NAV 2006 at 50mb versus KAV 3.5133 at 2.588mb

  • Thread starter Thread starter slartyb
  • Start date Start date
S

slartyb

I got a shock the other day, i saw a xp nav 2006 installation, and i
roughly worked out the ram usage by the various nav services, it was
about 50mb,

On my personal xp pro home machine running KAV 3.1533 in monitor mode
it was 2.588 mb.

Kav 35133 is and will remain a classic we will remember fondly for
years to come.

long live kav 35133

ban rectum thermometers
 
slartyb said:
I got a shock the other day, i saw a xp nav 2006 installation, and i
roughly worked out the ram usage by the various nav services, it was
about 50mb,

On my personal xp pro home machine running KAV 3.1533 in monitor mode
it was 2.588 mb.

Kav 35133 is and will remain a classic we will remember fondly for
years to come.

long live kav 35133

ban rectum thermometers
Click to expand...
I just checked the memory usage of NOD32 and it came in at 20 MB

Louise
 
louise said:
I just checked the memory usage of NOD32 and it came in at 20 MB

Louise
Click to expand...

IMO, why would anyone concern themselves with RAM usage WRT to a
security product?

1) 1 GB RAM - about $100 USD.

2) Anyone needing an additional 128, 256 or 512 MB of RAM in order to
play an online game wouldn't hesitate to mortgage his or her house in
order to get it.

Clock speed is a different issue. Upgrading a CPU and/or Motherboard
is a big deal. But RAM? Come on!

Ron :-)
 
Ron said:
IMO, why would anyone concern themselves with RAM usage WRT to a
security product?

1) 1 GB RAM - about $100 USD.

2) Anyone needing an additional 128, 256 or 512 MB of RAM in order to
play an online game wouldn't hesitate to mortgage his or her house in
order to get it.

Clock speed is a different issue. Upgrading a CPU and/or Motherboard
is a big deal. But RAM? Come on!

Ron :-)
Click to expand...

You dont grasp the issue. For many years, still now, 256mb has been the
standard amount of memory supplied for winxp systems. You will find that the
majority of users never break the seal on their machine. In this situation,
NAV is absolutely awful. NAV on a 256mb machine cripples the machine
involved, the user thinks its normal for their machine to walk at a crawl.

Gaz
 
That is 100% crapola.
Show us test data that -proves- NAV slows anything down . It doesn't exist.

For that matter any machine that has only 256M is sorely lacking in trying
to run any application.
You are simply parroting back what some one else told you,
that heard it from someone else,
that heard it from someone else...etc....

SHOW ME PROOF!



FYI NAV 2006 and NIS 2006 are very zippy programs especially since they no
longer support Win9x/Me. They are 100% XP apps and perform like they
should....unless you have an already crippled / hosed / f__ked up PC
 
Gaz said:
You dont grasp the issue. For many years, still now, 256mb has been the
standard amount of memory supplied for winxp systems. You will find that the
majority of users never break the seal on their machine. In this situation,
NAV is absolutely awful. NAV on a 256mb machine cripples the machine
involved, the user thinks its normal for their machine to walk at a crawl.
Click to expand...

You think Norton is bad? You should take a look at the memory usage of
Panda AV.

The current Kaspersky is still pretty good, about 15MB.
 
Charlie said:
That is 100% crapola.
Show us test data that -proves- NAV slows anything down . It doesn't
exist.
Click to expand...

It is there, put together a system, install a standard 256mb of ram, and
install NAV /NIS and watch the machine crawl. NAV has a huge impact on the
running of a machine.

Use it if you want, if it keeps you happy, i dont really care, but to deny
NAV reduces performance on a 256mb machine, is to deny the sun rising in the
morning.
For that matter any machine that has only 256M is sorely lacking in trying
to run any application.
Click to expand...

Piffle. A 256mb machine is *perfectly* adequete for usage on the internet,
word processing and most other uses from a home, none technical user. 512 is
better, but with a sensible virus protecter, 256mb is livable.

You are simply parroting back what some one else told you,
that heard it from someone else,
that heard it from someone else...etc....
Click to expand...

