MikeW Posted January 25, 2017 ID:1095890 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Installed over 3.06 preview without problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadinolf Posted January 25, 2017 ID:1095913 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Seems fine here also...BUT I am still afraid to install it on my computers on which any attempts to install V3.0 have failed. I will wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095925 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 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 January 26, 2017 by ZVAXX Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prombamuser Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095946 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I downloaded 3.0.6.1469 and installed over the top of 3.0.6.1458. Everything seems fine. I was wondering if i had waited long enough, would I have gotten a notification about the new version and been able to update through the program? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095947 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) - 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 January 26, 2017 by ZVAXX Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095948 Share Posted January 26, 2017 31 minutes ago, ZVAXX said: The high CPU load during scanning (on a fast SSD system partition) can not be acceptable, The program is designed to use full CPU when manually scanning. The background scans run at less CPU. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095950 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Yes I mean manually scanning of partitions in the background while i working. A 100% CPU utilization I find problematic, as well as the sole concentration on a longer scan of a (larger) partition. This was no problem in the 2.2.1.1043 version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095951 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095952 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Porthos Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095955 Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, ZVAXX said: version 2 was the more reasonable (although the requirements at Version 2 were less high). You are welcome to use version 2 till support ends. 6/8/17 https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/lifecycle/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wboswell Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095961 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
wallofasgard Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095964 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Too bad, task bar icon is still not password protected like v2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1095966 Share Posted January 26, 2017 44 minutes ago, Porthos said: You are welcome to use version 2 till support ends. 6/8/17 https://www.malwarebytes.com/support/lifecycle/ Well, we'll see (I hope this has not been the end of all sly ideas) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin AdvancedSetup Posted January 26, 2017 Root Admin ID:1096007 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempLost Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096044 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I uninstalled the preview version of 3.0.6 Premium and installed the new version. Everything runs as expected. Well done, Malwarebytes........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capair45 Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096050 Share Posted January 26, 2017 3.0.6.1458 worked for 3-4 days but the Protection Layer Starting issue has returned. Scanning issues, for me, are back to normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096063 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
Aura Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096067 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
arleetel Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096073 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
tonguetwister Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096085 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
SCR4514 Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096086 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
pfeerick Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096092 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
throkr Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096099 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Installed over 1458 preview without problem; after installation, automatically opens main UI asking for updates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCR4514 Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096101 Share Posted January 26, 2017 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 More sharing options...
ZVAXX Posted January 26, 2017 ID:1096113 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 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 January 26, 2017 by ZVAXX Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now