TomB64

This is a false assumption. I NEVER turn off my devices at night. Repeatedly restarting hardware, especially physical hard drives reduces the LIFE of the product. Electrical devices should be started and at slow times, go to a reduced state when not active, but not fully turned off. The surge of a restart is hard on devices. This is an "energy saving" approach, not a professional computer user behavior. Besides night time is when I am RUNNING overnight housekeeping. Basing assumptions on non-technical consumers of computer technology is never going to work. That level of user should stick to a tablet or other web browser based product. Better yet, MWB developers should code in intelligence to determine the USERS pattern and ADAPT the scanning as proper, instead of ASSUMING one method. it is not that much extra code IF you know how to do it. Specific to this question/issue, the way MBAM decides "Idle" is incorrect. I am running a system back up utilizing 90% CPU and MBAM THINKS this is a "idle time" so lets SCAN. It sends my laptop into thermal throttling or triggers a power off because of thermal limits. MBAM is using 71 THREADS and adding 65% CPU usage (on a 6 REAL core, 12 hyper thread, Coffee Lake, i7 9850H at 4.4Ghz) usage along with 20 DISK IO links to mess with the Shadow copy being used for the BACKUP process. How do we control this "feature" or TELL it when to scan? The current "Idle" mode does not work.

LOL! Wow! You have eaten up that MS marketing BS hook, line, and sinker! You actually are believing the new Intel marketing strategy. THe strategy is to APPEAR (smoke and mirrors, the processor, thread counts are not understood to most users) to provide lots of cores, charge MORE money for it because it is BETTER, but truly just give inferior cores that cannot handle any REAL processing tasks. As with other INTEL Boondoggles time will tell if these E-cores (actually subsets of P-Cores that FAILED P-Core standards on the die) really add any benefit, or were just a way to use up silicon in the manufacturing process. So if you lack enough P-Cores for your process what happens??? If all the P-Cores are busy, what happens? Think about that. You WAIT and wait and wait in a queue or ERROR off. This concept while academically novel, is not practical. You end up with LESS cores and MS tries to do more with less, all to save power for the EU standards. It sacrifices performance for power savings. Ask yourself why do server level CPUs ONLY have P-Cores? Because it is NEEDED for the REAL work. As to MS ability to actually produce an OS that truly works with this complicated level of functionality is still to be determined. Instead of ALL cores being available it LIMITS processes to certain cores and you WAIT until they are available. Do NOT dare use the available P-Cores because that would consume more power. Getting this nuanced and parsed in an OS is nonsense. Just throw the bare metal hardware at the OS and run it all out (Linux/UNIX approach, it runs at 100% all the time) That is the PROVEN experience record over the last 50 years of my computer experience. Reserving processors or throttling processing NEVER helps in the big picture. Remember MS's GOAL is all about certain metrics that make their OS appear to perform at a certain level. When you know all the background BLOATWARE MS runs under the scheduler or as sub-processes, hidden from you, you figure out why they added these cores, to handle their bloatware which was HOGGING the cores. As learned in the past, letting an OS take control of the hardware to the performance level is nonsense. It is just another KLUGE of MS's to get certain results they want to tout. As with MANY MS products, TIME will tell if this really works. Once MS moved to a .net underlying layer for the OS, they defeated most efficiencies with their .net BLOATWARE.