Digerati

I don't know. I rarely ever install any Microsoft product that I later uninstall. I don't uninstall operating systems. Other than that, MS Office and Microsoft Mouse and Keyboard Center (because I have a MS mouse and keyboard) are the only other Microsoft products I use and once installed, they stay. But as I noted a couple times already, it is "frustratingly not uncommon" to have remnants left behind. Not just files and folders on the drive, but shortcuts in the Start menu and Registry entries too. I suppose if every program was thorough at cleaning up after itself, programs like CCleaner never would have become as popular as they have. That said, I have upgraded the operating systems of many many computers to newer versions of Windows and for sure, lots of remnants are left behind. Though I suppose Microsoft would claim that is to accommodate rolling back to a previous version.

Thanks for that! And yeah, I just looked in the Registry on a couple systems here and noticed only a few entries - mostly just pointing to file locations - things that would not matter if left behind. Hmmm, but doesn't MB3.0 force an uninstall of the previous version before installing itself? Pretty sure it did and in that case, it should know how to stop all processes releasing the various hooks to allow full uninstalls. I agree it is not urgent or even necessarily that important. But over time, it is file and folder remnants that result in drives becoming cluttered. On small drives, in extreme cases where other programs don't clean up fully and compound the problem, it could result in low disk space issues, and fragmentation issues on spinners. Sweet! Thanks for this update.

Did you by chance check your boot time after running mbam-clean but before installing MBAM 2.2.1.1043? That is, with no Malwarebytes program installed? I note remnants or orphaned entries in the Registry do not mean they are doing anything, or still connected to any resource that may affect boot times or system performance.

And as I noted in that other thread, leaving remnants behind is "not uncommon" and "a minor issue, for sure". But it is those little things "that detract from an over all good impression". And when it comes down to it, the folks at Malwarebytes have set themselves up for such critiques by producing exemplary products for so long. It's like hearing about Lexus or Rolls Royce recalls. It is more disappointing than it would with a brand not known for quality products. You are right, Porthos. It should just be a name/version number change and that's it. But there are reports in this forum and other forums where trusted beta testers suddenly started experiencing these problems after "upgrading" to the final release. The computer didn't change. Neither did the user. That pretty much leaves the program. No doubts some will blame a Windows Update or some other external change, but it would seem odd such an external change would affect Malwarebytes only.

It seems someone has decided to launch a personal puerile tirade against me now via PMs. I don't wish to go there but will respond to one point raised. I don't have just one computer. I have 5 computers here, 4 PCs and one notebook, all running 64-bit W10 Pro. The notebook and 3 PCs have the Premium version installed and 1 PC uses the free version. Of the 3 PCs with Premium, 2 have experienced the recurring warning that real-time protection is not running, The 3rd has been problem free. The 4th uses the free version and is not used enough to determine if problematic - but of course does not have real-time protection anyway. All 3 PCs with Premium installed have SSDs and all 3 use alternate install locations. Beyond that, the hardware is quite different. The notebook has not had any problems either (other than previously reported bugs of disabled functions and buttons). It is only this PC, the one I use the most, that I have rolled back to the previous version of MBAM - but that was due mostly to losing access to sites I frequent regularly, as I reported elsewhere. As far as the comments about beta testing, I note there were many who beta tested MB before it went final and never experienced the recurring real-time protection not running error. That would "suggest" that the program was changed between last beta version and the final release since several of those same beta testers are now experiencing this problem.

I note, however that you reported here the uninstaller left dangling mbae64.dll. Your reasoning was that was because a protected app was still open, and I agree - that make sense. But what I am saying is the MB3 uninstaller should have then prompted for a reboot to release that "hook" and allow the uninstall routing finish cleaning up to ensure no obsolete files and folder are left orphaned. Alternatively (building on your suggestion in that other thread), the uninstaller should warn users that program XYZ is running and to close said app before proceeding, instead of just expecting users do that on our own.

Oh come on, John! Arguing??? I am not talking to myself! I and others are simply trying to point out what we have discovered using MB3! It is you who don't want to hear it! You may not remember me but I sure remember you. We go way back and you can see via the link in my sig that I am no newbie or dummy when it comes to computers or Windows programs or how they should work. EXCUSE ME for not mentioning earlier (in this thread) I did not install using the default locations. But what difference would that make? If properly coded, none! But to that, I stated last Saturday in this thread I installed in an alternate location. So please get down from your horse and accept that you don't represent everyone, and that others have the same right as you to express their findings and opinions too. That would be great. Thanks.

