![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi All,
I saw a question on the Fedora Forum regarding the "boot" speed of LO which is impressive especially compared to old versions of OOo.
I think this has been discussed here in the past but I can't find any specific posts. Is there anything running in the background which makes LO start up faster?
Cheers
Hi 
You could have either of them use their Quickstarter but it's a pain and kinda blocks having the other one on your machine at the same time.
Regards from
Tom
For me, I do not use the Quickstart option. Their are some hassles with upgrading some extensions if that is "on" all the time. I find that without using that option, I have the package load up and usable for editing quickly enough for my needs. It is faster than many other packages I use.
The "boot" time for LO is much faster now that in the past. Also, compared to MS Office, it is still faster.
There is one other "time" that needs to be measured. The time it takes for you to be able to start editing. Sure you can have a package start up fast and show its "page view", but it does no good if you cannot start working with the package if it take another minute or so to allow you to start working with it.
Take Writer or Word. You start the package by double-clicking the icon in the menu or on the screen. Then you get a splash screen. After that the document or a new one is seen in the "page view" window. Now, how long does it take from there to be able to click on a menu or start typing editing the document? That is where I had a problem with MSO 2003. Sure that is ten years out of date, but it was the last version of MSO I actually work with on a regular basis. Since 2010 I have been a "Linux" person with Ubuntu as my default desktop OS. So I have not tried the newest version of MSO. But, with Writer, the time ti takes from opening of the page view window to being able to edit or click on the menus has been reduced by a large percentage since I started using LO in its early days.
That is the real question. How much wait time do you have between clicking on the icon to the print of being able to work with the package. No package is as fast as people would like, i.e. click and edit in a matter of a 2 or 3 seconds. Right now, with 2 browser windows open, this email package and 3 utilities on the screen, my Ubuntu install on a mid-range quad core desktop from Feb. 2010 , takes about 7 seconds from click to editing. That is fast enough for me. I have run packages that take 15 to 30 seconds to open up to the point of using it. In this day of wanting things as quick as possible, 15 to 30 seconds may be too long for some people.
Yet, for those of you who have been using PCs since its early days of DOS or even Windows 95, these start up times are super fast compared to those older systems, even with the less powerful packages that we used, like PC-Write for word processing.
Hi
With MSO the splash screen appears immediately and keeps doing things to make it clear it is doing something.
With LO it is ages before the splash screen appears so it looks like it hasn't reacted at all.
So people don't trust it and they think that more time passes. It might be good to video the same system starting each up in turn. Also i think the Windows version is a lot slower to start up than the Ubuntu one.
LO is getting better but it just doesn't look like it is. Perception is often more important than reality with things like this.
Regards from
Tom
Gents
Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to performance of start-ups here.
This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.
Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel Core2 Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB Video, SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU
Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting bogged down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months later, and many who poer poer the idea of cleaning a system (registry and boot processes), and defragging it. So here's my tested speeds of this system above.
PC switch on to ready state to use (Windows 7 64bit, with a dual boot menu selection and the login screen) = 40 seconds
PC switch on to ready state to use (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit, with a dual boot menu selection and the login screen) = 20 seconds
LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
All the above to load a file directly i.e click on the data file which loads the appropriate app (and I chose files of around 5MB - 4 seconds for Writer, 5 seconds for Calc and 5 seconds for Impress in both O/S's.
PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark (Windows 7 64bit) = 15 seconds
PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) = 5 seconds
My LO splash logo on both O/S's is displayed in under 1 second and the scroll bar in the splash logo takes under 1 second to show it's loading state, the balance of the time in the 3 seconds is loading the app, and I don't use the quickstarter option and have never done. I have supplied the times for clicking on the data file to load the app.
Regards
Yes, I get 3 seconds from clicking on the panel icon to the appearance of the splash screen. I sometimes see a "progress bar" if I am running a lot of packages and need to open a document within LO. Just now, the splash screen came on and in about a second or two the page view windows [or whatever it is officially called] replaced the splash screen and the progress bar did not have "the time" to show any progress.
