Avast vs MSE, Firefox vs Explorer vs Chrome

[avg1joe]

There have been a few threads on here that ask what to use for protection. I'm a fan of avast with firefox with ad block plus.

I have an old gateway with xp sp3 on it. 2.53ghz cpu and 3/4 gig of ram. I decided to try a few things with it. I timed boot up speeds to where the desktop is visible then hit ctrl-alt-del at that point and noted the total time until the cpu settled at 0%. I noted the commit charge at idle, with firefox loaded, or explorer or chrome. What I'm trying to determine is what sort of system impact each browser and antivirus has.

NO ANTIVIRUS:
Start to desktop: 37s
Start to 0%: 47s
memory commit:
-at idle: 115m
-firefox: 168m

AVAST:
Start to desktop: 43s
Start to 0%: 57s
memory commit:
-at idle: 153m
-firefox: 184m

MICROSOFT SECURITY ESSENTIALS:
Start to desktop: 42s
Start to 0%: 113s
memory commit:
-at idle: 278m
-firefox: 326m
-explorer: 336m
-chrome: 342m*

*While testing chrome I noticed a couple disturbing things. [I loaded the same webpage with all browsers (http://odb.org/).]

-With firefox and ie8 the cpu quickly settled to 0%. With chrome it didn't. It was always at least 8% and was always fluctuating wildly to higher cpu usages. What the heck was it doing when I wasn't asking it to do anything????

-While testing firefox I enabled ad block plus. I did the same in chrome with the same dismal results I've come to expect from chrome's ad block. I navigated to this page in satelliteguys and there is a banner ad in chrome where there is none in firefox. I've learned that ad blocking is incredibly important for safe surfing. Without it, your browser will take you on a merry ride to places you didn't intend to go where you will pick up all sorts of nasty things. With it, links usually take you where they say they are going to take you.

I'm pretty sure that some people are going to have some comments about this. I just blew an hour of my life testing these browsers and antivirus programs in a real world situation eliminating as many external variables as possible. Feel free to do the same and post your numbers here.

My tests show that firefox with avast has the lowest impact on system resources and is more effective at blocking ads.

 

[avg1joe]

How fast do they scan?

MSE Quick: 13 seconds
MSE FULL: 34 minutes

Avast quick: 10.5 minutes
Avast Full: 14.5 minutes

13 seconds? That's not a quickie, that's....

If the mse quick scan covers the same areas as the avast quick scan then that is amazing performance. I'm skeptical. Avast tells me that it scanned 4.2gb on quick and 8.6gb on full. MSE doesn't say what it scanned. There may have been a log file or something but I uninstalled mse after the test to install avast.

 

[Voyager6]

I am running Avast and use Firefox (with ad block plus) almost exclusively. I love the performance. My systems were definitely slower when I used AVGFree.

 

[meStevo]

Now that the rest of the browser have caught up with Chrome, I don't see anything that makes me want to switch. it still feels like it renders pages just as fast if not faster, and for the last however long Google has led in browser innovation... anything new usually lands on Chrome first and then the rest move to copy.

Measuring a system footprint is one thing, but Chrome set the bar for performance as a browser, and it still feels like the lightest quickest browser to me when it comes to navigating to and rendering pages.

I've used Avast and AVG for a decade, and recently converted to MSE when it was released and have never been happier with the nearly nag free experience.

 

[diogen]

Chrome version 6 (beta) is out...
Google Chrome (BETA)

Chrome-to-Phone works really nice with N1...
http://chrome.blogspot.com/

Diogen.

 

[meStevo]

Has worked great for the last 2 months on my Droid 1 too.

 

[diogen]

Regardless of browsers used, a table comparing AV products under Windows 7
AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software

During the 2nd quarter of 2010 we have tested 19 security products in the areas protection, repair and usability. The "Protection" covers static and dynamic malware detection, including real-world 0-Day attack testing. In case of "Repair", we check the system disinfection and rootkit removal in detail. The "Usability" testing includes the system slow-down caused by the tools and the number of false positives.

Diogen.

 

[avg1joe]

I just blew an hour of my life testing these browsers and antivirus programs in a real world situation eliminating as many external variables as possible. Feel free to do the same and post your numbers here.

Diogen, didn't you say you had some netbooks available?

I was hoping some folks would be willing to put some actual effort into this and give some real numbers instead of talking about how one thing feels faster than another.

 

[diogen]

Diogen, didn't you say you had some netbooks available?

I have. Half a dozen of them (or so).
But I don't want to get into this debate. For many reasons.

First, I don't use XP anymore.
Second, it is very hard to compare them properly. Again, for many reasons.
For example, boot-up time.
It is known that Win7 boots faster than Vista. But if you really look deeper into that, it doesn't.
It just shows you the desktop faster, before everything is loaded and actually allows you to start programs.

Another example: RAM consumed by Chrome.
It has been shown that Chrome takes RAM when unused and returns it as soon as there is use for it by other programs.
They (Google) claim it is efficient use of memory and it is really hard to argue with that.

I used Norton antivirus since around 1995, the corporate version for the last 5-6 years. Had no reason to complain.
When starting to use Win7 and having access to Morro (what later became MSE) I compared them (and some others)
as good as I could. It was no contest. Moving to v.2 that now runs on servers (I run dozens of them).

I'm old and conservative, don't live on the edge.
If I find something I like, I stick with it. Especially in the field of security...

Diogen.

 

[avg1joe]

How did you get from here in a recent antivirus thread:

Smaller footprint, faster scans....zero effect on startup/shutdown times...has less impact on the system....And to really test impact, install it on a netbook...

to here:

it is very hard to compare them properly.

...after I ask you to test the impact on a netbook?

 

[diogen]

What I said there was true then (a bit over a year ago), on a 10" Inspiron netbook, 512BM RAM under Win7 Starter.
I don't use Firefox. With or without extensions. I didn't measure time to 0% CPU utilization. I don't care.
I know that installing Norton Corp. or Acrobat increases the boot times 3 times to open My Computer.
With AVAST the difference was less but noticeable. Trend was missing half the viruses and barking on autorun in the root of USB.
I don't want to question your numbers. What I said above is good enough for my use. And I'm a big believer in good enough...

Yes, feel counts. 10 sec vs. 15 sec. doesn't.
I should have added what configuration my netbook was. I didn't and I'm sorry for that. And for nothing else.

And the linked above paper shows that common sense counts...

Diogen.

EDIT
BTW, when comparing AV products, did you always start with the same clean OS image?
Or did you install-deinstall different AV products?

If the second, the numbers are meaningless.

 

[avg1joe]

I did not start with a clean os image before each trial. What I did was good enough for my use. And I'm a big believer in good enough.

I like trying out new things and if they work better for me I will switch to them. Please recognize that I have respected your opinion enough to try the programs you have suggested.

 

[diogen]

Sounds good.

Diogen.