing the system "by half" was a hypothetical example to illustrate the balance between effective protection and system resources. I have no idea how much any of these software actually slow a system down, nor do I know of any objective way in which to measure "slowness".

And I agree with your take on the "all in one" pacakaging, and I was VERY disappointed when AVG turned into one big mess. I turn everything off except the scanner and the updater.


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

Oops, guess I misread the 7mb bit about Norton, sorry -- apparently that's just what they advertise. I have Eset, and I know I'm not going to ever bother trying Norton. 

For the record, my Eset appears to use about 17mb normally, and it does slow the computer down noticeably during scans. I set scans to run at 2am or so when I certainly won't be on.


----------



## billermo (Aug 24, 2007)

I didn't realize AVG was a mess. The free AVG or the paid? It seems like you are describing their all-in-one 'suite', no? Why's it a mess? Aren't they new at the complete protection game? 

Also, I wonder what reports are on Eset's complete protection. I need to decide in the next few days whether to go with that setup or just the AV, and then add on anti-spyware and firewall separately.


----------



## wolski888 (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks Banklin for your comments.
Norton sucks.


----------



## rexmaxvirus (May 14, 2009)

I been using AVG since 2001 ( i think the exe then was 5 mb) and still using avg to my other pc, but sometimes you need to try other av on my laptop im using cloud antivirus (testing it) + nod32 . nod32 is made in assembly language so its light, but to me fav AV are Kaspersky, Eset, Grisoft & Avast!!


----------