I run an AMD Phenom X4 9650 64-bit quad core running either 1.15 or 2.3 GHz depending on the system need at the time. It has an "internal" NVIDIA GeForce 7025 video on a ASRock N68-S motherboard. I could upgrade the processor since it is AM3 ready. The system was a "custom build" so it is not a name brand system. I have 4 GB of ram, most likely DDR2. All four of the SATA ports are used, and it stated they are SATA II @ 3.0 Gb/s. There are some "internals" that was designed for Windows, that are not accessible using Linux, but I do not notice any issues. I have a 600 watt power, just in case I decided to add a powerful GPU video. I have not so far.
I was told that this system was somewhere shy of the top quarter of the AMD processors for power, when it came out. I just call it mid-range.
I do not remember the drive companies, but in Feb. 2010 it had a 1-TB drive and an IDE optical DVD burner. The spring of 2012, I installed a 2-TB drive [big-drive] and by the fall I added another 2-TB drive [data-two]. A few weeks ago I added the SATA DVD burner. So now all 4 SATA II ports are in use. I want to replace the aging 1-TB OS and active data drive with a 2-TB one with it partitioned as 300-500 for the OS and data, then the rest being a data-only partition. That will give me a total of 6-TB in the desktop. The next drive purchase will be to replace the first 2-TB drive with a 3 or 4 TB one. The current drives have 78.8 GB, 113.8 GB, and 55.2 GB free space on them. So it is time to think about adding the extra TB or more to the desktop. I just have to either replace a drive or add more SATA II/III ports to it.
I never ran Windows on this desktop, my default system I so most thing on. I started with Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit, since it was Feb. 2010, and went to 10.04LTS when it came out. Then I waited till 12.04 LTS to upgrade it, just like I will be waiting for 14.04LTS for the next one.
Your dual boot OS loading seems about the same for me, once I get the screen that gives me a choice of OS.
Your loading Writer seems ok with my quad Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit, dual core Intel running Ubuntu 12.04 or Win7 Home Premium or Win7 Professional [2 dual core laptops with the different Win7 installs on each]. Now my old AMD64 laptops running XP/pro takes about 15 to 20 seconds. I do not use Calc, Impress, or Draw much so I never really noticed their opening speeds.
Gents
Kracked, a good reply. If I may add my two cents worth to performance of start-ups here.
This is my system hardware top of the range in December 2007, and still hops today. The only things updated since 2008 was the video card and the SATA III hard drives, and the O/S's.
Windows 7 Ult. x64 / Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail Dual boot, Intel Core2 Duo 6850 3GHZ, MSI X-38 Diamond mobo, Asus ATI EAH5770 CUcore 1GB Video, SuperTalent 6GB DDR3 1333MHZ, Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Windows Boot), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 2TB (Data), Seagate 7500RPM SATAIII 500GB (Linux), Thermaltake Toughpower 750W PSU
Also my analogy of a well tuned and clean system, will run top gun for many years compared to cutting edge modern hardware today getting bogged down with willy nilly installed and unmaintained software (but again if this is maintained it will remain a top gun from it's day of purchase and clobber my hardware performance). I see and read too many who throw good money at high end systems only to have them slow a few months later, and many who poer poer the idea of cleaning a system (registry and boot processes), and defragging it. So here's my tested speeds of this system above.
PC switch on to ready state to use (Windows 7 64bit, with a dual boot menu selection and the login screen) = 40 seconds
PC switch on to ready state to use (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit, with a dual boot menu selection and the login screen) = 20 secondsLO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Writer from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Calc from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Windows 7 64bit) etc. - 3 seconds
LO Impress from click on icon to ready to type / menu clicks (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) etc. - 3 secondsAll the above to load a file directly i.e click on the data file which loads the appropriate app (and I chose files of around 5MB - 4 seconds for Writer, 5 seconds for Calc and 5 seconds for Impress in both O/S's.
PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark (Windows 7 64bit) = 15 seconds
PC shutdown, from time to click on shutdown options to cold and dark (Ubuntu 13.04 64bit) = 5 secondsMy LO splash logo on both O/S's is displayed in under 1 second and the scroll bar in the splash logo takes under 1 second to show it's loading state, the balance of the time in the 3 seconds is loading the app, and I don't use the quickstarter option and have never done. I have supplied the times for clicking on the data file to load the app.
Regards
Hi
With MSO the splash screen appears immediately and keeps doing things to make it clear it is doing something.With LO it is ages before the splash screen appears so it looks like it hasn't reacted at all.
