best antiivirus - using low resouces

I have bought HP pavilion DV4t laptop with windows vista ultimate edition.
I wanted to know which would be the best antivirus currently in the market.
I mean which is really good and also use less memory resources. I don't mind spending some money to buy any good antivirus.

 

Lowest resources PAID version of antivirus/internet security suite(even they use less resources but their power are outstanding):
a.) Norton Internet Security(freaking low resources)
b.) Avira Premium Suite(OMG crazy low resources)
c.) Avast Professional Edition(slightly higher resources)
d.) ESET NOD32(this is madness LOW resources)

 

There are threads about low resource anti-virus applications on this very board.

 

Along with Darksilver, my vote goes to Norton Internet Security 2009. I currently use it and it is a great improvement over previous versions. Right now in Program Files, it's ~70MB, but in terms of actual usage, it has a very light footprint. It even provides a CPU Usage monitor if you want to see how much memory it is taking up during scans and in idle time.

In case you have 3 PCs in your home, you can save and get Norton Internet Security 2009 1User/3PCs at Amazon for $22.49. This is a great deal since the actual Symantec Website sells the download for $59.99.

Also, since NIS 2010 is right around the corner, you can freely update your 2009 license to get the 2010 version once it comes out.

However, I also recommend Eset Nod32 as it has the best benchmark scores for catching In-The-Wild viruses as of this year. It also uses only ~32MB of your system memory, making it have the lightest footprint out of all paid AVs in the market now. Though its interface may be simple, you should still check it out.

 

Hi, which test was that if I may ask?

 

I have been poking around and I found a antivirus called Viper. Aparanently the newest version is awesome and it uses very little resources. Has anyone heard of it? I has gotten great reviews.

 

Lowest resources? No anti-virus software.

Man..... like the other 2410980324 threads state...... Avira/ESET/Norton 2009 win out.

 

Nobody mentions Kaspersky - its pretty lightweigh in use too.

(Except for that memory leak in KIS 2010.... wonder when it get's fixed)

 

Avast Free = low enough resource on any comps

cheers ...

 

Of the freebies Avast. The other two big boys froze up my computer in their newest versions.

 

Better be careful installing such a new AV program (I've never heard of it). You could end up with major problems if it for whatever reason it was not an trustworthy application.

 

Vipre is made by Sunbelt Software; trustworthy, legit i.e. nothing to worry about.

Viper Antivirus is something I've never heard about.
I'd be very careful downloaded/installing/executing anything which carries such a name.
Cheers.

 

Avira Anti-vir or ESET NOD32.

 

Hey Baserk. The benchmark scores for Eset Nod32 I was referring to were the ones on their website. While the charts may be prone to some bias (since after all, Eset is promoting their product with these), they actually seem quite realistic with their comparisons to other AV software (keep in mind that I am saying this as an NIS 2009 user).



-If I'm not wrong, this graph was made by Eset, but based on the VB100 company awards from Virus Bulletin.

For the one about the In-The-Wild Viruses,

-This one was also made by Eset I think, but is based on ITW viruses reported to the Wildlist Organization.

 

AS long as an AV isn't bloated I wouldn't be too concerned about getting the one that uses the least resources but the best detection rate.

Avira is about as light as they come with a great detection rate. Notice Eset include them in their graph. Hmmm...

 

I can smell AVG = Ru88!5H.
Few days ago, 1 have a friend went to my house and do some assignments/projects. He plug-in his USB flash drive to my laptop and said OMG Why have so many viruses!? I use AVG! It should be no!? I told him Avira FTW!!!

Well, back to the topic. Norton is after ESET. XD!
Recommend Norton is not a wrong choice.
ESET is GODLIKE in the graph. However, I can't totally believe the graph stuffs. Sometime theory is not same as the real/practical world.

 

Those charts would almost make one wonder, why choose anything but Eset indeed.
However, the only thing important (to me) is their current detection and removal rate.
The fact that they were better some 3, 5 or 8 years ago is nice for history-of-AV fans. (j/k, )
Both the most recent Virus Bulletin and AV-Comparatives' scores, show Eset behind competitors like Avira, Avast and others.
The ITW list's relevancy is much debated as a single source for testing purposes (and subsequent scores), also because of it's small sample base.
Eset's director of malware intelligence seems to think so too.
What the Eset marketing department can make of it, is a whole different story.
Cheers.