Suggestion: Seeing Detections While Scanning

[Mohatu]

Hello,

Just a small suggestion; perhaps it has been suggested before but searching for it yielded no results.

I'd really like to see the addition of being able to see detections while a scan is in progress. As it currently stands, I have to wait until the scan has finished, or cancel it early in order to see what has been detected.

[imtiax]

I also support this, it is very annoying to wait until the end of the scan to see what the infections really were.

[imtiax]

I would also like to add that pretty much all the current antiviruses and other Malware removing software offer this functionality, so why don't you?

All your customers would love it.

[AdvancedSetup]

Sure it can be added but it will slow down your scans significantly as it then has to process back and forth to give you an indicator.

If using the paid PRO version it's just like most antivirus - set it and forget it. Most customers don't want to watch it and thus its normally setup to update and scan completely silent and just take care of it for you. Then the active protection module can be set to alert if a new infection is found or if you like have that silent too and just remove or quarantine any potential new threats as well.

[Mohatu]

Thank you for your quick reply AdvancedSetup, but I don't understand why it would slow down the scan. When an object is detected, it displays as a red number on the scan screen. Instead of only incrementing the number, I don't believe it would affect the speed at all if extra information about the detection was added to a list on the side. As a software engineer myself, unless I completely misunderstand the way MalwareBytes is programmed, adding information to a list would use a few more KiloBytes of memory at most. With current day computers, that should have no effect at all. Additionally, you mentioned that PRO users are able to set it and forget it. I am interested in what goes on behind the screen on my computer, and would like to have a good overview. Perhaps it could be made an option (turning on and off the list while scanning) for slower computers if it really does make a significant difference?

Thanks again for your reply.

[Mohatu]

It's been 10 months and this has yet to be denied or accepted. Please give this a second thought, as not all of your users prefer the "let us take care of it, while you browse FaceBook" approach of malware detection. 

[BetterBytes]

I'd like to see a progress bar when scanning so I know whether to wait and get back to work in a minute or two, or go have an early lunch.

 

After first installing MWB and the first scan is done and after each subsequent scan, what about using the total file count as a fair guide to the number of files to be scanned next time. Use that number as the "Max" for the progress bar. It may be off by a bit, but not by a lot and would give a pretty close idea of the time to wait for the scan to complete.

 

I just did a quick scan and it topped out at 37,700 items (programmer - lotsa code files) scanned. In a week's use of my PC, that number would not vary by more than about 200 files up or down. Even if it was a 1000 new and/or deleted files between scans, it is still only a tiny percentage error (2.4%)  for the end point of the progress bar.

 

Make a great product even better.

 

[BetterBytes]

It's been 10 months and this has yet to be denied or accepted. Please give this a second thought, as not all of your users prefer the "let us take care of it, while you browse FaceBook" approach of malware detection. 

 

The response given by Ron was pretty bogus.

 

As a programmer of some 35+ years, I can tell you it would not consume more than about one-10,000th of  second for each "hit" to update an integer value. The changing the display to Red+Bold would only have to be done the very first encounter of a hit for each scan and that too is a 10,000th of a second fetaure.

 

Given that the hits are likely to be VERY few, even those accumulated 10,000ths of a second are going to make no perceptable difference to the scan duration.

[daledoc1]

Hi, BetterBytes:

 

Thanks for your suggestion.

 

Such "progress bars" are often requested, even though -- no matter which program or scanner -- they are not particularly accurate.

 

I could be wrong -- and an MBAM staffer will correct me if I am -- but I think that the feature is on the list to be added to a future version, based on "popular demand".

I don't know when, though.

 

Cheers,

 

daledoc1

[AdvancedSetup]

Topics merged no need for a duplicate post on the same subject.

[Mohatu]

Why were these topics merged? A progress bar and an active list of detections have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[John L. Galt]

Possibly because both of these have been implemented in MBAM 2.0?

[AdvancedSetup]

All of this is very old information now so I'm going to close this topic now.

 

Thank you everyone