>I have desperately been trying to make the transition from VFP8 to VFP9 so I can use some of the new features. I noticed a difference from taking about 4 or 5 seconds (cold boot running app) 1.5 to 2 (re-running app) with VFP8 to about 15 (cold) and about 4 to 6 (re-re-running) on VFP9. That is just getting the exe loaded in before I log into it and is totally unacceptable.
>
> It seems that there are many more system files and such used in 9 over 8. When I temporarily unload my anti-virus program it only takes at max a few seconds on either version. I am not going to mention the name of the product, but we are strongly considering changing. We are looking for something with protection as top, but something also quick enough to run our VFP apps and other software productively.
>
> Can you guys give us your opinions on what you use as an anti-virus program and how well they have worked for you over the years? There are lots of reports on the net about them all, but all seem to be biased towards one or the other. I would rather get opinions from people who have used them and have experience on them.

With many AV products, you can specify folders and/or file types to exclude from real-time scanning. In addition to all the file types your app uses, remember to exclude *.tmp files (as well as the other file types) in your VFP TMPFILES folder.

I read an article a while back comparing the file system I/O performance hit of various AV products under several different test loads. On some tests the performance degradation was brutal, IIRC performance dropped to a few percent of what it was with no AV product active.

I think it was last year's version of http://www.passmark.com/ftp/antivirus_09-performance-testing-ed3.pdf