my experience with bitdefender 8

  • Thread starter Thread starter badgolferman
  • Start date Start date
B

badgolferman

I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
home computer -- 2.0 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM. Typically
there are only three applications running, IE, OE, newsreader and
several background processes. Sometimes there are a few more
applications but there has never been any system degradation, mostly
because of the large amount of RAM.

I downloaded and installed Bitdefender Standard 8 since it gets such
great reviews in this group. I was able to get a one year free license
so this was the perfect opportunity. After disabling Symantec services
and rebooting, I installed Bitdefender. Its installation time was
rather lengthy, but eventually everything was fine. It never asked to
update the definition files so I did that manually. Then I disabled
e-mail scanning and played around with the options a bit.

I ran my first manual scan of just the C: drive and it took 2 hours to
complete. It's a good thing I didn't let it do the other drives. Over
the next couple of days the Sygate firewall asked numerous times for
permission to allow Bitdefender access to various sites. Each time I
allowed it and told it not to ask anymore. This behavior was endless
and become very annoying. I also noticed system degradation occurring
rather severely; it would take nearly 20 seconds for an application to
open compared to the normal 5 seconds. What was the worst was the
length of time my newsreader took to download headers, expand the
server tree, or download message bodies.

After two days of this mess I uninstalled the program and started
Symantec right back up again. The computer is back to normal
immediately afterwards and there is no slowdown whatsoever. I was very
dissapointed with Bitdefender and wanted to make it my default realtime
scanner. I did notice it had some sort of service that watched for
registry changes in the Startup section and that was somewhat
impressive. However the drag it put on my computer was intolerable and
I can't justify its total performance over Symantec Antivirus version
10 or any other anti-virus product I've ever used for that matter.
 
badgolferman said:
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
home computer -- 2.0 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM. Typically
there are only three applications running, IE, OE, newsreader and
several background processes. Sometimes there are a few more
applications but there has never been any system degradation, mostly
because of the large amount of RAM.

I downloaded and installed Bitdefender Standard 8 since it gets such
great reviews in this group. I was able to get a one year free license
so this was the perfect opportunity. After disabling Symantec services
and rebooting, I installed Bitdefender. Its installation time was
rather lengthy, but eventually everything was fine. It never asked to
update the definition files so I did that manually. Then I disabled
e-mail scanning and played around with the options a bit.

I ran my first manual scan of just the C: drive and it took 2 hours to
complete. It's a good thing I didn't let it do the other drives. Over
the next couple of days the Sygate firewall asked numerous times for
permission to allow Bitdefender access to various sites. Each time I
allowed it and told it not to ask anymore. This behavior was endless
and become very annoying. I also noticed system degradation occurring
rather severely; it would take nearly 20 seconds for an application to
open compared to the normal 5 seconds. What was the worst was the
length of time my newsreader took to download headers, expand the
server tree, or download message bodies.

After two days of this mess I uninstalled the program and started
Symantec right back up again. The computer is back to normal
immediately afterwards and there is no slowdown whatsoever. I was very
dissapointed with Bitdefender and wanted to make it my default realtime
scanner. I did notice it had some sort of service that watched for
registry changes in the Startup section and that was somewhat
impressive. However the drag it put on my computer was intolerable and
I can't justify its total performance over Symantec Antivirus version
10 or any other anti-virus product I've ever used for that matter.
Click to expand...
Any reason for running Sygate at the same time? Is your Bit Defender A/V
only or is it the Internet Security version with firewall etc?
 
badgolferman - 21.02.2006 01:18 :
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
Click to expand...

[...]

why do you start a new subject/thread (without any was:) instead
continue the thread "Bit-Devender" startet by the OP Larry? Such a
behavior makes following a thread very uncomfortable.
 
Mike said:
Any reason for running Sygate at the same time? Is your Bit Defender
A/V only or is it the Internet Security version with firewall etc?
Click to expand...

It is anti-virus only.
 
Peter said:
badgolferman - 21.02.2006 01:18 :
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
Click to expand...

