Been looking at Reviews for BD av 10
I have been reading reviews and trying to find any other for usful info that makes BD look better then Norton. Now I hate Norton, but, my mothers new job say they require Norton installed on all system. I hate this idea and if I can, I will not allow it.
I was reading this review
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2036470,00.asp
It says BD is unstable on infested machines?
Also, I remember seeing a comparison chart where it listed many difference AV products and showed how many seconds it took for them to stop in the wild virues. Norton I think was around 30 seconds, McCafee I think was around 8 seconds and BD was around 18 I think.
Anyone know where I could find a comprison list like the one that I can't find again?
Is there a way I can load the Norton Icon in the systray onboot but not have any programs linked to it? 
Jusdt so if they are nosey, they see the icon. Just hopfully they wont try to bring it up.
Comments
-
Maybe you should try reading a review that is more recent: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130904-page,1/article.html
0 -
I see a lot of reviews that say it slows down the computer but mine doesn't at all.
It seems when they tested for false positives, it found the most. Will this be worked on?0 -
Here you can see independent antivirus tests : http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.html?...mparatives.html
Or here : http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenre...der-review.html (But you can discuss how this site tests the software).
The slow down issue could occur when bdss.exe scans large folders in realtime. But you can solve it easily by excluding certain folders in virus shield. In the past with an earlier version I suffered high cpu usage but now it's solved.0 -
In the PCWorld review that Rudi Bedy linked to a few posts back, the following was noted:
"The program was badly hamstrung by serious slowdowns in our WorldBench 6 Beta 2 application performance tests on Windows Vista Ultimate, however. One Firefox test, for example, which loads a large number of different Web pages, took three times longer with BitDefender than with any other program we tested. The slowdown wasn't debilitating, but it was noticeable. The company says the problem is a known bug in the Vista version that will be fixed in a future program update."
I did notice a slowdown after the last major update of 10 Apr, but the workaround of renaming the bdpredir.sys file seems to have cleared up that problem for now and is a good workaround until BD can release a permanent fix.0 -
In the PCWorld review that Rudi Bedy linked to a few posts back, the following was noted:
"The program was badly hamstrung by serious slowdowns in our WorldBench 6 Beta 2 application performance tests on Windows Vista Ultimate, however. One Firefox test, for example, which loads a large number of different Web pages, took three times longer with BitDefender than with any other program we tested. The slowdown wasn't debilitating, but it was noticeable. The company says the problem is a known bug in the Vista version that will be fixed in a future program update."
I did notice a slowdown after the last major update of 10 Apr, but the workaround of renaming the bdpredir.sys file seems to have cleared up that problem for now and is a good workaround until BD can release a permanent fix.
How does renaming bdpredir.sys do anything? If you rename that file, I would think BD would not function correctly. What would you rename it to?0 -
Hi JGray152,
The file bdpredir.sys is used when you are using a proxy server to connect to the internet. This file had a bug in the 10 Apr update.
Renaming this file corrects the problem, and it's a 100% safe solution given by BitDefender Support. It's just a temporar solution, untill they fix this problem.
Details here: http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?showtopic=103
Cris.0
