Spyware Doctor is VERY heavy on resources!

[gringopig]

Hello folks...
I know this has been an issue but perhaps it has fallen away as a concern. Having recently been trialling different security products in an attempt to get my memory usage down from just over 700MB @ idle, I settled on Comodo Firewall Pro and NOD32 as primary protection. My start up load was 290MB. As I run Norton Ghost as well, I was pretty happy. Having a Spyware Doctor subscription and, looking to install just one real-time anti-spyware application, I installed Spyware Doctor 5.0.1.205. The result: 519MB!!!

That's pretty poor and would be considered 'bloat' in anyone's language. I do have 3GB of DDR2 memory installed but all the same...
I remember replying to a post defending SD on this very point; counting up the obvious processes in the task manager and ProcessExplorer and it didn't amount to much. It's only when you compare before and after installation memory usages that you realise how much SD actually uses. It must be a svchost service process that is using up the difference.

Quite disappointing really, as version 5 (although working fine) was meant to be 'leaner and meaner'. It is not.
I don't mind giving up on Spyware Doctor; I just wish PCTools would come up with a version that was kind to lower end computers.

[Reodor]

And I thought that pigs were one of the un-educatable animals on the planet.

However congratulations and welcome to the real world.

[tom.tdw]

all i can see is 200mb usage spiking to 300mb for SD w AV (and i checked svchosts ect.)

but then i'm running vista (with 1gb RAM and another 4gb of readyboost cash) and SD seems only to work on vista

maybe SD is causing one of your other programs to go into overdrive

where SD is good is in cpu usage, it barely registers

[gringopig]

all i can see is 200mb usage spiking to 300mb for SD w AV (and i checked svchosts ect.)

but then i'm running vista (with 1gb RAM and another 4gb of readyboost cash) and SD seems only to work on vista

maybe SD is causing one of your other programs to go into overdrive

where SD is good is in cpu usage, it barely registers

Well, this is a direct comparison, before & after the installation of SD5.0.1.205 on XP Home SP2.
Usage on other programs is the same; it's just a jump of 230MB due to SD.
The programs runs fine: no bugs to speak of but 230MB!!!
Jebus! :(

[gringopig]

Right folks, this is where I fell into the same error as the other poster.:confused:

I am looking at the 'commit charge' in the Task Manager and it does indeed go up 230MB after the installation of SD. However, this is where I own to being a numpty: the 'commit charge' is the amount of working VIRTUAL memory. SD seems to require a lot of space in the pagefile. This is not using up memory!
So looking at 'commit charge' using Task Manager is not an indication of the amount of memory you have used up but only an indication of VIRTUAL memory.
There is a column tagged 'Mem Usage'. That's the one I should have been looking at.
:eek:

[tom.tdw]

Well, this is a direct comparison, before & after the installation of SD5.0.1.205 on XP Home SP2.
Usage on other programs is the same; it's just a jump of 230MB due to SD.
The programs runs fine: no bugs to speak of but 230MB!!!
Jebus! :(i know it's a bit high (SDtray alone uses more than zonealarm firewall) but it's mainly paged and in low priority so you shouldn't notice it as much, also in normal conditions it hardly uses any cpu and speed wise that counter balances the paged memory

as a comparison cyberhawk uses 16mb but has a much higher I/O usage
A2 free uses 30mb in total but has cpu spike upto 18% (rarely that high) and I/O spikes

i know the memory usage of SD looks high but in reality this is cleverly counterbalanced and prioritised so it doesn't slow down the system

[Reodor]

I knew I was right in the first place!:mad:

You are falling into the 'camoflage' trap of PC Tools.

In order NOT to show You the real memmory use by SD they allocate 200+ of it to PF instead of physical RAM.

No matter how much RAM You add and have free, they still load it to the PF (By default). And by doing that they chew heavy on Your hard disk making it go into eternal spin and slow the system down! High on CPU spec and RAM might reduce Your experience of it, but it is still there!

If You want to find out the total memmory usage of the program, add from Process tab AND PF (perormance tab).

[tom.tdw]

I knew I was right in the first place!:mad:

You are falling into the 'camoflage' trap of PC Tools.

In order NOT to show You the real memmory use by SD they allocate 200+ of it to PF instead of physical RAM.

No matter how much RAM You add and have free, they still load it to the PF (By default). And by doing that they chew heavy on Your hard disk making it go into eternal spin and slow the system down! High on CPU spec and RAM might reduce Your experience of it, but it is still there!

If You want to find out the total memmory usage of the program, add from Process tab AND PF (perormance tab).i myself am using process explorer (gives a much clearer picture)

if it's all paged it lets more important programs use the RAM

all that's going slower than RAM speed is the SDcore (the GUI and tray run off the physical memory), so instead of slowing you down this shifting actually speeds you and the system up:) (in exchange for slowing SD down)

[PJWilkin]

No matter how much RAM You add and have free, they still load it to the PF (By default). And by doing that they chew heavy on Your hard disk making it go into eternal spin and slow the system down! High on CPU spec and RAM might reduce Your experience of it, but it is still there!


I agree, Spyware doctors use of Paged Memory slows the whole system down. I have 2GB of RAM, over half free and the system slows like a dog. I've takend to disabling or shutting down SWD before any gaming

Come on PCTools, sort this out. I'd like to have the option of having it in real memory, not paged (which slows everything down, as well as potentially wearing down the disk)