 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/28 05:43:
> Kyle wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
>>
>> I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one
>> simple application at a time?
>
> Yes. Because it's far too slow to open multiple programs at once.
>
> I was hoping that adding 5x more RAM would make the machine faster and
> more responsive. But no, it still takes 20 minutes to boot up, and it's
> still horribly slow to start any applications (or even shut them down).
>
> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages to
> update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to update
> once per hour (??!!?!)
>
Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every files
everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable file was accessed
10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the first time? Some AV will scan
any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and folders.
Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often realy do
nothing at all, exept using your resources.
You may try some other AV.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you invented glasses that can be
configured to use variable resolution (eg. 320x240, 640x480, etc.), with POV-Ray
style switches for other effects (eg. anti-aliasing, radiosity, etc.)
Vimal N. Lad / Gautam N. Lad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
>> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages
>> to update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to
>> update once per hour (??!!?!)
>>
> Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every
> files everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable file
> was accessed 10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the first
> time? Some AV will scan any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
> Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and folders.
We were using Symantec. Only scans files which are actually "executable"
in some way. Only bothers to rescan them if they get written to. (Or the
definitions are updated.)
> Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often
> realy do nothing at all, exept using your resources.
Indeed. When I was in control of the settings, I had it set to daily.
(And a time that won't upset the guys who actually earn our money.)
Hourly? WTF? Are you mental??
> You may try some other AV.
Nope. Company policy. (Obviously nobody asked me...)
It's probably not actually a bad product, just silly configuration.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/28 15:32:
> Alain wrote:
>
>>> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages
>>> to update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to
>>> update once per hour (??!!?!)
>>>
>> Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every
>> files everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable
>> file was accessed 10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the
>> first time? Some AV will scan any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
>> Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and
>> folders.
>
> We were using Symantec. Only scans files which are actually "executable"
> in some way. Only bothers to rescan them if they get written to. (Or the
> definitions are updated.)
>
>> Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often
>> realy do nothing at all, exept using your resources.
>
> Indeed. When I was in control of the settings, I had it set to daily.
> (And a time that won't upset the guys who actually earn our money.)
> Hourly? WTF? Are you mental??
>
>> You may try some other AV.
>
> Nope. Company policy. (Obviously nobody asked me...)
>
> It's probably not actually a bad product, just silly configuration.
>
Symantec is notorious for been overly invasive and very resources hungry,
benchmarks showing up to 80%, and more, performance hit! Some peoples place ther
products among the worst offenders for bad overall system performances. It
constantly monitorize every applications behaviour, every read and writes to the
disk in an attepmt to catch some nefarious act.
Some peoples go as far as to say that you are beter taking your chances without
ANY AV, than to use Symantec products...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Symantec is notorious for been overly invasive and very resources
> hungry, benchmarks showing up to 80%, and more, performance hit! Some
> peoples place ther products among the worst offenders for bad overall
> system performances. It constantly monitorize every applications
> behaviour, every read and writes to the disk in an attepmt to catch some
> nefarious act.
> Some peoples go as far as to say that you are beter taking your chances
> without ANY AV, than to use Symantec products...
Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
impact - until it's update time.
Symantec is the product we're migrating off. My PC at work has something
called Trend Micro. (Ever heard of that one? I hadn't.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
> using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
> hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
> impact - until it's update time.
You said it takes ages to open anything on your computer. Did you
actually try disabling the antivirus *completely* and seeing if the
slowdown goes away?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
>> using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
>> hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
>> impact - until it's update time.
>
> You said it takes ages to open anything on your computer. Did you
> actually try disabling the antivirus *completely* and seeing if the
> slowdown goes away?
I tried it before any AV was installed at all. As in, just after I
finished installing Windoze on a blank HD. It was still slow as hell.
Does that count?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> I boot an XP system with only minimal software running (virus protection,
Virus protection: An attempt to solve the halting problem.
On-access scanning: An attempt to make virus protection seem like less
of a performance hog by only running it when you're trying to do
something else.
(Not mine, but I don't know whose it is. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/31 22:57:
> Virus protection: An attempt to solve the halting problem.
>
> On-access scanning: An attempt to make virus protection seem like less
> of a performance hog by only running it when you're trying to do
> something else.
>
> (Not mine, but I don't know whose it is. :-)
>
...and only managing in making it a bigger performance hog.
I was plagued by an increasing system instability, slowdowns and disapearing
files. The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
Uninstalled the AV and my performances jumped up and the crashings and freezings
went away.
Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I ask it to.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and
define you.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
Well, some executable virii infect files without modifying any of their
dates, so in theory it's possible they are infected.
(Nowadays it's rarer, though, because most virii are of the independent-exe
style and don't even bother infecting individual files.)
> Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I ask it to.
Most AV software for Windows feel like a virus themselves: It's incredibly
difficult to get rid of them (without uninstalling them completely). They
will "infect" your entire system.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I
> ask it to.
Install avast AV, then go into the control panel and set the services to
"manual". You may need to go back and re-set the services to manual
after you update the executable. But it lets you do an on-demand scan
as you need it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