So people don't trust it and they think that more time passes. It might be good to video the same system starting each up in turn. Also i think the Windows version is a lot slower to start up than the Ubuntu one.
LO is getting better but it just doesn't look like it is. Perception is often more important than reality with things like this.
Regards from
Tom________________________________
From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster<webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To:users@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 12:49
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speedFor me, I do not use the Quickstart option. Their are some hassles with
upgrading some extensions if that is "on" all the time. I find that
without using that option, I have the package load up and usable for
editing quickly enough for my needs. It is faster than many other
packages I use.The "boot" time for LO is much faster now that in the past. Also,
compared to MS Office, it is still faster.There is one other "time" that needs to be measured. The time it takes
for you to be able to start editing. Sure you can have a package start
up fast and show its "page view", but it does no good if you cannot
start working with the package if it take another minute or so to allow
you to start working with it.Take Writer or Word. You start the package by double-clicking the icon
in the menu or on the screen. Then you get a splash screen. After that
the document or a new one is seen in the "page view" window. Now, how
long does it take from there to be able to click on a menu or start
typing editing the document? That is where I had a problem with MSO
2003. Sure that is ten years out of date, but it was the last version
of MSO I actually work with on a regular basis. Since 2010 I have been
a "Linux" person with Ubuntu as my default desktop OS. So I have not
tried the newest version of MSO. But, with Writer, the time ti takes>from opening of the page view window to being able to edit or click on
the menus has been reduced by a large percentage since I started using
LO in its early days.That is the real question. How much wait time do you have between
clicking on the icon to the print of being able to work with the
package. No package is as fast as people would like, i.e. click and
edit in a matter of a 2 or 3 seconds. Right now, with 2 browser windows
open, this email package and 3 utilities on the screen, my Ubuntu
install on a mid-range quad core desktop from Feb. 2010 , takes about 7
seconds from click to editing. That is fast enough for me. I have run
packages that take 15 to 30 seconds to open up to the point of using
it. In this day of wanting things as quick as possible, 15 to 30
seconds may be too long for some people.Yet, for those of you who have been using PCs since its early days of
DOS or even Windows 95, these start up times are super fast compared to
those older systems, even with the less powerful packages that we used,
like PC-Write for word processing.
<snip>
Hi
That is weird.
On this fairly crumby laptop, 2.2GHz (hmmm, not so crumby after all) it took about 0-1 seconds for the LO splash-screen to appear. Same on my really nice desktop, 1.86GHz (hmmm, not so nice after all!). Both running Ubuntu and fairly old versions of LO (i think). Meanwhile on Windows 2.93GHz it took about 1s to open Writer completely. Didn't even have time to see the splash screen.
Now i guess i need to find the machines that are having the slow start-ups and maybe find out why.
Dunno why i am getting unusually good results on these 3 machines except that i have just done tons of maintenance on the laptop for the first time in years and i tend to look after those 2 desktops more than any others in the office
Regards from
Tom
I have a Sony Vaio laptop. I'm running a dual boot Windows 7 and Linux Mint 15 (running in the Windows WUBI installer). I just started using LO 4 on the Linux Mint side and immediately noticed how much faster it runs on Mint rather than Win7. I'm sure there are a lot of variables, and I haven't tested them all, but so far, I'm really pleased with the performance of LO on Mint.
Virgil
Hi Tom
Many times there are sneaky spamware, not necessarily malware, generally called PUP's (Potentially Unwanted Programs), that are bundled with a downloaded or disk based program, and we all just click "next next next", instead of hesitating and checking to see if there is a minuscule tick box to uncheck the loading of a add-on PUP. And most times it's these PUP's that are robbing the resources of a system, mostly monitoring a users PC habits and emails, and then "phoning home" with their collected data. This is how spam gets to all of us.
I regularly use the ctrl shift esc key sequence to bring up the Windows Task manager to see what processes are running, and then I edit my registry (two places, under the user account and the system account) to find and remove these self loading PUP's, and also tracing where they lie on my hard drive and either uninstalling them or my favourite part, simply delete them, and if Windows cannot do this, then my trusty Linux does (most times they are difficult to remove while Windows is running, or they self protect themselves, changing the permission and file attributes to beyond the "administrator level).
