75%? 180mb+ ?! are you serious? on my system CIS on access uses at max 30mb and cpu usage around 5%…
I was surprised myself each time. I was speaking about the antivirus part. The rest works good like allways.
With version 6 i will make another run.
Lets see 
(Btw, xp, single core)
Both 180Mb and 30+Mb looks right – Windows Task Manager shows a different kind of “memory” in the different Windows versions.
RTFM!
No worries i use another tool.
It was a fifth of my total ram.
In the same row where avast is below 30.
Dont yell RTFM at me while you are diagnosting a computer from another side of the planet… with your head
I think clockwork and you are comparing system load while running a scan and when CIS is running in the background.
Well, but Umbra?
Is there any caps in my post? 
My comment aimed to both of Your and your opponent, Umbra (and mostly to last)
Even leaving a using of different tools aside it’s absolute ■■■■■■■■ to talk abt some abstract “memory” because here is a several diffferent types of it (used, workset, paged, private, shared, etc.) and this types combinations.
So abt what memory You and Umbra talks? Better start from here, isn’t it?
Indeed, together with an “!”
The ram that should be filled by game files instead
But lets see what version 6 will bring. I will not try again to “fix” or test version 5 anyway. So, nvm.
but what if that game file have a price of malware in it and you have comodo off what are you going to about it clockwork
For those scenarios i run a normal low-level-resource antivirus
And comodo firewall and defense+ is running fine. Its just the antivirus part that makes me wonder since day one of its introduction.
Sometimes i think, the antivirus programs that were initially developed when computers have been “small and slow” (compared to today) are effective in low resources still today.
Comodo antivirus was built late. Its younger than my computer. A child of another time.
Dont get me wrong here, i would allways prefer the old kind, even on a new machine. For me, an antivirus has to be literally “3rd line of defense”, not only by philosophy.
Hey, it’s out of count, this is abbreviation ;D
Anyway, [b]All[/b] who wants to post any "memory" numbers pls write what exactly kind of "memory" your numbers point to. Without that all this numbers still silly chatter.
you see, you have this habit to ruin your pc a lot by running malware to the point where windows is badly damaged
i care so much about my pc i will do anything to save it even its means i have to be on a boot cd running on this pc forever.i will aslo do anything to stop malware from attacking my pc at any cost. because the pc haves change my life forever
Hi nsm0220,
Whether or not the above statement is true is not up to you, I or anyone else to comment about.
Don’t make this topic into something personal and please stay on topic.
Thanks.
!ot! I dont know why Nsm0220 doesnt learn from his mistakes…I DONT mess my PC. !ot!
Back to topic:
I have a better idea,
Use what you trust and stop worrying about these tests
While Comodo does fairly well in the initial detection statistics at Shadowserver, I worry a bit about this result: http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/ImprovementBetweenInitialAndRetests - I would interpret it in the sense that Comodo’s reaction to new threats and improvement of 0day signatures is subpar. Manpower problem?
if Comodo had a great detection in the first test, then you wouldn’t expect much to change in the retest.
In order to properly interpret this, you also have to take into account initial detection % to find out how many malware was missed and how many of these missed malware is then detected.
Not really… an initial detection rate of 83% means 17% of bad stuff had been missed. The retest should catch as much as possible of these within 48 hours. If you say that having a good initial detection rate is sufficient that’s like saying “In war, there are always some casualties” >:-D
Has Comodo ever considered to buy another vendors’ engine?
I don’t know but I remember a statement by Melih that he is very happy that Comodo has developed its own engine.
i doubt it since comodo has always been about prevention not detection.
Detection is not my concerns for Comodo. It’s already been amount the similar detection rate as the main AV competitors. There is no point aguring which AV is the best as one AV get the 1st in one test and the other AV get the 1st in another tests.
I used CIS including AV for about a year in 2010/2011. It is the repeating FPs and other bugs that caused me uninstalling the AV module. After a year, I decided to have another trial for Comodo AV. The result is not so good.
The first scan after Comodo AV installation detected 3 threats. The files are 2 windows system files and 1 hardware driver setup file. They’ve been in the notebook for years. I uploaded the files to virustotal and 2 files are detected only by Comodo as virus and the remaining one detected only by Comodo and another unpopular av. It is very likely that all 3 files are FPs. The FP problem seem not been improved.
I’ll still continue using Comodo AV in the notebook for a while. I hope the Developement Team should not just focus on detection rate. Other factors such as FPs, performance, reliability should also be addressed.