CAV and CPF are BIG, especially CAV - 24MB?! Can you make it at least 10MB, and CPF 5MB? No one likes big sizes. For example see Ashampoo Firewall 1 - 3.7MB - pretty good app in a few mbytes (:TNG)
I beleive they are in the works for that. remember COMODO is new and i am willing to bet in time they will lower the size just have patience. and we will see but for me i am happy with what they are doing. after all sacrificing a few MB from GIGs no problem
If the Ashampoo Firewall 1 is 3.7MB, then I’d say that CPF is about 6.5MB better than it. ;D
Of course Comodo’s better. Use a shampoo for you hair only:
Also, one of the main targets for Comodo is to get resource useage down until it is not noticeable - unlike programs like Norton that keep increasing with new features Comodo want to decrease resource useage and add new features at the same time.
Hmmm - tough call - pretty good in 3.7MB or EXCELLENT in 10.1 MB ?
Size, apparently, does matter.
I wouldn’t even give it a “pretty good” the Ashampoo firewall is a stripped down version of Ashampoo Personal Firewall Pro (which will cost $$$) and Ashampoo does not pass all leaktests, where CPF is completely free (meaning there is no paid for version) and passes all leaktests out of the box! I went with the few extra MB and am very happy that I did. Like Mike6688 said use a shampoo for your hair only ;D.
I can’t comment on A-Shampoo’s firewall, but I think of it this way. The people at COMODO know what they are doing and if the app is 10 MB or 50MB, each and every one has a purpose in making sure your PC is secure…
Today, hard drive space is cheap, so i really doesnt care if it’s 350Mb, as long as it do it’s job. Secure your PC. More important is how much resorces it eat’s, since you always have to many services running at the same time…
Well Mike, I didn’t even have to click the link, lol. While I would say YES A shampoo is better , it’s not a full version. It’s like this, Comodo is a Corvette, Ashampoo is a Corvette without the engine, tires, doors and rear end. It may be lighter but you won’t get much. So while Comodo may have the rest of the parts and true, it would be heavier, I would like to think for a full version, the resources are little. If you strip down CPF, you have well, a free stripped down version. I don’t know what specifics are on everyone’s pc, but I run CPF on an AMD Athlon 850 going on 8 years old, technosaurusrex. Only 256 ram , 200 gig hd. It also has XPpro. Now taking that into consideration, it runs CPF absolutely wonderfully without problems. I would think that many would have something a bit more up to date for a computer. If CPF didn’t run on it, I wouldn’t think CPF should strip down, I would assume I should strip the pc down and buy another. I also have it on an HP pavil 5 yrs old, 384 ram, 80 gig hd, 1.2 G pentium. Now this is better than the Athlon but to most, another trashasaurus. But CPF makes no dent in my usage, not recognizable I would mean. I am not saying other problems, bugs, etc…won’t make exceptions here but overall, if running correctly,no issues, etc… I don’t even notice it. Just my take.
Good enough, i
m already using CPF and it has been borne on me that it is the best firewall i ever try. 10x a lot to all comodo developers (:CLP) (R) . I cant wait for v2 of cav to install it too (V)
P.S.- my english is awful, sorry about it (:TNG)
In “Processes” list of Windows Task Manager you can see cpf.exe process (Comodo firewall) is taking 18MB of RAM. It’s not bad knowing what features it has, but I hope will not increase.
I use it for half hour and didn’t noticed any slowdowns because of comodo, so at first glance I think it’s not resource-hungry app like some other firewalls are (whole machine slows down when you install some of them).
18 MB of your RAM I think is worth to sacrifice for security of your PC.
The resource that CPF took was still ok. Not really a heavy program. Most important… Great Performance. (V)
you guys are picking on the original poster, and only addressing half of his point, while you ignore the half where his point is more pertinent.
the antivirus is still 24+ meg to download. yes, this seems big. don’t forget that people in the beginning are JUST TRYING OUT a program so you want to make the dl + install as quick and painless as possible.
the main concern is not lack of hard drive space but possibly (ostensibly) inefficient programming. i imagine bundling the LaunchPad (yeccch) is partly to blame. take out the LP, maybe that would cut a few meg off.
RAM of the CAVS is also somewhat hefty
cavasm.exe is 26meg
CavAUD.exe is 4meg
(note: i do not have any email scanner running)
30 meg is a fair bit. But at least you are not like the behemoth OpenOffice.org which takes 95meg just for the “quickstarter”…
there are probably other processes besides those two.
CMain ? less than 1meg
CmdBkSvc ? less than 1meg
anyway, do not be so dismissive when you address only 1 of the 2 softwares mentioned.
i know, it will be reiterated in a choir, “Please remmeber the AV is in beta and will be improved”.
Yes, we know that. That is why we give opinions (as asked of us). peace out.
Opinions are just fine, including yours. But, I don’t think the original poster (sofry) was being picked on & whilst some initial posts (including mine) didn’t address CAVS, it was later addressed & sofry decided to wait for CAVS 2. I think most of the humor was based around the idea of comparing Ashampoo’s Firewall (which is not, and maybe unfairly so, highly rated here) & CPF on their download size (not their operating memory foot-print).
Shame you didn’t run CAVS email scanner as well… you would have been able to add a good 20MBs to your list.
PS I don’t think anybody here is going dispute that CAVS 1 memory foot-print isn’t the best it could be (thus, sofry’s decision to wait for CAVS2).