I will not post how to edit the registry on this open forum as I don't want to be held responsible for inexperienced people tinkering, tampering and then messing up their system, but I'll email it privately to anyone that wants to know with the risk on your own head, as to where you go in the registry and what keys to work with.
So as I said a clean system, with correct AND TRUSTWORTHY software tools, along with correct defragging makes for a fast system at all times. I can also let people know, if they want via private mail, as to the tools I use and only trust for this. There is plenty payware (and freeware) GARBAGE out there that do keep their promises of really cleaning your system, i.e. wipe all of your O/S and data for you.
Regards
Ha! Ha! there you go, LO just runs on whatever platform and O/S of your choice. And for the most part, what is a minute or less really from switch on to productive use of something. I can't make a cup of tea in that time, and I mean a real brewed cup of tea. Now at least the movies can show an actor sitting down in front of a PC and almost instantly start to work on it, I used to laugh at this in the past 
Regards
Andrew
Actually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3 utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows open. The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice. I have several FF windows open with many tabs involved. That is part of my "normal" desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every day or so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day.
So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at all for a Ubuntu 12.04LTS system.
Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar maybe. I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot time. Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like printer management and other "stuff" like that. So there is much more packages running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual core but different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take longer. To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so you must have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from happening. I know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages. They say "why bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect me", or my favorite "It will never happen to me. You are just paranoid".
So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable state, now, than it was last year. Also, it is not the speed to the splash screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are able to use the package.
So if you run all of the security package, like I do, on Windows it will take longer to load up completely than with less security. The same with Linux and how much is running in the background. The same system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will take different times depending on what is installed and running. Even a fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds.
So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a person cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not be happy with most packages out there that does similar "work". Tablets can be worse load times for their packages and I know of no one locally who has complained about that.
Hi
Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of the usual other windows open.
On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you don't want it
2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work. In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems reasonably ok to me.
On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't completely trust it yet.
The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that. I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is going to be best in the next years or so.
Regards from
Tom
Well, I have had a number of system in where I could not install or run anti-virus the installed. I wonder about the portable versions of anti-virus would work? What I usually do it remove the drive and plus it into a USB adapter and use my most secured Windows PC and scan that drive. I use Comodo [like the dragon] since it is free and it has a full Internet Security suite available for the free download. I add a bunch of other security packages to that and scan the "heck" out of the drive to clean any "nasties" that might be lurking.
So with all that security running on my Win7 laptops [dual boot with Ubuntu 12.04LTS] they tend to run slower than other Windows systems others may have, but slower and safer is better than getting it infected.
So, between the Win7 and Ubuntu installs, Ubuntu 64-bit runs the fastest for using LO. Less need of all those security packages running in the background is one reason. I do do a anti-virus scan nightly on my Ubuntu desktop though, just to make sure my downloaded files are clean so I will not pass on infected files to others.
I like the fact than AVG has a free Android version and it scans any files that are downloaded and/or installed on my NOOK tablet. The same goes with Comodo on my Win7 systems.
So, LO is a fast loading package, even with security packages running in the background, no matter which ones you choose for your Windows systems. LO runs faster on Linux, since there are less a need for all of those security packages running in the background. PLUS, unlike Windows, Linux has both a 32-bit and a 64-bit install so it matched your system a bit better. Of course one day we may have other installs specific to ARM, AMD, Intel, and other CPU types so it is tweaked for the processors. Raspberry Pi has "ported" LO to their version of Debian to run more efficiently on that processor and OS that has been tweaked to run the RPi. I wonder how many "ported tweaks" have been made for specific systems out there world wide.
So LO is fast loading to the point you are able to use it. The last MSO I used loaded up to the page view window but took several minutes till you were able to edit your document. I assume MS has sped that up a bit, but I have not bough any MSO since 2003 and have not tested MSO 2010 or 2013 [yet]. Did use the trial 2007 a few times, though, but do not remember it being much better than 2003.
Hi
Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of the usual other windows open.On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you don't want it
2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work. In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems reasonably ok to me.On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't completely trust it yet.
The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that. I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is going to be best in the next years or so.
Regards from
Tom________________________________
From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 14:56
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speedActually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3
utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows open.
