navigation bar left navigation bar right

Secunia CSI7
navigation left tab Advisories navigation right tab
navigation left tab Research navigation right tab
navigation left tab Forums navigation right tab
navigation left tab Create Profile navigation right tab
navigation left tab Our Commitment navigation right tab
PSI
PSI API
CSI
OSI
xSI
Vulnerabilities
Programs
Open Discussions
My Threads
Create Thread
Statistics
About

Forum Thread: Version 3 seems to be unduly CPU intensive

You are currently viewing a forum thread in the Secunia Community Forum. Please note that opinions expressed here are not of Secunia but solely reflect those of the user who wrote it.

This thread was submitted in the following forum:
PSI

This thread has been marked as locked.
KalmarNyckel Version 3 seems to be unduly CPU intensive
Member 19th Aug, 2012 16:41
Ranking: 1
Posts: 15
User Since: 29th Nov, 2008
System Score: N/A
Location: US
When Secunia alerted me to ver. 3, I immediately installed it on both my XP Core 2 duo E8400 desktop (2GB RAM) and my Win 7 Core i7 Toshiba laptop (6GB RAM). First thing I noticed is that on the XP machine, it took 37 sec. for PSI to load. In fact, the first time I opened it, I thought the OS had crashed. Even on my (pretty powerful) Win 7 laptop, it takes 23 sec., which is acceptable, but not very pleasing.

I provide tech support to a sizable number of friends and family, and have put PSI 2.0 on all their computers. Happened to be at one of those friend's home yesterday and upgraded his 2006 Pentium IV HP desktop to ver. 3. Big mistake. Loading takes well over a minute, and if you minimize it, then restore it, the restore alone takes 45 seconds. It indicated that 2 programs needed updating and one (Java) was in the process of being updated. That status remained for 10 minutes with no indication anything was happening . This is unacceptably long, and an interface that tells you nothing about the progress of each update is equally unacceptable. A Task Manager check of CPU usage showed that PSI was using ~50%, making it impossible to use the computer for anything else.

The end result of this experience is that I uninstalled PSI. Ver. 3 is a MAJOR CPU/memory hog. The time it takes to do things are tolerable if you have a lot of hardware horsepower (e.g., a Core i7 CPU and lots of memory), but it is totally unsuitable for older XP machines. So I'm posting this as a warning to those with XP computers.

--
Don

guit30

RE: Version 3 seems to be unduly CPU intensive
[+]
This reply has been minimised due to a negative Relevancy Score.
ManFromOz RE: Version 3 seems to be unduly CPU intensive
Member 24th Aug, 2012 11:51
Score: 17
Posts: 104
User Since: 6th Jun 2012
System Score: 100%
Location: AU
Last edited on 24th Aug, 2012 12:24
on 24th Aug, 2012 09:35, guit30 wrote:
Is there another System like Secunia that works better, since Ijoined, everybody is always complaining about stuff?


Can I suggest you install PSI 2.0.0.3003 or 2.0.0.4003? For 2.0.0.3003, please see the signature of Maurice Joyce here - http://secunia.com/community/forum/thread/show/131...


Or

http://secunia.com/PSI2Setup.exe

ManFromOz

Edit: Corrected link.
Was this reply relevant?
+1
-0
KalmarNyckel RE: Version 3 seems to be unduly CPU intensive
Member 24th Aug, 2012 14:31
Score: 1
Posts: 15
User Since: 29th Nov 2008
System Score: N/A
Location: US
I'm aware that v.2 is less of a memory/resources hog. That's what I had installed on my friend's computer several years ago. I was thinking of reinstalling v. 2, but this friend is essentially "learning disabled". His personal habits (smoking a cigarette every half hour; 4 cups of caffinated coffee and 4 caffinated cokes/day) have "fried" his memory, so almost nothing you explain to him -- even half a dozen times -- sticks. His primary word processor is still WordPerfect 5.1 (DOS-based) because he can't learn Word. The organization of his files is a disaster waiting to happen. I've created backup programs for him using PKZip that are easy to run, but he can't remember how to run them, so doesn't. And when programs update, he does not pay attention to the "piggybacks", like the Ask.com toolbar, Google Chrome, etc. and does not uncheck the checkboxes that download those programs along with the update. So I decided that having a program that worries about a few security updates is like fiddling while Rome burns, and didn't reinstall v.2.

I didn't mention this in the first post, but after updating to v.3 on my XP desktop, and seeing how slow it was, I uninstalled it and went back to v.2. But after seeing how it worked on my Win 7 laptop, decided to retry it on the desktop. I still don't like the amount of time it takes to do things, or the "simplified" interface that tells you nothing about what's going on. Secunia's programmers need to focus on making it less of a resources hog if they want it to enjoy the popularity that v.1 and 2 had.

--
Don
Was this reply relevant?
+0
-0

This thread has been marked as locked.


 Products Solutions Customers Partner Resources Company
 
 Corporate
Vulnerability Intelligence Manager (VIM)
Corporate Software Inspector (CSI)
Consumer
Personal Software Inspector (PSI)
Online Software Inspector (OSI)
 Industry
Compliance
Technology
Integration
 Customers
Testimonials
 MSSP
Technology Partners
References
 Reports
Webinars
Events
 About us
Careers
Memberships
Newsroom


Secunia is a member of FIRST Secunia is a member of EDUcause Secunia is a member of The Open Group Secunia is a member of FS-ISAC
 
Secunia © 2002-2014 Secunia ApS - Rued Langgaards Vej 8, 4th floor, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark - +45 7020 5144
Terms & Conditions and Copyright - Privacy - Report Vulnerability - Disclaimer
follow Secunia on Facebook follow Secunia on Twitter follow Secunia on LinkedIn follow Secunia on YouTube follow Secunia Xing follow Secunias RSS feed follow Secunia on Google+