![]() I've already set up a partition and been testing it, and I like it. Veracrypt is forcing me into encryption overkill. It's too long for me when it WORKS, for that matter. 30 seconds to see, 'incorrect password' is too long. They don't need to be doing things for me and run across stuff that will upset them, even if I don't think it should. I'm not encrypting out of distrust of them, I'm simply trying to respect their bible-belt positions on carnal matters. I'm in the hospital from time to time, and they may need access to certain things on my computer. There's no great secrets, no treasure, just some run-of-the-mill mainstream porn that I'm tucking away out of courtesy to them. The thing is, I don't NEED to keep the NSA out, just curious/fumbling members of my extended family. Apparently the programmers stress security above all and won't let the users make it less secure, but faster. I tried Veracrypt, and I liked it - except it took about 30 seconds to mount an encrypted drive - or to tell me I mis-typed the password. I'm thinking it's time to move on, for safely's sake. It's already 3 years since Truecrypt has been abandoned, and I worry that one day a Windows update will break it. I'm switching out a 6-year-old HDD, and rethinking my encryption. Both security programs slow down netbooks noticeably but the difference in performance between the two programs is not noticeable even though it is existing.I used to use TrueCrypt to protect a data drive partition. But in defense of TrueCrypt I have to say that the difference is hardly noticeable running encryption on a netbook makes it slow whether BitLocker or TrueCrypt is used. So switching to TrueCrypt in order to increase performance is a bad idea. If you use the same algorithm in BitLocker and TrueCrypt, BitLocker is even faster by 14%. The default BitLocker algorithm (AES 128 bit with diffuser) is 12% faster. Alexander comes to the conclusion:Īs you can see, TrueCrypt performs worse. The author did not fail to mention on the other hand that the difference in performance was not noticeable during tests. True Crypt did perform not as good as Bitlocker in the test. The second chart shows the performance loss compared to a system running no encryption. Both have a noticeable impact on the computer system. The first chart shows the transfer rate in Megabytes on a system without encryption and on a computer system with either Bitlocker or True Crypt encryption. The results on a tested Atom 260 netbook are that Bitlocker performs better than True Crypt. For TrueCrypt, I chose only the fastest algorithm according to its built-in benchmark. For BitLocker, I chose three different encryption algorithms. I ran some benchmarks on an Atom N260 Netbook. Netbooks, which are usually powered by Atom or Celeron cpus on the other hand, are not as powerful as desktop PCs. The performance impact of both encryption software programs is neglectful on modern desktop computer systems. Also, TrueCrypt runs on all editions of XP, Vista, Windows 7 and newer versions of Windows. True Crypt on the other hand is open source and a cross-platform application which gives it the advantage if a user works with Windows, Linux and Mac systems. Note that this makes it possible to decrypt Bitlocker volumes on PCs running Windows XP or Windows Vista. This allow you to decrypt the data on the device even if Bitlocker is not installed on the computer system the removable device is connected to. The feature can be used to encrypt a removable device, and put a program to decode the data on the same device. Bitlocker for instance comes with a very handy Bitlocker To Go option (only on Windows 7 or newer). Bitlocker is the encryption software that ships with Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows Vista Ultimate, and newer versions of Windows, while True Crypt is a freely available Open Source alternative.īoth have features that the other software does not offer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |