Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You do not have to be afraid or wait - install the new version and report, that would help others.
Against the fear you make an image of drive C before, if there should be problems again, Windows is restored in 5 minutes.

(When I'm at home, I do that too)

Edited by ZVAXX
Link to post
Share on other sites

- Version 2.2.1.1043 deinstalled with mbam-clean-2.3.0.1001.exe -> OK
- mb3-setup-consumer-3.0.6.1469.exe installed on W7/x64 -> OK (no problems)
- safe mode: stop MBAMService.exe, copy the C:\ProgramData\Malwarebytes\MBAMService folder to restore all settings and exclusions from the backup of the 3.0.6.1458 version and for a clean work of the icon in the quick start bar -> reboot -> OK, entering the key -> OK (no problems)
- scan drive C: (notebook, core i5, Samsung-SSD) -> CPU usage 100% (92% MBAMService.exe) from the point scan file system for the next 20 minutes - during this time the CPU temperature rises to 82 degrees (normally 55 degrees), the system is formally paralyzed, other programs can not be used practically, a normal background scan is thus impossible...
- shutdown: about 20 seconds (with 2.2.1.1043: 8 seconds) - acceptable, but not really inspiring

Preliminary Conclusion: The high CPU load during scanning (on a fast SSD system partition) can not be acceptable, for the moment I will again downgrade to 2.2.1.1043 and wait again ...

Edited by ZVAXX
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ZVAXX said:

Yes I mean manually scanning of partitions in the background while i working.

Only the auto scheduled scans work at a lower CPU use. Any MANUALLY initiated scan will use all available CPU power to complete the scan faster. This new in 3.0 to achieve faster scanning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already understood this. But an imminent overheating of the CPU with an exclusive concentration on the scanning process can not be the goal in my opinion. As I said, the version 2 was the more reasonable (although the requirements at Version 2 were less high).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed Version 3.0.6.1469 over 3.0.5.??? (latest of that version) and it failed on two computers who were running the same version.  I had to uninstall 3.0.5 first then install 3.0.6.1469 for it to be successful.

When a new version comes out, why doesn't the program update to that new version?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AdvancedSetup said:

It does consume a very high 93+ % of the CPU during a manual scan. It does fluctuate though and does not stay at 100% and though slow I find the system is still usable.

 

The system? What is "the" system? Your system? Incredible 92% CPU usage = 100% total overload 20 minutes at CPU temperatures above 80 degrees on "my" system with core i5 without a chance to work properly. That's fakt. Do you want to ruin the people's notebooks? Is this so hard to understand that this has nothing to do with performance, but is simply nonsensical?
Okay, I'm assuming you'll be forced to think about it again. At the moment, the disputed problem can not be answered with arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MikeW said:

Installed over 3.06 preview without problem.

+1 :)

It was the first time I did an install over an existing install, and I didn't encounter any single error messages. All the protection modules started within a few seconds after too. Good install.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it to work on 4 computers, but starting mbam on the windows 7 computer took a long time, endless spinning circle .... had to restart the computer. I start malwarebytes manually, starting with windows uses too much resources (SSD).I did that will all previous versions as well for the same reason.

And yes, the CPU usage is very high, the good thing is : scanning is fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had less-than-satisfying experiences with the initial two versions of Mbam 3, but being a believer in its' value I currently have and am pleased with 2.2.1.1043 installed. Following the news here I downloaded but had not installed v3.0.6.1458. Now that 3.0.6.1469 is out I'm tempted to try once again.

I would like to proceed with a more current install but am now second-guessing the removal process which should be taken, which is why I'm now asking for recommendations: prior to pulling the trigger on 1469, should I use Malwarebytes' unins000.exe or mbam-clean to cleanse v2.2.1, or attempt to install 1469 over v2.2.1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of running any one specific program that will utilize so much of my system resources at the expense of all others. The minimal time saving of the scan is not relevant in my opinion. I have a proven full protection suite installed that uses just a fraction of resources that Malwarebytes gobbles up.

If Malwarebytes is in fact protecting my system as claimed why are subsequent scans even necessary after the first scan? I mean if anything gets past Malwarebytes while it is protecting my system then it is in fact a failure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because as new malware exploits are found it wants to check if anything was missed by files the real-time scanner cleared with the old definitions? The full scan is also much more through than the real-time scan, hence why it is more resource intensive. However, I don't feel daily scans are needed... weekly or even bi-weekly/monthly scans should be fine depending on the usage of your machine. However, that is just a personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, pfeerick said:

Because as new malware exploits are found it wants to check if anything was missed by files the real-time scanner cleared with the old definitions? The full scan is also much more through than the real-time scan, hence why it is more resource intensive. However, I don't feel daily scans are needed... weekly or even bi-weekly/monthly scans should be fine depending on the usage of your machine. However, that is just a personal opinion.

In other words it failed to detect the infection and now will only be resolved with a scan? Maybe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, pfeerick said:

... scans should be fine depending on the usage of your machine.

This means the "user-defined scan": Completion of the setting possibilities by the point "resource utilization" (or resource distribution).

Edited by ZVAXX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.