[...]

why do you start a new subject/thread (without any was:) instead
continue the thread "Bit-Devender" startet by the OP Larry? Such a
behavior makes following a thread very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I didn't read the thread you mention. Secondly, this is a new
topic and after looking over the other one it is about version 9; I
installed version 8. Thirdly, it is good to see someone teaching us
how to use Usenet. There are certainly plenty of us who need the
lessons.

Do you have anything to offer regarding this subject?
 
badgolferman - 21.02.2006 12:48 :
Peter said:
badgolferman - 21.02.2006 01:18 :
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
Click to expand...

[...]

why do you start a new subject/thread (without any was:) instead
continue the thread "Bit-Devender" startet by the OP Larry? Such a
behavior makes following a thread very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I didn't read the thread you mention. Secondly, this is a new
topic and after looking over the other one it is about version 9; I
installed version 8. Thirdly, it is good to see someone teaching us
how to use Usenet. There are certainly plenty of us who need the
lessons.
Click to expand...

shurely, but in this case I wrote "why do *you* start"
Do you have anything to offer regarding this subject?
Click to expand...

yes, before using the mentioned version 9 I worked with the different
preversions 6, 7 and even 8. All these previous versions of BD gave me
very good experiencies and reached very good rates even in A/V tests.
Some of the 9er additional integrated features (firewall, antispam,
antispyware etc.) possibly makes it unnecessary to install other
applications seperately because you'll find all in one.

Contrarely my experiences with Symantec A/Vs have been not the best and
are confirmed especially in this NG, Windows-NGs! and others (numerous
problems with older/slower PCs, with updatings, with incompatibilities,
with totaly uninstalling Symantec (folders, fils, registry), with
support etc. etc.. Please read back if interested. Otherwise: everyone
should find and be happy with the A/V he personally prefers for the one
or other reasen.

My 2 cents.
 
Peter said:
badgolferman - 21.02.2006 01:18 :
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on
Click to expand...
my

[...]

why do you start a new subject/thread (without any was:) instead
continue the thread "Bit-Devender" startet by the OP Larry? Such a
behavior makes following a thread very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I didn't read the thread you mention. Secondly, this is a new
topic and after looking over the other one it is about version 9; I
installed version 8. Thirdly, it is good to see someone teaching us
how to use Usenet. There are certainly plenty of us who need the
lessons.

Do you have anything to offer regarding this subject?
Click to expand...

Haven`t tried it but BD v 9 is s conglomerate of everything including
AV. Some praise it but I would think it could slow things down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRiPTiON
BitDefender Professional Plus v9 integrates antivirus, firewall and
antispam modules
into one comprehensive security package, tailored to meet the needs of
home and
corporate Internet users worldwide.

Antivirus
The mission of the AntiVirus module is to ensure detection and removal
of all
viruses in the wild. BitDefender Antivirus uses robust scan engines,
certified
by ICSA Labs, Virus Bulletin, Checkmark, Checkvir and TUV.

Firewall
The firewall module protects your data and your privacy by filtering the
incoming
and outgoing traffic, controlling cookies, blocking malicious scripts
and
"XXX-dialer" type programs.

Antispam
Quite simply put, the BitDefender Antispam module deals with the problem
of spam,
so you don't have to.

System requirements:

* Pentium MMX 200 Mhz or higher processor
* Minimum 64MB of RAM Memory (128MB recommended)
* Minimum 40MB available hard disk space

Operating platform: Windows 98/NT-SP6/Me/2000/XP IE 5.5(+)
Regards
Buddy b
 
I normally run Symantec Antivirus 10 without e-mail protection on my
home computer -- 2.0 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM. Typically
there are only three applications running, IE, OE, newsreader and
several background processes. Sometimes there are a few more
applications but there has never been any system degradation, mostly
because of the large amount of RAM.

I downloaded and installed Bitdefender Standard 8 since it gets such
great reviews in this group. I was able to get a one year free license
so this was the perfect opportunity. After disabling Symantec services
and rebooting, I installed Bitdefender. Its installation time was
rather lengthy, but eventually everything was fine. It never asked to
update the definition files so I did that manually. Then I disabled
e-mail scanning and played around with the options a bit.

