Ryan_Mc
join:2007-06-05
Calgary
| reply to capdjq
Re: Shaw Secure. Anyone use it?
Has anyone checked out the latest beta for F-Secure's v9? This beta is what will become the next version of Shaw Secure.
It only has 9 processes (7 less than the current version). I also noticed a significant improvement in boot time, and file copy time.
»www.f-secure.com/en_EMEA/support···dex.html |
|
Bandito
join:2003-01-23
 ·Shaw
| reply to ErikRP
Secure aggressively scans files in the background that's why some people will notice a real slow down once every few days. There is no way of shutting down the scan
I try to be very careful at what I download and I use malbytes malware scan set on manual as well as a script blocker on firefox. I routines use Kaspersky free online scanner to check my system. There are too many AV programs now that just slow down your PC. In the event of malware, I'd download secure only for that reason alone, to clean the drive. |
|
ErikRP
join:2004-11-06
Winnipeg, MB
2 edits | reply to capdjq
Most times I don't have a problem, but I have noticed that some times (maybe once every couple of days) my computer will be like driving through tar and it's slow as anything. Checking the processes running I see that FSSM.exe is consuming the most RAM, sometimes over 200MB - which is excessive in my opinion. If I shut it down my speeds quickly go back to normal.
I love that it's free, and I hate having to shut it down all the time to have my usual performance back, but I'm thinking I may have to look for an alternative product.
Edit: Just noticed the tip above about keeping email closed. I never open my Outlook - just rely on webmail - so that isn't what's causing my problem. |
|
way2quik
join:2006-10-10
| reply to capdjq
I started to use it and to see how much of a resource hog it is.
So far:
- 16 processes
- loading all my system tray applications took nearly a minute
- firefox and IE and any other program for that matter takes a while to load. Dunno why, but it does.
4GB ram, vistax64, e8400... I have no problems having 16 processes running, but every program I open takes 4 seconds to load. |
|
Colin Noden
join:2009-05-11
Maple Ridge, BC
| reply to capdjq
Shaw tech help gave me some instructions on how to tweak Shaw secure to take some of the load off, but it still stalls my computer. I was going to look at another ISP but decided that the speed I got ( when I got it) was worth the hassle.
Most of the slowdowns come from the fssm32.exe process. One workaround is to just keep the email closed. And to schedule as much as possible for down times. Also disable the indexing services and scanning inside compressed files.
Colin
--
Insatiable Researcher and Writer |
|
Ryan_Mc
join:2007-06-05
Calgary | reply to sedin26
What kind of specs do these systems have (RAM/CPU/Free HDD)? F-Secure puts a great deal of effort into performance enhancements for each version they release, so hopefully you will see less of these cases in the future. |
|
sedin26
join:2003-08-04
Victoria, BC
| reply to capdjq
I've been out to a few calls the last couple of days where the complaint was extremely slow startup times and slow systems in general.
All of these systems had Shaw Secure, which I replaced with Avast Home.
The problems then went away.
I kind of like this, I must admit, because the clients are always pleasantly surprised by the difference and it makes me look good. |
|
rog
Premium
join:2002-07-03
BC
·Shaw
| reply to capdjq
Used it for over a year now. Some issues with slowing things down when coming out of Stand-by as well as possible issues while installing new software (taking excessive time). Spybot S&D may also be the culprit so I turn them both off.
Other than that seems to run fine and doesn't generally slow things down. |
|
capdjq
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Vancouver | reply to komal
I think I'll download and try. I like ZA firewall its pretty good. |
|
komal
join:2003-02-16
| reply to VR38DETT
said by VR38DETT  :I echo others here. Shaw Secure is based on F-Secure Internet Security. With its connections with Kaspersky, FIS's detection is top-notch, but the program itself weighs heavier than a 10-ton elephant in terms of resource use.  F-Secure's detection is really among the best, if not the best though. As I said earlier, when I had a Virut infection, it went and infected hundreds of files and I couldn't find the original file, but I ran the online F-Secure scanner and it found the file for me.
Anyway, there are better alternatives for free or for money.
Avira AV is free, AVG is free, Avast is free, those 3 are pretty good. |
|
VR38DETT
Turbocharger X2
join:2002-10-24
Vancouver, BC
clubs:
| reply to capdjq
I echo others here. Shaw Secure is based on F-Secure Internet Security. With its connections with Kaspersky, FIS's detection is top-notch, but the program itself weighs heavier than a 10-ton elephant in terms of resource use.
--
"People say that money isn't the key to happiness, but I always figured if you have enough money, you can have a key made." -Joan Rivers |
|
Bandito
join:2003-01-23
·Shaw
| reply to capdjq
Nope. It's a huge resource hog. I even stopped using AVG, instead I use scriptblocker and I am careful what files I download. I use extensive online malware scanning including Kaspersky. I believe you need a really robust system so as not get a performance hit. |
|
inetspec
join:2008-07-28 | reply to sedin26
Have you tried using it recently? The code has been updated quite a bit since previous versions. |
|
sedin26
join:2003-08-04
Victoria, BC | reply to capdjq
I concur - it works OK but is a terrible drain on system resources. People are amazed at the difference when I switch them to Avast, Nod32, or something similar. |
|
komal
join:2003-02-16
| reply to capdjq
I've tried using it twice.
That is because it is based on F-Secure, which I feel is an AV with absolutely awesome detection rates, it helped me once when I couldn't find a bad file that was recreating infections/virii when windows started.
BUT both times I had to uninstall, because it made my computer slow as shit.
The first time was on my AMD 2700+ system, with 1 gigabyte of ram, I even tried uninstalling most of the extra options that it normally does not allow.
I gave up.
I tried again last month on my new system, E5200, 3 gigabytes of ram (4 but until I move to 64 bit I'm happy) and it STILL causes noticeable slowdown in my system performance, especially on startup, as it starts services and applications even for the options you disable such as e-mail and web filtering.
I gave up on it entirely. |
|
Dan88
@shawcable.net | reply to capdjq
runs fine on a dual core 1.6, with 2gb ram win XP
id say its far better than ZA. I had that about 5years ago, it was a nightmare |
|
fan13027
join:2008-10-26
Winnipeg, MB
·Shaw
| reply to capdjq
I use it.
User friendly? Depends on how much of a "geek" you are, it's really not very intuitive but using the Help function and doing a bit of exploring to learn it, it is quite functional.
Light on resources? Hardly! (it runs at least a dozen proceses on my machine and I don't have parental control or spam control turned on). But as phantom1976 already said, it doesn't bother me as I have enough resources (XP Home on P4 3.0Ghz with 2GB memory). |
|
phantom1976
Premium
join:2001-11-08
Victoria, BC | reply to capdjq
I don't have any problems with it running on vista , two gigs of ram and 3.47 Ghz processor |
|
capdjq
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Vancouver
| At the moment I use ZA Security Suite. Have had no problems with it but it will be expiring soon. Shaw Secure is free, both Firewall and AV, but I'm wondering is it user friendly, light on the resources and efficient?
Anyone here have any experience with their Product?
--
In the final analysis, it's not how you play the game that counts, but whether you win or lose. |
|