Erm, i do this all the time, at least a couple of times a week i come across
machines crippled by the use of NAV.
FYI NAV 2006 and NIS 2006 are very zippy programs especially since they
no
longer support Win9x/Me. They are 100% XP apps and perform like they
should....unless you have an already crippled / hosed / f__ked up PC
Click to expand...

I have only briefly seen NAV06, it performed no differently to 05, when I
used it.

Gaz
 
slartyb said:
I got a shock the other day, i saw a xp nav 2006 installation, and i
roughly worked out the ram usage by the various nav services, it was
about 50mb,

On my personal xp pro home machine running KAV 3.1533 in monitor mode
it was 2.588 mb.

Kav 35133 is and will remain a classic we will remember fondly for
years to come.

long live kav 35133

ban rectum thermometers
Click to expand...

What about clock cycles? How does it treat the processor?

(Anyone know where old versions of Kav can be found off hand?
Kaspersky official site are up to version 5.0)
 
It is there, put together a system, install a standard 256mb of ram, and
install NAV /NIS and watch the machine crawl. NAV has a huge impact on the
running of a machine.

Use it if you want, if it keeps you happy, i dont really care, but to deny
NAV reduces performance on a 256mb machine, is to deny the sun rising in the
morning.


Piffle. A 256mb machine is *perfectly* adequete for usage on the internet,
word processing and most other uses from a home, none technical user. 512 is
better, but with a sensible virus protecter, 256mb is livable.
Click to expand...
[snip]

My Window 98 machine has only 64MB of RAM and that seems adequate for what
I need to do. (The fact that Windows tries to be helpful and do things
without asking (or asking for permission to do things without telling you
what will be done) is another story.)

What success (if any) would I have in attempting to install and run NAV on
it (or is it even supported by NAV)?

Norman De Forest, who has had up to 12 concurrent processes running on his
multi-tasking Seiko with MP/M-86 with only 256KB (yes, 'KB', not 'MB')
of RAM and a 5MB hard drive.
 
Norman said:
It is there, put together a system, install a standard 256mb of ram, and
install NAV /NIS and watch the machine crawl. NAV has a huge impact on the
running of a machine.

Use it if you want, if it keeps you happy, i dont really care, but to deny
NAV reduces performance on a 256mb machine, is to deny the sun rising in the
morning.



Piffle. A 256mb machine is *perfectly* adequete for usage on the internet,
word processing and most other uses from a home, none technical user. 512 is
better, but with a sensible virus protecter, 256mb is livable.
Click to expand...

[snip]

My Window 98 machine has only 64MB of RAM and that seems adequate for what
I need to do. (The fact that Windows tries to be helpful and do things
without asking (or asking for permission to do things without telling you
what will be done) is another story.)

What success (if any) would I have in attempting to install and run NAV on
it (or is it even supported by NAV)?

Norman De Forest, who has had up to 12 concurrent processes running on his
multi-tasking Seiko with MP/M-86 with only 256KB (yes, 'KB', not 'MB')
of RAM and a 5MB hard drive.
Click to expand...
....and only 48K of TPA.
That was when programmers knew how to write efficent programs, and it
did not take a whole army to write one stupid program (eg: Windows,
Word, IE, etc).
 
Norman said:
It is there, put together a system, install a standard 256mb of ram, and
install NAV /NIS and watch the machine crawl. NAV has a huge impact on
the
running of a machine.

Use it if you want, if it keeps you happy, i dont really care, but to
deny
NAV reduces performance on a 256mb machine, is to deny the sun rising in
the
morning.


Piffle. A 256mb machine is *perfectly* adequete for usage on the
internet,
word processing and most other uses from a home, none technical user. 512
is
better, but with a sensible virus protecter, 256mb is livable.
Click to expand...
[snip]

My Window 98 machine has only 64MB of RAM and that seems adequate for what
I need to do. (The fact that Windows tries to be helpful and do things
without asking (or asking for permission to do things without telling you
what will be done) is another story.)

What success (if any) would I have in attempting to install and run NAV on
it (or is it even supported by NAV)?
Click to expand...

You could install, it but performance would be reduced to, if you are lucky,
less then a quarter of what you have now. For a win98 machine to run smooth
on 64mb, requires a tight ship, with minimal running processes, sticking NAV
on there will wreck it....

Gaz
 
Back
Top