questions

Hello Porthos, Thank you for your answer! I do not have anything fancy (Windows Defender) . I created all required exclusions, but I am old school and strongly believe that only an antimalware with real time protection should be active at any given time on a PC. In fact, this is the vast recommendation in industry. Malwarebytes, with its multiple shields, has the potential to interfere with any other antivirus, exclusions or not. The impact may not be visible but can range from slowness to no detection from any. Hence my question.

....if I deactivate all protections and I schedule a daily scan is this equivalent like having the free version and doing a manual scan???? Reason: I want to avoid conflict having and antivirus and Malwarebytes both with real time enabled ; like that I still can use my license.

Is it true, it is called "CHOICE" But the choice has to be rational and educated.....

Correct is "with no visible problems". You do not know how a detection is handled, who is going to quarantine first (maybe none?) Point is, if Bit Defender scores 99.9% in all tests in the last 5 years , what is the advantage of running one additional anti-malware on top of it?????

I remember when "Malwarebytes was designed to run along your antivirus".... an "AV replacement" is like the spare tire on your car: will do the job but you cannot run more than 80km/h and you cannot run permanently .As long as Malwarebytes does not scan a lot of file types ( JS, HTML, VBS, .CLASS, SWF, BAT, CMD, PDF, PHP, etc) should never be used instead of a properly designed antivirus.

If I may ask, how "getting the logs" will help you determine why the ads are coming?????

You got clear notice about EOL for version 2. It is unrealistic expectation that the company will update indefinitely an old version.....

Malwarebytes will not lose clients because all these clients have a life time license, already paid.

Anti-Ransomvare Beta creates an entry in context menu (right click) with "Scan with Malwarebytes". But Anti-Ransomware does not "scan" on demand....

Hi David H. Lipman, I am disappointed to learned that my post offended you! Unfortunately this is the reality, and all the "fixes" for MBAM, are , word by word, the definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different result" Thanks!

Hi daledoc1, I am running a PC with Win7/64, ESET AV and a firewall and I rarely see RAM usage climbing over 1.5GB, so 2GB of RAM should not have an impact on MBAM (see the attachment) Being disappointed "to learn that you are not satisfied with V2" is a "politically correct" answer, but please , cut the crap and be realistic!!!! Hundred of people have almost the same problem with MBAM v.2 (including myself) , so blaming anything else is a nonsense in the troubleshooting process. Yes, I truly believe that the only logical thing to do NOW is to revert to v 1.75 and stop already this charade with "clean/uninstall/install the last version/ provide logs" Thanks!

Hi LimboSlam, Is not your PC to blame; just take a look on this forum and you can see that MBAM v2 is creating multiple problems to a large plethora of users, so.... your PC is just fine, run v.1.75! Thanks!

Hi RubbeR DuckY, I am happy to see that MBAM is open to suggestions in order to improve the product as well as the MBAM's image. What do you say about this: 1. an official announcement that MBAM v.2 wouldn't be available for download until further testing , improvement. 2. official return to v1.75, (good, stable) till v2 is being "fixed". 3. convert all new "1 year licenses" bought till now in "life time licenses" as a gest of good will for users who bought an 1 year license and are already 4-6 months into their subscription with a defective product. This combination is a win-win, you retain the 25 mil. users, gain some more time to fix v2,avoid all negative publicity and avoid a possible disaster using a "not so well tested" version of MBAM ( remember when a bad definition update crippled thousand of pc's} There is no rush in launching v2, v1.75 is working quite well . Thanks!

Asking paying customers to run "Public Beta" versions is NOT the way to " figure out what is happening".

I am also interested to hear why MBAM would release such a "flawed' product...

Hi AdvancedSetup, Thank you for your answer, even though I do not appreciate deleting my comment ( now seems like you answered to nothing....) If MBAM has a saga with IOBit there are other channels to resolve this; you can sue them, for example. Constantly posting on your forum that "IOBit sucks" is unethical and you cannot fix an unethical thing done to you ("IOBit stole from us...") doing another unethical thing. Personally I believe MBAM should focus more in dealing with v.2 disaster rather than claiming that somebody else's software "sucks". Have you watched your forum recently? Constantly asking paying users to run "public beta" versions of MBAM 2, the same problems reported over and over again, the same advice (reinstall) given again and again, all these would easily conclude that "MBAM sucks" I am an old user of MBAM ( in fact just an owner of 3 licenses, not an user anymore) ; in addition I installed on some computer's friends (4) - big mistake! Every weak I had to deal one way or another with these MBAM 2 installations until I decided to reinstall v 1.75 . How can I justify to my friends who paid an yearly subscription that , almost 4 months in their subscription, the software they paid for is not working??? Thanks!

MBAM displays "Activation Date" which is somehow irrelevant. Shouldn't MBAM display "Expiration Date" rather than "Activation date"??? Thanks!

...from Avira forum, see attachment.

Hi, Just activated several MBAM licenses, some of them life time , some of them 1 year. In the whole process I may have installed the wrong license on the wrong computer. Is there a way to see when a license would expire? Thanks!

Am I missing any settings? Thanks!

from daledoc1: "MBAM is designed and tested to work alongside al of major, popular AVs" (answer to blackstone250 / Webroot Secure Anywhere;bad performance) from AdvancedSetup, the same topic: "...looking at Webroot site it looks like your product is not available for me to test it out" I thought that MBAM was already tested to work alongside WSA, but seems like somebody just now is looking for a trial version to test it out... Just noticing... Thanks!

Hi Firefox, In fact ,yes, I DO have concerns and comments , but where should I post??? Initially, MBAM was supposed to be a second line of defense behind your antivirus and would scan only on EXECUTION What do we have today? A version which upsets everybody , which flooded the forum with complaints, a "malicious website blocker" on which 9 from 10 reported false positive are, indeed, false positive, a rootkit scanner which doesn't work , a MBAM which is in Virus Total but, yet, is not an antivirus. On forum there is a desperation to move people from a perfectly working version (1.75) to 2.0 even though the latest has more bugs than merits. I have 3 paid license's (lifetime); every time I installed MBAM , it takes MORE resources than my main antivirus and I NEVER EVER had a detection from MBAM before my antivirus. Am I a satisfied customer???? Certainly not.... Thanks!

Hi, I am running MBAM alongside a traditional AV; I am using IE11 and Google A website is presently inspected by : 1. Google Safe Browsing 2. IE Smart screen filter 3. AV "malicious website blocking" 4. MBAM "malicious site blocking" I can see a decrease in performance with so many "inspections", so how can I disable MBAM "malicious website blocking" without having the red mark on MBAM icon?? Thanks!

Hi 1PW, Can you, please, name another program which requires "disabling self protection" in order to uninstall????????? This a poor implementation of "self protection" feature. In the worst case scenario, MBAM should ask you , upon uninstall, "Do you really want to uninstall MBAM" and if the answer is "Yes" should disable "self protection "by itself and proceed with uninstallation.

Hi, For the time being I am OK with MBAM 1.75 ; however the log 9see attachment doesn't look right. Can you take a look and let me know, please? protection-log-2014-05-14.txt