hello
is this normal for Avast?
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6374/235346.png
because it looks too much resources consuming application and I needed if there is an antivirus more light
thanks
This is far from heavy and there are few AVs as light on resources as avast, 32MB is far from heavy considering that value is for all the resident shields.
It also depends on what you are doing and where you get the figures from, see image of my current figures (avastUI open and monitoring activity so it will be larger than normal) VM Size is meant to be a better representation of actual use. I have many other applications that use much more than avast.
thanks for your reply
now I have somehow made avast not to appear in tray, how can I bring it back so I can disable some of its scanners in order to minimize system resources consumption?
thanks
Hi David…
That depends on the system avast is installed on. To someone who has a system running XP with only a Pentium III processor with 384 MB’s of memory, 32MB’s is going to pack some weight. 
Regards…
Seems normal consumption.
The virus definitions are due to most of that RAM usage.
Yes it is, but that is speculation as the OP hasn’t mentioned at all what the system specs are. Plus the image posted doesn’t show much else to see if there is any non-essential applications running, assuming the OP is short on resources. Then were possible a relatively cheap RAM update would see greater performance across all applications.
No one should expect any better performance than the OP is experiencing when you run XP SP3 with only 384 MB of RAM and have other programs in addition to the OS running at the same time.
Regardless of the original MS specs and considering the other programs that most users will be using, XP SP3 should not be run with less than 512 MB of RAM and even then there will be some slow downs from time to time. 1 GB of RAM should be the minimum with XP SP3 and the other “normally” run programs.
The problem being ,this is all speculation as the OP hasn’t stated any information in this topic about their system specs.
True enough, David. 
I was just responding to Ardvark’s statement of RAM amount.
Hi Charley…
I agree completely but I have seen (and still know of one) systems whose specs are either identical or similar to the ones I mentioned in my previous post. The immediate reaction would be to tell these folks “Well, buy a new system” but for the poor with families to feed, if they even have a computer, it’s usually one that is older, received used and unable to handle today’s software smoothly. I’m not pointing any fingers at any particular software or company, I just want to see capable, high quality security software that can run smoothly on the older systems as well with no sluggishness or drag.
@David: How much of an upgrade would depend on the motherboard.
Regards…
I’m not going to speculate as we have zero information on the OPs system so I will await and information as and when it comes.
I just want to see capable, high quality security software that can run smoothly on the older systems as well with no sluggishness or dragA system with that little Ram will be dragging with any program and certainly have a problem with anything that's resident such as an anti virus program. It isn't a problem of the operating system or the program running on the system but the amount of ram installed on that computer. Upgrade the ram to handle what's running on the system and your problems are history. :)
+1
my system is:
XP SP3, 2 GB RAM, Intel Dual Core T2050 1.6Ghz
there are not many programs running and the programs in the screenshot are those with the higher RAM consumption
thanks
;D wow you have ample amount of RAM yet you complain on avast memory usage of 32 mb thats funny 
Avast 5 is the lightest anti virus out there ;D
On my XP Pro system I have Malwarebytes Pro that takes way more RAM than avast!
I use MemInfo to display RAM usage and currently it shows 36% used.
http://www.carthagosoft.net/meminfo.htm