Possible Recommendation: F-Secure, Kaspersky, or Sophos.
According to AV Comparatives' testing, reported 6 May 2013 ("Impact of Anti-Virus Software on System Performance", info cut-off date April 2013), these three AV solutions (running with their default settings) showed the least performance impact out of 23 AV solutions tested. Performance areas tested: file copying, archiving/unarchiving, encoding/transcoding, installing/uninstalling apps, launching apps, downloading files.
AVC 3-star AV: 0.4% impact: F-Secure, Kaspersky, Sophos. 0.6% impact: ESET. 1.3% impact: Symantec, Avast. 2.4% impact: BitDefender.
AVC 2-star AV: 6.1% impact: AVIRA. 6.3%: Panda. 7.1%: AVG. 7.4%: Emsisoft. 8.2%: Trend Micro. 8.7%: BullGuard. 9.7%: Vipre.
AVC 1-star AV: 13.2%: G DATA. 14.4%: Fortinet, McAfee. 17.4%: Qihoo. 17.5%: eScan.
AVC 0-star AV (marked as "Tested"): 25.6% impact on performance - Kingsoft.
Specific Notes/Issues: your issues concern older 2 GHZ CPUs and 512 MB RAM running XP, while the AVC test platform has a Intel Core i5 with 4 GB RAM running Win 7. Recommend you max-out the RAM on those machines, if possible. With an older system, there's also the possibility (or probability) that AV vendors may no longer cover it.
Well, that's part of it. The Nixon White House+Military influence was there, alright. The principle problem was (according to the Shuttle's original program manager [and my Ex's uncle]) that after the initial design worked (in spite of late 1960's-to-early 1970's technology) every expert decided to "add" capabilities without adding the technology to back it up. Those capabilities included (not in chronological order) partnership's to build a space station in the wrong orbital plane (making it harder for the Shuttle to reach the ISS: Shuttle launch into a higher inclination orbit = less payload into that orbit using the same propulsion system & fuel capability), semi-circuses in space (what practical purpose did giving John Glenn a ride back into space serve? I don't dislike Glenn, but it scheduled or outright cancelled science experimentation that was only possible in orbit.), and (in my Ex's uncle's words) "changing the world's only working reusable spacecraft into a publicity-oriented hotrod, cancelling crew rescue options, and choking off space industrial development." The original goal was to drop the cost of payload delivered into orbit from nearly $100K/lb (best case back then) to $1K/lb until technology had a chance to catch up and then make it an industrially profitable enterprise. A Shuttle launch averages (at best) $10K/lb into orbit, but that was based on the 10-launches-a-year figure. With the delays from Challenger (due to the NASA let's-not-embarass-ourselves-over-safety-issues syndrome) and Columbia (due to NASA's ignore-the-safety-experts-again policy), the cost goes up with not only fewer missions flying but having a contingency rescue Shuttle on stand-by. The listed cost of a Shuttle flight varies from $250-350 Million, but that's only for the vehicle & payload. The huge infrastructure supporting that launch (NASA (Kennedy, Houston, Goodard, California, Hawaii, Spain & Morroco (abort sites)), U.S. DOD (NORAD, Space Command)) runs the cost to over $2.5 Billion. And THAT figure, divided by the 127 tons of Shuttle, payload, & crew that actually makes it into orbit, is where the publicized $10K/lb into space figure comes from.
The thoughts of Goodard, Von Braun, Heinlein, and others were sound, and like everything else has been distorted by political pork. Cutting loose Burt Rutan, tSpace, and others can turn it around....just my 2 cents...
Slashdot Mirror
Possible Recommendation: F-Secure, Kaspersky, or Sophos. According to AV Comparatives' testing, reported 6 May 2013 ("Impact of Anti-Virus Software on System Performance", info cut-off date April 2013), these three AV solutions (running with their default settings) showed the least performance impact out of 23 AV solutions tested. Performance areas tested: file copying, archiving/unarchiving, encoding/transcoding, installing/uninstalling apps, launching apps, downloading files. AVC 3-star AV: 0.4% impact: F-Secure, Kaspersky, Sophos. 0.6% impact: ESET. 1.3% impact: Symantec, Avast. 2.4% impact: BitDefender. AVC 2-star AV: 6.1% impact: AVIRA. 6.3%: Panda. 7.1%: AVG. 7.4%: Emsisoft. 8.2%: Trend Micro. 8.7%: BullGuard. 9.7%: Vipre. AVC 1-star AV: 13.2%: G DATA. 14.4%: Fortinet, McAfee. 17.4%: Qihoo. 17.5%: eScan. AVC 0-star AV (marked as "Tested"): 25.6% impact on performance - Kingsoft. Specific Notes/Issues: your issues concern older 2 GHZ CPUs and 512 MB RAM running XP, while the AVC test platform has a Intel Core i5 with 4 GB RAM running Win 7. Recommend you max-out the RAM on those machines, if possible. With an older system, there's also the possibility (or probability) that AV vendors may no longer cover it.
Well, that's part of it. The Nixon White House+Military influence was there, alright. The principle problem was (according to the Shuttle's original program manager [and my Ex's uncle]) that after the initial design worked (in spite of late 1960's-to-early 1970's technology) every expert decided to "add" capabilities without adding the technology to back it up. Those capabilities included (not in chronological order) partnership's to build a space station in the wrong orbital plane (making it harder for the Shuttle to reach the ISS: Shuttle launch into a higher inclination orbit = less payload into that orbit using the same propulsion system & fuel capability), semi-circuses in space (what practical purpose did giving John Glenn a ride back into space serve? I don't dislike Glenn, but it scheduled or outright cancelled science experimentation that was only possible in orbit.), and (in my Ex's uncle's words) "changing the world's only working reusable spacecraft into a publicity-oriented hotrod, cancelling crew rescue options, and choking off space industrial development." The original goal was to drop the cost of payload delivered into orbit from nearly $100K/lb (best case back then) to $1K/lb until technology had a chance to catch up and then make it an industrially profitable enterprise. A Shuttle launch averages (at best) $10K/lb into orbit, but that was based on the 10-launches-a-year figure. With the delays from Challenger (due to the NASA let's-not-embarass-ourselves-over-safety-issues syndrome) and Columbia (due to NASA's ignore-the-safety-experts-again policy), the cost goes up with not only fewer missions flying but having a contingency rescue Shuttle on stand-by. The listed cost of a Shuttle flight varies from $250-350 Million, but that's only for the vehicle & payload. The huge infrastructure supporting that launch (NASA (Kennedy, Houston, Goodard, California, Hawaii, Spain & Morroco (abort sites)), U.S. DOD (NORAD, Space Command)) runs the cost to over $2.5 Billion. And THAT figure, divided by the 127 tons of Shuttle, payload, & crew that actually makes it into orbit, is where the publicized $10K/lb into space figure comes from. The thoughts of Goodard, Von Braun, Heinlein, and others were sound, and like everything else has been distorted by political pork. Cutting loose Burt Rutan, tSpace, and others can turn it around. ...just my 2 cents...