AV for a Older Laptop

[phykell]

I've just installed Kaspersky on my "mobile workstation" which is a 2.6GHz, Centrino Pro with a 7,200 rpm hard drive, 4 GB RAM and NVidia Quadro workstation graphics card.

Now I'd have thought that would be a good enough spec to not even notice an AV application but it's really hit the machine's performance!

I've just rebuilt another laptop which had a virus on it and I now have no idea what AV to put on it as it's only a basic 1.8GHz Centrino.

Any ideas what I should do?

Are there any AV apps out there which would suit an older machine?

[Davey_Pitch]

Something like AVG would do you fine. We run it here on all our laptops, some of which are far older than yours, and it doesn't have a noticeable hit on performance. It's free as well which is always a bonus :)

[Stan_Lite]

I'm running the free version of Avast on my netbook atm with no noticeable performance hit and have run it in the past on a lot weedier machines than this.

It's currently using 0% of my CPU and about 30MB RAM, according to Task Manager.

[Justsomebloke]

Use Avast mate I have for nigh on 2 years now, It is Light, Free & Secure.

[Feek]

I'm running the free version of Avast on my netbook atm

Use Avast mate I have for nigh on 2 years now, It is Light, Free & Secure.

Can't rate it high enough, listen to these two. It's my AV of choice now, even on older or slower boxes.

[Davey_Pitch]

I also use Avast on my home system and laptop, but have never used it on older stuff which is why I said AVG. If Avast is good on older stuff then definitely use it :)

[Mark]

I use ESET NOD32 throughout. They all have some performance impact on file I/O and when I did a test a few years back it seemed to be broadly similar file for file whichever AV you use, so it's down to how efficient the scanner is. AVG, Avast, and NOD32 all seem to be up there.

[divine]

something is wrong if kaspersky has made such a noticable impact

[phykell]

Cheers for all your suggestions guys - much appreciated :)

Rich, I think it's because I hadn't done a full scan - now I've done that it seems a lot better so it's user error unfortunately :o :D