My Review Of BitDefender Total Security 2012
Back on the 17th of this month I took a look at the beta version of BitDefender Total Security 2012 and I have to say that I wasn’t impressed at all. There were a few reasons for this but the main one by far was the fact that the program reduced my laptop to a crawl. Or should I say complete and utter standstill.
Key Benefits
- Massive improvement over the beta version
- Auto-pilot feature requires less input from the user
- Large range of features
Still, I said at the time that I do like products from BitDefender Antivirus and that I thought they would come good in the end. So today I am taking another look, this time at the final retail version of this anti-malware software.
Now I’m not going to run through everything again as all the features, system requirements and positive and negative points are all covered in my previous review. Instead I’m just going to look at the big area that concerned me previously, namely the resource usage.
Well, as I thought there might, there has been a huge turnaround. With the beta the CPU usage was constantly between around 25% and 80% with the higher figure being more typical. As you can see above, it is much, much lower now which leads to a far more pleasant experience!
With this final retail version of BitDefender running on my laptop I can actually do other things whilst a scan is in progress. I don’t know why the beta was so poor on my machine. Sure, betas are not expected to be perfect but all the others I have tried in the past have been fairly close to the final versions, albeit with a few minor bugs that needed to be discovered.
The BitDefender Total Security 2012 beta was poor indeed on my machine, for whatever reason, but the final build doesn’t suffer from that at all. The plus points I mentioned in the previous outing still stand and the negative points have ceased to be an issue.
Whilst there was no way on earth I would have recommended trying out the beta version of this product I am glad to say that the final retail version is as good as previous versions and lives up to what I would expect to see from this security vendor. I’m happier now and actually looking forward to reviewing BitDefender’s 2012 antivirus program shortly 
BitDefender Total Security 2012 – Buy Now from authorised BitDefender Store, from only $69.95! Click Here
You May Also Be Interested In :
Article by Lee Munson
Lee's non-technical background allows him to write about internet security in a clear way that is understandable to both IT professionals and people just like you who need simple answers to your security questions.
Lee has written 2877 awesome articles for us at Security FAQs
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I kept Bit defender on my computer for about two weeks. More than frustrating experience of constant slow downs and misery. I often have both the internet and Photoshop open and the RAM consumption was so high Photoshop was freezing up and the internet was crawling with 6GB or RAM. Bit Defender is now gone and will not be on any computer I buy, ever again. No Virus program should be THAT much of a memory hog.
Hi Greg, are you saying BitDefender itself used 6 GB or close to it on your system? If so, I’ve not heard of memory usage quite as bad as that before!!
6GB usage? Wow, something doesn’t sound right. It would be nice to know what BD you put on your computer, if it was the latest (non-beta). Since I have a couple months to switch, I have time to check them out. Am seriously considering Kaspersky, Trend Micro, or Webroot although I am not yet convinced BD is that bad. I think it has more to do with your harddrive size & memory. Need more info.
These reviews can cause more confusion than if I just go and try them all
Thanks
BD isn’t bad. It does have higher than average system requirements but that 6 GB memory usage figure definitely doesn’t sound right.
I AGREE WITH GREG,I GOT BD ALMOST A YEAR AGO AND I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT PROBLEMS WITH IT, SLOWS ME WAY DOWN,THEN I TURN IT OFF FOR A WHILE AND WOW EVERYTHING WORKS GREAT ,HOW EVER I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE 2012 VERSION IS I AM STILL LOOKING IN TO IT , BUT I THINK I WILL GO BACK TO MY OLD ONE I HAD,COSTS MORE BUT DON’T SLOW ME DOWN AT ALL
wtf … i have the internet security and it’s sucks i have been hacked 2 times till now !
many programmers are cropped computer performance is going down …
don’t tell me that my computer is the problem cuz it’s new and got a good specifications .
…..
…”i have been hacked 2 times till now !”…
What do you mean by that exactly?