It is "many". That does not suggest "most", but there are "many" users with two or more drives (often these days a small SSD and a larger HD) who install their OS on C and everything else on D or elsewhere. There are also "many" who divide a large single drive into separate partitions and then install their programs into one of those other partitions. It is not necessary for you recreate any steps. Anyone who knows how to install into an alternate location should already know how to find those locations using File Explorer (Windows Explorer in previous versions of Windows). But AGAIN - that should NEVER make any difference. ANY PROGRAM that provides a "custom" install option allowing users to install in alternate locations MUST already be competently coded to thoroughly clean up after itself from those alternate locations. That includes shortcuts in the Start menu and from any toolbar or taskbar put there during the install too - even if installed in the Start menu in some location other than the default - again, as I do to avoid cluttered chaos. For example, I have a subfolder on my drive and in my Start menu called "Security Stuff" and all my security programs and start menu shortcuts for those security programs go under those locations. I know many people and even entire organizations who set their systems up in similar fashions. Let's not forget there are over 1.5 Billion Windows machines out there. A mere 1% is still 15 million. That is "many" people.

I would not call that a solution and frankly, it defeats one of the primary reasons for using a SSD. This is even more true if you invested in the latest memory technologies (DDR4) and OS (W10), which are specifically designed to boot faster and come out of sleep states much faster than DDR3 and older versions of Windows. Rather than a "solution", your "workaround" does more to suggest where the problem lies - in the timings used in MB3 loads and configuration, and its subsequent failure to set and remember settings.

Of course John's steps assumes the user installed MB3 in the default locations. Many users install to a secondary drive, or like me into a different folder on the boot drive. Of course, that should never make any difference as the uninstall routines should easily determine where MB3 was installed and remove the applicable files, folders and Registry entries.

Thanks for looking into it.

I regret I did not document thoroughly my actions or findings, but you can see what I recall via the first link in my post #5 above.

Sorry, I don't have full details any more but pretty sure it said it was a "MBAM" service.

Correct. Not only does it leave a folder full of files, it leaves a service installed too. And attempting to manually delete that folder fails too. But mbam-clean.exe was able to finish what the Control Panel applet couldn't. IMO, the fact, MB3.0 fails to totally uninstall via the Control Panel Applet is just another indication MB3.0 was rushed out the door by management prematurely to get out there before the holidays.

FTR, I was very disappointed to see MB3 failed to properly and totally uninstall. See my woes here. After finally removing all traces of MB3, rebooting, I was successfully able to install V2.2.1.1043 through the link provided by Firefox here. All works fine again.

64-Bit W10 Pro Build 14393.rs1, IE11. 1. After installing 3.0, I could no longer access certain pages of the popular and legitimate website of Harry & David. I kept getting blocked with the report I was being protected from an exploit. For example, I wanted to view my past orders and could not. When trying to update my billing information, I could not. I got a similar block when attempting to access my Wells Fargo bank account. Disabling Exploit Protection failed to stop the blocks even though the protection said it was off. Rebooting only resulting in Exploit Protection suddenly being enabled again. Only way to proceed was to exit MB3.0. Why are we not given the option to proceed to the page when MB3 thinks it finds an exploit? Due to all the frustrations over the various bugs reported elsewhere (recurring protection turned off errors, for example), disabled/unfinished features (buttons not working, inability to remove or edit "Protected Programs", Scan for Rootkits setting cannot be reset to default), and now recurring false positives on the exploits, I decided to downgrade back to something that works. That was no easy task either. 2. Uninstalling MB3.0 through Control Panel > Programs and Features applet resulted in only a partial uninstall with the very vague instructions the rest would have to be done manually. Not only was the main Malwarebytes folder left behind with a couple dozen files inside, but when attempting to manually delete the files or folder, the action fails with the error files are still in use! A reboot failed to clear those hooks! I discovered the MBAM service was left behind too, though at least it was stopped. Fortunately, using the Malwarebytes uninstall tool did remove the final remnants of 3.0. and I was able to install from anew, version 2.2.1.1043. Now everything works as expected. I have to say, it appears V3.0 was hastily pushed out the door unfinished, and clearly insufficiently beta tested for bugs to get ahead of the holiday break. I would urge Malwarebytes take the 3.0 download links down now. It is better to have fewer new trials and sales of the old version and maintain their stellar reputation than to tarnish that reputation with this new, clearly unfinished and buggy product. Then after the holidays and all the developers have come back and hopefully recharged and refreshed, they can attack the problems and "finish" this release properly. Any attempt to fix it now before the holidays is going to be another rush job as the developers are thinking about buying presents and spending time with their families.

