I recently used Kaspersky AntiVirus, and just switched to BitDefender. I run Windows Vista Ultimate, along with Ubuntu Linux on 2nd Hard Drive. I know of the specs and good things about BitDefender, and it is really a par even choice along with Kaspersky. I just have been using Kaspersky for the past 3 years and wanted a change.

Out of the box, I notice BitDefender taking up way more resources than Kaspersky ever used! EVER! Normal Bitdefender resources just running in the background took more than Kaspersky did running a scan! So in the future I hope you guys lower the softwares demand on resources. I have a 3ghz Pentium 4 with HyperThreading, and 1.5gig of memory, running on a WD Raptor 36.7 10,000 rmp Hard drive. Yes, the system is about 4 years old, but it is still way above many users. I bet 1/2 the people here using Bitdefender have a weaker system than I do!

I notice that BitDefender has more graphics. Nice looking, but things could be done to make it run smoother. It also uses a few too many services, but still lower than crappy Norton's and McCaffee. By default, my BitDefender is doing an automatic update like every few hours or so. Once a day should be plenty, I did my Kaspersky every 7 days and was never a problem.

Starting up my PC is no quick task. It used to take like, roughly 30 seconds from button press to desktop. And this I mean where I can actually click stuff and function, not just be able to see the desktop. With BitDefender It takes significantly longer, and I can see my desktop, but still have to wait for it to finish starting up. If I click something, I have to wait and can tell my system is struggling. I built my PC myself, and I know where its bottlenecks are, and processing/memory/and HD speed is not where my bottlenecks occur. My weakest point is my graphics card. It is a PCI card, and like a 128 bit maybe, Geforce. I know I should have AGP with this system, but when purchasing on Newegg, I click the wrong card. They had 2 of the same cards, one AGP and on PCI and accidently selected the wrong one. It is a mistake I have lived with fine. I still can play Counter Strike, and only non-demanding games.

I recommend for people that do any p2p/torrent or any thing that uses multiple threads/connections to unselect the "Scan HTTP Traffic" in BitDefender. You will notice a big difference in speed, and it over stresses your Antivirus because of the constant in/out data at once. This is also true for the person who commented on playin CS and it would be really choppy.

Here is what I would like to see from BitDefender before I recommend it to my friends, put it on other computers. If it isn't fixed in a short period of time, frankly I may go back to Kaspersky.
-Needs to be easier on system resources
-default should't try to update AV every hour, once a day is enough.
-default, "scan http traffic" should be off so it doesn't deter new users thinking the AV is messing things up!
-the error with the updating engine restarting in Vista needs a fast fix! And I will tell you why!

It isn't the Operating Systems fault that the programming company can't make their software compatable. MS gives any information needed for developers in this situation! Get your head out of the old XP ways, and satisfy! Vista has new implementaions to take their OS farther in the future. People whine because they say the OS doesn't change that much, so they are paying for the same thing pretty much. Then they whine because it changes too much. There is no happy medium for you people. Vista has new security methods, handles files and everything else differently than XP did, so thereforce you can not code your software to run the way XP handles things and expect it to work on Vista!

I have read on this forum stating the crash is more of an Operation System problem and isn't BitDefenders problem. Umm, no, it Is your problem because you didn't code the software to be compatable with the way Vista handles things!

Not to sound mean, but it is the outright truth. I know BitDefender has potential, but some steps need to be taken or you will lose customers. Over 1 month for a fix is too long, and blaming vista is a Cop-Out.

I am certain that is just perception. I saw no appreciable change on my system (which is bit better, but comparable to yours). I run Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and BD 2008.



Update and scan http are user configurable parameters. Go into the settings from the BD status panel. Update settings are under "Update" and scan HTTP is under "Advanced"

By default, the software should install in the most secure mode. Users should have to make the conscious decision to turn security features off (like scan HTTP) or reduce them (lower the update time). That would be the "best practice" for any software maker.

On my BD installation there is an error where the updater is configured to access "upgrade.bitdefender.com". I changed it to "update.bitdefender.com" and my update problems went away. This bug has been reported.

Yes, I know it is configurable. The thing is, the default settings are stupid. To update every hour? And to scan HTTP traffic. Why? It basically does nothing. So therefore since playing online games, downloading, and many other online tasks, the scan http traffic setting causes a bottleneck and is stupid to have on. If you are getting a virus, the half-way point between the sending and receiving computer is not where you are going to get infected. The AV should detect it as a file on your Hard Drive right away, there is no need to scan the HTTP traffic.

BD seems to be lacking. The delay in a working Antivirus for Vista is absurd. I give it a few more days and see how fast it really gets to me before uninstalling and putting Kaspersky (which has never given me any problems) back on my PC.

I am no newbie, I have been on computers for many years. I can program in about 3 different languages, do web design (html, php, sql), just to say the least. So yes, I know how to disable the features, I know how a computer should perform, especially mine since I built it myself. Not to mention how software should work.

On HTTP scanning: I can tell you that some big-ticket potential customers (like governments) look for that kind of scanning. It is a defence against machine-independent malicious code (java, javascript, whatever) that don't necessarily manifest themselves as files on your computer. I guarantee you that "HTTP Scanning" gets written into government Requests For Proposal.

Let me repeat, it makes sense, from a security point of view, to have the defaults to be the most secure and have the user make the conscious choice to turn off security. Do it your way, and I guarantee you someone will be in a magazine with an article about how BD could have blocked a javascript trojan but didn't because HTTP scanning is off by default. This is the same reason why MS ships Vista with UAC turned on by default.

I haven't noticed a major performance hit with http scanning on when I am surfing the web or playing UT2k4. I do see it when I play UT2k4, it just doesn't affect the game play. It could be that my machine is that much more powerful than yours and I just can't see the negative effects. I find AV works fine on Vista.

I kind of agree that hourly update is a bit over the top, but some reviewers tweak on that. Hourly updates do minimize the zero-day attack window. Since I'm already behind a hardware firewall at home, I reduce mine to 6 hours because my risk is relatively low to start with.

I am no newbie either. I have been in computers for many decades. I can program in about 20 languages, can do web design and much more. My living is made doing security consulting (not for BD).

i think the http scanning is fine, if it slows your system down in anyway, just disable this.

i think the hourly update is a must, bitdefender have always been very good on this, and its neccessary for zero day threats, you mention once a week updates, never will this be the case, this is just pure dangerous.

I think BD just need to iron out the bugs of the latest version, and everything should be fine, as the features work interestingly well.

But doesnt HTTP traffic work on port 80? Games and Bittorrent run on different ports (depending on each game) so I dont see how BD would scan this...

The term is used incorrectly in most antiviruses, included bitdefender. HTTP is a protocol, usually port 80 somtimes 81. Saying scan HTTP traffic is a sense, to a technologically savvy person, you would think yeah it only scans port 80. This is not the case. They are meaning HTTP as in all web traffic. So all the traffic between your computer and the other end it funneling through bitdefender, thus reducing your bandwidth. And yes, it does make a difference. Try using bleach to test a list of proxies at 50 threads (I usually use 80) but 50 to go easy on your internet. With Scan HTTP traffic enabled, I get twice as many timeout proxies. Also Before the gamemode, with scan http traffic enabled, I couldnt even play counter strike. So yes, it makes a big difference.