I’ve been using BD for over 3 years, and while it does make the PC slower than without, its a price to pay for real time advanced protection. With other AV’s I’ve tried, like Avira, ESET, Norton, AVG, sometimes viruses have been able to get into the system, and had a chance to wreck havoc before being detected by a scheduled scan. Bitdefender (and Norton, another I’ve tried but was worse in slowing the PC down) is doing the scans real time: while a program/file is opening, hence the slowness. Personally, its something I’d take for the security. Understand that as I am a medical student (hence busy), and the only one at home with acceptable enough computer literacy to be able to work/talk with people at tech-forums for help, finding BD was a joy. It was a maintenance free program which I could just install and leave with less computer literate individuals and not be too much worried they’d download something bad, or they inadvertedly answer one of those infected spam emails or whatever. They dont notice the difference much anyway, nor do I on my laptop. It does slow down boot up by a couple of minutes, but once inside, the slowness is just a couple or few seconds barely noticeable IMO. I’ve never gotten that CPU has gone to a crawl, a little noticeably slower perhaps (about 3 secs slower opening MSWord for example), but not enough to consider ditching it. I’ve experienced worse from Norton, and I reiterate, I dont want to go back to no real time protection anymore.
Also, I find it odd others are saying CPU usage of 90%. I am running BDTS 2011 on a 32bit (2.7Ghz dualcore) and a 64bit(2.6Ghz i5) Win7 with idling CPU usage at 3-8%, and recently installed BDIS 2012 on two others (a 2.2Ghz dual core and a 2.0Ghz dual core), and both running idle with 4% CPU usage. So maybe they’re running it on a barely capable machine, having less than minimum requirements.
I would also like to add, that for several years BitDefender is consistenly one of the top 5 performers in a lot of AV reviews I’ve read, while others vary in position, or even fall out of the top ten. Such consistent quality makes this product very good IMO.
I’d second that. Obviously ranking can depend very much on the way that testing is conducted but BitDefender does usually rank well across the board.
once the bitdiffender is 2011 installed, then the pc is becoming very slow and showing cpu usage always more than 90 % and allowing some malware outbreak instead of protecting it. i have uninstalled the same choosen norton. amazingly its giving good result. one of the waste software i have ever met.
I also have BitDefender 2012 and i have to say, it looks more like blaotware. It is making my amd phenom 2x 3.1Ghz to crawl. Also the impact on my Internet connection and speed is also a very disappointing.
Also the request to kick Anti-malewarebytes and other security programs is bad! Will try it for 30 days but i will not give a penny for this crapware.
Melanie, you should have at least tried to work with BD to see if they could help you.. but..that was your decision.
I truly feel that security software makers work toward the latest OS and kind of leave the older ones to struggle with problems encountered with the new product. Unfortunately, they eventually stop making their software to run on the older OS so I expect once Microsoft stops updating XP, there will be no software available for it. Of the (3) OS I am running, I still like XP the best…
Lee: I am not sure who you addressed you question to but I have a Dell E510 with Intell Processor, 4g memory (2.72 physical available). I replaced the mobo, fans & upgraded the memory from 2 to 4G a year ago. With these repairs, still did not notice any better speed. As of today, I am still getting the “computer has stop..”. I switched from IE to Mozilla..no difference. I don’t know if these problems are relevant to BD, just telling you what I encountered after the swtich. As of today, have not decided what I will go with after they expire. Thanks again
Freaking awful. It brought my 5 year old XP machine to a standstill also. I uninstalled and requested a refund and they had the nerve to want to send me more of their crappy software to diagnose the problem. No thanks!
Was your machine close to the minimum system requirements by any chance?
I switched from Trend Micro IS to Bit Defender InternetSecurity in 2011. Installed easily on my 3 computers with OS: WINXP; Vista; WIN7. I always liked TM but reviews had brought it down so switched. After installing BD, I noticed a slow down on all of the computers but it is bearable. I have contacted BD tech support to have them tweek some things to help stop slowness. Did not notice any difference but I guess they tried. Most of my problems involved the computer running XP. Many times I get the “Windows has stopped running” popup & must do C/A/D. This is even after reinstalling OS. I haven’t decided whether I will select BDIS 2012 program as I do not like anything slowing down my computers. I know it is B/D because my computer was much faster after removing BD…reinstalled it just because I did not want to buy a different one & you have to be crazy to run without IS protection.
Appreciate the work & reviews you do to help people decide on a product. Thank you
Thanks for the kind words.
One point I would make is that the speed of various security products is determined, to some degree, by the particular computer setup they are running on so what causes slowdown for one person may not have the same effect on another computer. That said, BitDefender isn’t the best I’ve seen for system resource usage thus far this year. That accolade would have to go to my next review (ESET Smart Security 5).
I’m glad to hear you wouldn’t contemplate running without any IS protection as I know far too many people who do and they nearly always regret it.
{ 10 trackbacks }