Go to Support Home Page
Go to Online Knowledgebase

  #1  
Old 07-15-2007, 09:46 AM
gringopig's Avatar
gringopig gringopig is offline
Enthusiast
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 159
Default Spyware Doctor is VERY heavy on resources!

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:02 AM
Reodor's Avatar
Reodor Reodor is offline
Expert
Expert Volunteer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Langkawi,Malaysia
Posts: 1,102
Default

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

However congratulations and welcome to the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:18 AM
tom.tdw's Avatar
tom.tdw tom.tdw is offline
Expert
Expert Volunteer
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,179
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:25 AM
gringopig's Avatar
gringopig gringopig is offline
Enthusiast
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 159
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.tdw View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-15-2007, 10:42 AM
gringopig's Avatar
gringopig gringopig is offline
Enthusiast
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 159
Default

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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-15-2007, 11:00 AM
tom.tdw's Avatar
tom.tdw tom.tdw is offline
Expert
Expert Volunteer
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gringopig View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-15-2007, 11:03 AM
Reodor's Avatar
Reodor Reodor is offline
Expert
Expert Volunteer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Langkawi,Malaysia
Posts: 1,102
Default

I knew I was right in the first place!

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).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-15-2007, 11:39 AM
tom.tdw's Avatar
tom.tdw tom.tdw is offline
Expert
Expert Volunteer
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reodor View Post
I knew I was right in the first place!

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)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-15-2007, 11:39 AM
PJWilkin's Avatar
PJWilkin PJWilkin is offline
Enthusiast
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reodor View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 AM.