The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice. I have several FF
windows open with many tabs involved. That is part of my "normal"
desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every day or
so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day.So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at all for a
Ubuntu 12.04LTS system.Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar
maybe. I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot time.
Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like printer
management and other "stuff" like that. So there is much more packages
running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual core but
different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take
longer. To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that
Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so you must
have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from happening. I
know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages. They say "why
bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect me", or my
favorite "It will never happen to me. You are just paranoid".So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable state,
now, than it was last year. Also, it is not the speed to the splash
screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are able to use
the package.So if you run all of the security package, like I do, on Windows it
will take longer to load up completely than with less security. The
same with Linux and how much is running in the background. The same
system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will take
different times depending on what is installed and running. Even a
fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds.So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a person
cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not be happy
with most packages out there that does similar "work". Tablets can be
worse load times for their packages and I know of no one locally who has
complained about that.
<snip>
Hi
I tend to take the view that some users will always manage to infect Windows without even seeming to try. Others will find their system gets infected despite elaborate precautions that no other sane person would bother with.
It's more a case of setting things up so that after it does get infected you have some way of dealing with it. Sometimes it's a simple little infection other times it might need a complete reinstall.
Taking reasonable precautions makes sense but too much serious hampers productivity and becomes more of a problem than an actual infection would be.
Just my 2 cents
Regards from
Tom
Hi Tom
You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated fully with MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS I am sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and dishonest malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and MSSE is now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, plugged in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.
In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as it's not bad and totally opensource.
Freeware
1. MSSE
2. Avast
3. ClamAV for Windows
For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal, business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war
Kaspersky
ESET Nod32
Regards
Andrew Brown
Andrew,
Just interested in your comments/thoughts on this site:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml
Hi Tom
You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated fully with
MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS I am
sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and dishonest
malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and MSSE is
now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
not strong with active protection and scanning of your system, plugged
in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
it's not bad and totally opensource.Freeware
1. MSSE
2. Avast
3. ClamAV for WindowsFor payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
business and enterprize, and without starting a flame warKaspersky
ESET Nod32Regards
Andrew Brown
Hi
Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of the usual other windows open.On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even if you don't want it
2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work. In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG seems reasonably ok to me.On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't completely trust it yet.
The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that. I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is going to be best in the next years or so.
Regards from
Tom
<snip>
When I signed up for my local Cable/Internet service, I was given a free subscription to McAfee AntiVirus. Whether or not it provides good protection, I'll never know as it slowed my computer down to a crawl, with frequent updating and automatic scanning. I got so frustrated that I uninstalled it and installed MS Security Essentials. I have found no reason to distrust SE, and it seems to behave and at least stays out of way when I'm working.
Virgil
Hi :)
I've not had any problems with AVG so far. Afaik!
But i definitely think anti-malware stuff is definitely one of those things that people have to make up their own minds about which is best for them. After-all if it works really well then you never know it's doing anything. if it does log lots of things happening then is that stuff that it's making up or would the attacks have happened anyway.
It's a bit like the fella in Peckham sprinkling anti-elephant powder on his doorstep each morning. It 'obviously' works because there are no elephants in Peckham.
Even better is the example from House MD where a lady said that her monthles had stopped but that was one of the possible side effects of her birth-control pills working. House pointed out it was also a possible side-effect of her pills NOT working.
Regards from
Tom
Hi
Hmm, MS Security Essentials does seem to be quite fast and lets the system run reasonably well. I'm tempted to turn slow system over to just that one instead of the free one.
Regards from
Tom
Hi Ken
Interesting, I'll need to do some more intense reading of the web page, a nice find. The chart is a bit congested, and they don't seem to cover the freeware versions of the payware versions on the chart, and the ones I mentioned below. It would be interesting to see where they fare against MS's free tools at 90%. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of MS in any way, but at least their built-in and add-on security products cannot be thumb-nosed at. I personally use Kapsersky Pure 3.0 for all freestanding customer and personal / home PC's and Kaspersky ES (Endpoint Security) or TS (Total Security) for my bigger stuff and client servers.
And as can be seen those that seems to score high faired only one test before it looks like they failed (all in red text), so this is not good, brands to avoid, even if they look good as no.1 on paper. Hype, as I say bull??? baffles brains.
Thanks for this link. I like going over stuff like this.
Andrew Brown