[OT] 64-bit software discussion

[Diode]

For example, I have Athlon64-based system. But I cannot work in WinXP x64, because there is no good antivirus, no good firewall, no drivers for my 3COM network card...

What you can say about Kaspersky Antivirus 2006 and Agnitum Outpost Firewall 4? Although the Outpost in a beta stage now, it works quite well.

If I were to take a guess, I would say that the main reason not to move to a 64-bit OS is mainly because of lack of a hardware drivers.

Increasingly more software developers tends to add a 64-bit support for their products (though the program itself can use 32-bit code, it should have, if applicable, 64-bit drivers).

I see, however, no reason to release a 64-bit version of TC yet, when the 64-bit systems is relatively rare.

Cheers.

[mod]Thread split from TC for Win64 can be in 2008.

Hacker (Moderator)[/mod]

[Flint]

Diode

What you can say about Kaspersky Antivirus 2006 and Agnitum Outpost Firewall 4?

Yes, I know about them. But I don't like to install beta-versions of tools that integrate so deeply as firewalls/antiviruses - this is about Outpost. What about KAV - I don't like it. It works much slower than my favourite Norton but catches almost the same quantity of viruses. Moreover, there are many other tools that don't run under Windows x64, I named only some of them in my example, far not all.

[gigaman]

There are quite a few antiviruses that work in Windows x64, for example avast! is fully compatible with x64 since the official release of the OS.
For most "ordinary" application, it shouldn't matter whether they're running under WinXP x64 or x86...


Anyway, I'd say there is (currently) no reason to port Total Commander to a 64bit build. It can be quite easily (well, that's hard to say without knowing the sources, of course - so it's just what I suppose) improved such that most of the features work correctly even on x64 (such as the main one - seeing the real 64bit system folder).

Speaking about TC "being limited by running in 32bit sandbox" is ridiculous; what limitation does it impose for a file manager?

[Diode]

What about KAV - I don't like it. It works much slower than my favourite Norton but catches almost the same quantity of viruses.

Hmm, I would not agree with you. And also it's very strange to see that the Russian prefer to use Norton instead of Kaspersky. Norton, as far as I know, has a very weak protection mechanism that is incomparable with the one that Kaspersky have. Besides, there's some other worthy antiviruses for x64 such as NOD32.

Moreover, there are many other tools that don't run under Windows x64, I named only some of them in my example, far not all.

Yeah, that's the problem. I guess that these problems will be straightened out by the time of Vista x64 release.

[Flint]

Norton, as far as I know, has a very weak protection mechanism that is incomparable with the one that Kaspersky have.

Maybe. But I can't work with KAV monitor turned on - the computer works much slower. When NAV monitor is turned on I don't see almost any difference. Maybe, KAV 6 has some improvements on this, but I don't want to waste about a whole day (or even more) for testing it. I have already done this with KAV 4 (IIRC). In addition to slow work, I had one more huge problem: I could not test my computer with it. When I tried to, KAV worked at first, but then was eating more and more memory, computer was working more and more slowly, and finally its responce time reached several minutes, so that I even could not stop scanning process and reboot the computer; I had to use Reset. With scanning by NAV I can work as usual, with some small perfomance loss (almost constant). So why should I prefer KAV? Only because it's Russian? Ridiculous...

PS: I saw also NOD32. It has the worst and the most inconvenient interface of all antivirus programs I've ever seen! I also tested Avast, and AntiVir, and many other programs. Currently, Norton fits my needs the best: convenient interface and suitable speed of work with suitable efficiency.

PPS: Sorry for this OT. Maybe, moderators will split this discussion into the new thread named e.g. "[OT] 64-bit software discussion" ?

[fenix_productions]

@Flint
You are comparingKAV4 to Northon? It is ridiculous.

There is KAV 2006 now. It's been a long time since v.4 and many changes occured.
I've got P2 400MHZ with 128MB RAM and I see difference between new Northon and KAV.
When Northon hangs my computer up, KAV works great.
Kaspersky takes about 30MB of memory 'but has incredible speed of scanning. Instead of that with Northon my Windows 2000 can't even stan up.
Please take a look for antivirus comparison in google

[Flint]

This is a reply to this post.

fenix_productions

There is KAV 2006 now. It's been a long time since v.4 and many changes occured.

See my previous post, as I've already told about this. While Norton always was for me the best AV, Kaspersky (maybe!!!) became a good antivirus only now. Comparisons tell nothing, because even at that time (when KAV 4 hanged my computer) there were many people talking that KAV is the best (BTW, that was the main reason why I tried it). So, the only way to know the result is to compare them by myself. It will take too much time, I'm not ready for this. Norton is a very good tool for me. KAV 6 - I don't know. Maybe better, maybe worse. It's better to have a real bird in the hand than to spend huge amount of time (that I don't have) risking that this will be just a waste of time (if the results will be the same).

I have already tested both KAV 6 and NAV 2006 on Virtual PC checking an archive containing 1642 viruses. Both KAV and NAV found almost the same amount (about 1600), but NAV spent about a minute for this, while KAV - 8 minutes. I personally don't need more arguments. Don't know about you however...

[Flint]

fenix_productions
See my reply in the splitted thread.