I ran my first manual scan of just the C: drive and it took 2 hours to
complete. It's a good thing I didn't let it do the other drives. Over
the next couple of days the Sygate firewall asked numerous times for
permission to allow Bitdefender access to various sites. Each time I
allowed it and told it not to ask anymore. This behavior was endless
and become very annoying. I also noticed system degradation occurring
rather severely; it would take nearly 20 seconds for an application to
open compared to the normal 5 seconds. What was the worst was the
length of time my newsreader took to download headers, expand the
server tree, or download message bodies.

After two days of this mess I uninstalled the program and started
Symantec right back up again. The computer is back to normal
immediately afterwards and there is no slowdown whatsoever. I was very
dissapointed with Bitdefender and wanted to make it my default realtime
scanner. I did notice it had some sort of service that watched for
registry changes in the Startup section and that was somewhat
impressive. However the drag it put on my computer was intolerable and
I can't justify its total performance over Symantec Antivirus version
10 or any other anti-virus product I've ever used for that matter.
Click to expand...

I'm using build 8.0.202. I have everything under Settings unchecked.
I'd guess the Settings in BD may have been your problem.

I'm experiencing no problems on Win98SE, 1200mhz, 256k ram. My HD only
has 3gig of programs so a scan of C drive only takes minutes. I normally
have half dozen programs in use. Only WinPatrol and Kerio 2.1.5 firewall
startup with windows.

As for BD, Kerio has TCP out approved for any address, any port with
UDP incoming the same. No other firewall requests are generated by BD.

I use Firefox and Agent rather than IE/OE and have no Symantec programs
installed.

BoB
 
badgolferman said:
After two days of this mess I uninstalled the program and started
Symantec right back up again. The computer is back to normal
immediately afterwards and there is no slowdown whatsoever. I was very
dissapointed with Bitdefender and wanted to make it my default realtime
scanner.
Click to expand...

You say you "started Symantec right back up again", did you have both
Symantec and Bitdefender installed at the same time?

Based on my personal experiences Bitdefender has very low overhead
compared to many other AV scanners, and I can almost bet my house on
it that it detects more viruses and malware than for example Symantec.

But if you are happy with Symantec it is definedly better than having
no AV at all.

Tomi
 
Tomi Hakala, 2/22/2006, 12:44:37 AM,
You say you "started Symantec right back up again", did you have both
Symantec and Bitdefender installed at the same time?
Click to expand...

I had disabled all Symantec services through MSCONFIG and services.msc
After uninstalling Bitdefender I re-enabled those services back up.
Based on my personal experiences Bitdefender has very low overhead
compared to many other AV scanners, and I can almost bet my house on
it that it detects more viruses and malware than for example Symantec.
Click to expand...

I will not deny that it is probably better than Symantec in every way.
That's why I wanted to make it my primary AV, but it behaved badly on
my machine.
 
badgolferman said:
Tomi Hakala, 2/22/2006, 12:44:37 AM,


I had disabled all Symantec services through MSCONFIG and services.msc
After uninstalling Bitdefender I re-enabled those services back up.


I will not deny that it is probably better than Symantec in every way.
That's why I wanted to make it my primary AV, but it behaved badly on
my machine.
Click to expand...

So totally remove Symantec and don't just disable it and run the tests again
.... There may still be settings in Symantec that you can not stop from
running, for example the firewall not being able to remember settings could
have been caused by a blocking agent of some sort.

If you are going to test something, then please do it on a standalone
machine which meets the requirements of the software, and that the software
being tested is not having to share possible kernel routines with other like
minded software causing delays and ownership conflicts, as with all testing,
give the software an even playing field before drawing conclusions.

I have installed BitDefender on numerous machines with lower specs than
yours, and with no adverse effects or degradation of the systems involved,
however I have also seen on many systems that have Norton/Symantec products
installed that these machines slow to a crawl.

All the best with the tests, and by all means post the results after you
have completed them with a *level playing field*

TpwUK
 
Back
Top