performance vs security

[lancstech]

i have dual booted xp/w7 and vista/w7 systems.

i find performance varies with xp(fastest) in all cases.

i use different security sofware and am wondering if this is the crucial factor. i recently removed kaspersky (kis) and replaced it with online armour fw, avast av & threatfire on an xp p4 desktop and it boots faster and is more responsive.

i run kaspersky and mcafee suites with vista & w7. w7 boots slower than vista but runs faster than vista.

comments please as to whether its worth removing kis/mcafee
suites for individual tools especially for w7.

 

[linney]

I guess it is a balancing act with preferences based on personal choices. Speaking personally then, I don't like the big Internet Security suites, that do every thing (all at once).

Besides what security software you install on Vista and Windows 7, both have Microsoft's Windows Defender also running in the background. All this real time scanning cannot but fail to slow performance.

As an example of how performance consuming security programs have become over the past decade you only have to search (and search) for any antivirus software that would run on an old Windows 98 machine. Whereas antivirus software use to come in at say less than 10MB nowadays, even the freebies start at 60+MB, and they are growing in size every few months.

The best security you have is yourself and how you use your machine.

 

[lancstech]

hi linney, thanks for your response and agree behavior is decisive.

even though all my setups are pretty good at the mo, in installing w7 i was disappointed with in its relative perf, particularly booting/shutdown. over the years i have gone from ad hoc security to suites (even mcafee has been ok) in requiring less effort to keep sweet. dual booting requires a lot of effort to keep multiple systems upto date and am considering going single boot w7 on everything.

in preparing for that am evaluating security, backup, email/cloud options before jumping. previously i thought kis was the best security option and was hoping for recommendations on what others have found works best for w7.

first i might try running a laptop with only w7 with no additional security and just a sandboxed browser.

 

[linney]

Out of all the paid programs that are out there I would recommend NOD32 from Eset as causing the least performance hit. I haven't used it for 3 years now (so bear that in mind) since when I stopped paying for security and just went with the free AVG.

I am behind a Router (firewalled), the Windows Firewall, fully updated in Windows and third party programs, and also use the free Spybot Search and destroy, AntiMalware Bytes, Hijack This, and Windows Defender, but only as secondary manual scanners. I also make very frequent Image Backups of my Windows (triple boot) partitions.

I can't say I have noticed too much of a problem with speed in Windows 7, either while booting, or when running. Remember Windows 7 is still in Beta, but will soon be out of that if what I am hearing and reading is correct.

 

[lancstech]

hi linney, thanks for your input - good advice.

i have tried a lot of security products over the years beyond the fw/av level - prevx, mamutu, dropmyrights etc. and have put up with the "uac noise" that results.

on all my systems a level of response/feel is reached that you become used to. unfortunately my installations of w7 didn't return the "advertised" faster systems.

on a bare w7 laptop system (the best possible speed) i will try to assess the "security load" effect. maybe snappy system response is no longer part of the windows experience(net safe) - i find linux booting even worse.

 

[BadBigBen]

Ever since the first SUITES hit the shelves, and noticing the problems they had created (among friend's and relative's computers), I had sworn never to install a once and all product ever again...

usually if one side fails, the rest comes down with it, and having separate installed components this usually does not happen...

I am sure that products have improved over the years, and that they have become more stable, it boils down to it being a personal preference on my part...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[lancstech]

hi bbb,

in installing w7(rc) on a vista laptop, i tried to install the oem supplied mcafee suite (which has unexpectedly worked well with vista). ms deemed mcafee incompatible, so i used kaspersky kis instead. w7 bootup takes over 2 minutes, with a long period of a blank screen (vista is better at about 90 secs). both are slow at shutdown. the attraction of installing w7 is to simplify install/maintenance across multiple pc.

 

[vacunita]

i use different security sofware and am wondering if this is the crucial factor. i recently removed kaspersky (kis) and replaced it with online armour fw, avast av & threatfire on an xp p4 desktop and it boots faster and is more responsive.

Well of course it is. XP requires the least amount of resources from those 3 OSes. If its installed on a machine capable of running W7 then its assumed there are enough resources there to run it. Which means XP has a really wide margin to work in.

So the abundance of resources available to it help its performance.

i run kaspersky and mcafee suites with vista & w7. w7 boots slower than vista but runs faster than vista.

W7 seems to require less resources than Vista does. Which could be a factor.


I have noticed though that after installing AVG, that performance in my installation was significantly reduced.

Specifically when browsing folders, which means AVG is taking a moment to scan the folders for any infections.

Bootup is sufficiently quick, but the rest of the processes seem to be hampered by the AV a bit. But I have to consider that my setup is not the most optimum to run W7.

It runs and I can work satisfactorily on it. But yes a clean XP install with AVG on the same setup is many times faster and smoother than W7.


As for big suites that do everything: after many problems with both Norton and Mcafee through the years, I decided to depart the commercial apps and moved on to AVG's free alternative and have been using it on my machines for a few years now. So far its worked nicely. Though it does seem to be hogging more resources with every update. Even in XP.

Also AVG lacking the firewall component means that unlike Norton and Mcafee, it will not interfere unexpectedly with network operations. And Having Windows Firewall and a Router with built-in firewall seems like enough protection to me. Considering the sites I visit.


----------------------------------
Phil AKA Vacunita
----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[lancstech]

hi vacunita, yeh-but yeh-but yeh-but

all my pc are different re cpu/memory/disks etc
xp desktop pc's are oldest,slowest cpu,
vista lap top newest, fastish cpu.

the operation of all is ok, but getting going/stopping varies (i seem to have to reboot more of late!).

as i get older i want an easier life, all i want are reliable smooth devices that don't require too much time maintaining them - duh i'll buy apple.

i did once create a nlite stripped xp that flew, but do now appreciate the better fonts/useablility of w7.

if ms offer a multiple keys package for w7 i might bite.

 

[BadBigBen]

Kaspersky can hamper boot time quite a bit...

Full boot, from hitting the power button to the Desktop (including typing my password), on a laptop made for XP (but Vista Capable) takes only 80 sec. with W7...

Antiviral solution used: Avira AntiVir Desktop (Classic) Free...

Firewall: Windows own (for now)...

f ms offer a multiple keys package for w7 i might bite.

start chomping away...

Ben
"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."
How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.
Only ask questions with yes/no answers if you want "yes" or "no"

 

[lancstech]

well the boot time is now about 90 secs, which i suppose ok for a rc build. haven't installed many apps yet.