@Reid - where do you want these issues reported and logs posted? The thread showing issues, and the thread on how to report and new issue are both locked and neither gives reporting instructions. It would be good if Becky edited her post here with specific instructions. For example, 7. Start a new thread in the Malwarebytes 3.0 forum. 8. A copy of the contents of C:\ProgramData\Malwarebytes\MBAMService\logs in a ZIP file (attach to post).

Mine said starting for 30 seconds or so, then started. But to your point, if off, it should not be green. That's messed up.

I am getting pretty close to uninstalling 3.0 and rolling back to the previous version. This 3.0 update is clearly an unfinished product. Under Settings > Protection > Exploit Protection: > Manage Protected Applications, The Remove option is grayed out. This means there is a bunch of protection to programs we may not have installed. The Edit button is grayed out too.

I can see how fast booting might cause the error at boot. But after that and especially after we click "Turn on", we should not keep getting the error - until the next boot. So it is more than just a timing at boot issue. FTR, I have Samsung SSDs and don't use Samsung Magician.

I just got the notice again and I've been using the computer non-stop for a couple hours since I last woke it. So it has happened after a boot, after waking, and in the middle of use.

You sure this is the reason? I ask because I get this warning when just waking up my computer.

Unfortunately, all the hype over the last couple years about dual-channel has not panned out either. It really is a marketing ploy to get consumers to buy more RAM. It is important to note that dual-channel memory architecture has actually been around for nearly 50 years!!! And back then, when a few megabytes of RAM cost a fortune, and disk space cost another fortune, dual-channel was worth. But today, when 2 x 4GB of RAM can be found for $50 or less, studies have shown any performance gains are marginal at best and the only real reason to install dual-channel is because RAM package RAM in pairs and sell it at a discount price! Gamersnexus.net did a great, very thorough Dual vs Single Channel Comparison where they concluded, Years ago, dual-channel "kits" were made of RAM the RAM makers individually tested and paired sticks with identical RAM to ensure they were exactly alike. Today, RAM manufacturing techniques are so much better and precise, every stick coming off the production line already matches the design specs so precisely, they no longer have to tested and matched. Also, today's memory controllers used in motherboards, chipsets and CPUs are much better at making slightly different RAM play well together. This is why you don't even have to buy the same brand anymore - just the same specs. But regardless, since you already have 8GB of 1600MHz (that is, great density and speed/frequency), you really are set to go - in spite of your apparent desire to believe otherwise! If I were you, and you wanted to increase performance, again, I would be looking at a better graphics solution and/or SSD. But also again, if you really want to improve performance, and you want some sound, applicable advice here, I ask again, instead of just dealing with hypotheticals, provide your full system specs so we can help you decide where best to put your money for the most bang.

It's like, are you really going to "notice" that you are going 91mph when you were doing 90?

I said, it is highly unlikely you will "notice" any improvement. Again, it is highly unlikely. There are many variables that affect performance and while RAM speed is one of them, RAM amount is much more important. So is CPU performance and graphics performance - not to mention bus speeds of the motherboard. If looking to improve performance, I will take more RAM over faster RAM any day of the week. I would also look at a more powerful graphics card before swapping in faster RAM too (if I already had at least 8GB of RAM, as you do). Just remember the PSU must handle the greater demand of a more power hungry graphics card. IF everything else about your two computers were EXACTLY the same (same motherboard, same graphics, same drives, same CPU), then and only then, maybe, you would see any difference. If you want some real, applicable advice here, instead of just dealing with hypotheticals, provide your full system specs.