Home computer nightmare.

[rh100]

Unless it's Norton

 

[CopperBrompton]

Actually, it's all relative; if your computer is working properly you shouldn't find any of them make your computer unacceptably slow.

It is relative, with nothing at all at one end of the scale and Norton at the other, but speaking as someone with a very fast PC, I still prefer something that does the job efficiently and without any unnecessary junk.

 

[chris667]

These discussions about which piece of AV software is best in terms of resource usage are not very useful as the products are constantly changing. There might be an update to AVG tomorrow that makes it much more efficient. Then again, there might be another one with Avast that does the same.

It's a nightmare for the designers of AV software. New threats means new weapons are required, but this also means you need to consume more resources and change the look and feel of the software.

If you want to go really fast and keep secure, install an OS that can run entirely in memory on a write protected disk like Puppy Linux, and save everything in online storage.

 

[rh100]

I'm trying both AVG and Avira on different machines at the moment - both seem to work well.

 

[CopperBrompton]

These discussions about which piece of AV software is best in terms of resource usage are not very useful as the products are constantly changing.

Minor updates don't tend to have much impact on CPU requirements, it's the major revisions that do that, so feedback on the relative performance on different AV products will generally remain valid for a reasonable period of time.

 

[chris667]

Ben, that is just not true. Minor bugfixes can have a dramatic impact on the performance of a piece of software.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Can do but don't, as I said, tend to.