eset smart security or symantec endpoint protection v11

Forum for anything else which doesn't fit in the above forums. Site feedback, random talk, whatever, are welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
shahed26
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:19 am
Location: England (London)

eset smart security or symantec endpoint protection v11

Post by shahed26 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:36 am

hi
please help me here, am trying to choose a security software for my xp. but am stuck here, because both of these products eset smart security and symantec endpoint protection v11 are very good.

all i want to know is which one of these will give me the best protection, and also consume few system resources

thank you.

User avatar
mr_smartepants
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

Post by mr_smartepants » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:58 pm

Well I have both (diff PCs).

In XP, ESET SS uses about 32MB of RAM (2Gb RAM installed).
In Vista (VirtualPC), Symantec ES v11 uses about 9MB of RAM (1Gb RAM simulated).
That's a whole lot better than Symantec Client Security 3.1.7 which used over 100Mb of RAM.

I haven't installed SEP under XP so I can't do an apples-to-apples comparison for you.

If you can wait for the weekend, I'll install SEP on my primary XP system for a comparison.

User avatar
shahed26
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:19 am
Location: England (London)

Post by shahed26 » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:35 pm

mr_smartepants wrote:Well I have both (diff PCs).

In XP, ESET SS uses about 32MB of RAM (2Gb RAM installed).
In Vista (VirtualPC), Symantec ES v11 uses about 9MB of RAM (1Gb RAM simulated).
That's a whole lot better than Symantec Client Security 3.1.7 which used over 100Mb of RAM.

I haven't installed SEP under XP so I can't do an apples-to-apples comparison for you.

If you can wait for the weekend, I'll install SEP on my primary XP system for a comparison.
Hi
thanx for your info, i will wait so you can kindly let me know the results, i guess eset smart sec is a little hyped at this moment, because i was using a trial version of it, and its not the best security software compare to their antivirus solution.

plz let me know which one also you would reconmmend for overall best protection considering system resource as wel.

thank you mr_smartepants :D

User avatar
mr_smartepants
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

Post by mr_smartepants » Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:29 am

I just installed SEP on my main system...Wow.
It doesn't consume much resources at all. Pretty much what I posted above, but in XP.
Now my #1 RAM hog is explorer.exe. :)

Although, instead of two big Symantec processes, now there are about 5-8 (hard to keep track), but their combined RAM usage is below 20Mb.

Very nice! :)

Broly10000
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:41 pm

Post by Broly10000 » Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:46 am

Based on what you said in your first post and the last mr_smartepants, basicaly your saying that Symantec ES, that take about 9mb is better? I'm still using symantec antivirus v10.1.6. I have no complain about it at the moment. I even tryed copying some files i knew where viruses, worms, spywares and keyloggers (FYI, the cd is bout 2 monhts old) and it halted the cd reading before i had time to go to my computer and open it.

User avatar
mr_smartepants
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:56 am
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK

Post by mr_smartepants » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:18 am

Well, I have no idea how effective the protection value is. I'm not willing to try and infect myself just to "see what would happen" :lol:

The memory footprint between SAV and SEP is about 1000% better! That's all I was reporting on.
For SAV users...just hit Ctrl-Alt-Del, go to the task manager and look how much RAM ccapp.exe & rtvscan.exe uses.

Fragbert
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:59 am

Post by Fragbert » Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:22 am

mr_smartepants wrote:Well, I have no idea how effective the protection value is. I'm not willing to try and infect myself just to "see what would happen" :lol:

The memory footprint between SAV and SEP is about 1000% better! That's all I was reporting on.
For SAV users...just hit Ctrl-Alt-Del, go to the task manager and look how much RAM ccapp.exe & rtvscan.exe uses.
The rest of its bloat is hidden in svchost ;)

It does use smaller footprint, but not that good!

Broly10000
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:41 pm

Post by Broly10000 » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:29 am

To test it, get a spare HDD, disconnect all your main HDDs and do a test install, install the AV program, update it and proceed to do the tests. That way you don’t risk your data, just an old maybe 20 GB HDD (If the virus you test damages the boot portion and it manages to get through). A suggestion, I don’t know if this does much but I set bloodhound to the highest setting just to be sure. I don’t mind having, let's say, 15MB extra of bloat as long as I'm protected. With an AV program do as you would do when shopping for a CPU, cost vs. performance, in this time speaking about memory.

User avatar
bober101
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:49 pm
Location: canadia!

Post by bober101 » Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:14 am

lol i dont see the point in doing that...but n e ways,its always fun to have an res hogging av present just to tell you tha tyouve ben infected and cant do squat to remove the infection.ive never seen an effective program that acctualy is worth the slow down.common sense and good habbits will protect you much better than any AV.
XP theme source patcher
patches/overwrites ure default xp visual resources

User avatar
roirraW "edor"
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:25 pm

Post by roirraW "edor" » Sun May 04, 2008 7:30 am

I'm going to add to this old thread to say that if your computer has only 256 MB of RAM (what Symantec says is the minimum "required" for SEP v11), SEP will slow down Windows a significant amount. Everything will take longer, especially booting up.

On old computers that I'm unwilling to upgrade to 512 MB of RAM or more, I use ESET Smart Security. With ESS, the computer runs just about as fast with it installed as it did without it.

Also, with SEP installed on a 256 MB system, almost all the RAM will be consumed (by looking at the Physical Memory Available listed in XP's Task Manager on the Performance tab). It might leave about 32 MB available.

With ESS, only about 100 MB or maybe a little more total will be consumed. Both of these results are with nothing else installed except integrated XP updates (update pack, IE7, WMP11, a couple minor addons).

I still swear by SEP for most computers, but for an old computer I just wanted functional in a modern age, ESS made a world of performance difference.

Also, SEP has saved my butt numerous times.

I will say that my experience installing SEP has been this: Install this first once a new Windows installation has booted up the first time. I've had problems several times where I install a couple of my other "need" applications like Acronis True Image and Acronis Disk Director, and then SEP (even build 1375, but haven't tested with build 2000) won't install.

It might say something like that a reboot is necessary because there are some system files are waiting to be updated. This is before SEP even started the installation. A reboot doesn't help; running the setup again causes the same prompt.

I've also had issues updating from other Symantec software on a well-used system (latest XP installation is over a year old).

I always advise and practice backing up at every installation step, anyway, but especially with the large change caused by installing a major security package.

User avatar
sayeds
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:47 am
Location: South Africa

Post by sayeds » Thu May 08, 2008 3:12 am

I'm with eset all the way! :wink:
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
corona2k
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:07 am

Post by corona2k » Sat May 10, 2008 2:27 am

Very happy ESET user here (you can tell from the sig lol).
Image Image

Post Reply