MBAM Staff - Are you listening at all?

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Aura said:

This would also imply that the resources Malwarebytes dedicate to Malwarebytes 3.0 will be cut in half, and therefore: slower updates, longer time for fixes to be implemented, more money to invest in a product that cannot keep up with the security in 2017, etc.

I contradict to that remark.

Anti-Malware 2 is an approved, well running program without issues and by that it needs only very few support by Malwarebytes.

Anti-Malware 2 needs only updates for the databases, nothing else. 

It needs in no sense the half of Malwarebytes' resources, I estimate at the very most 10%.

That should, no, that must be affordable beside the development of MB3.

Edited February 15, 2017 by GMork

[davei1]

I am incomplete agreement with...GMORK...

Keep MB2 alive with updates until MB3 problems can be worked out...MB3 is resource hungry and will not work well on systems that are lower end spec.

I restate my opinion that MB3 is simply an attempt to raise the profits of the product...They bundled the other two not so popular products and then

said "Oh you don't need any other protection now with MB3"...REALLY?? So you have a Firewall? You have Antivirus Protection? Or what they mean

is you now just use Windows Firewall and Windows Defender and we take care of the rest...Sorry I don't have that much confidence in the Microsoft stuff

so I am going to continue to use another security product in addition to Malwarebytes (In my case KIS)...One of Malwarebytes biggest advantages was

that it didn't take much in the way of resources and got along well with other Security software...NO...I'm not going to rely on Malwarebytes 3.0 only.

 

 

[Aura]

Quote

Anti-Malware 2 is an approved, well running program without issues and by that it needs only very few support by Malwarebytes.

Anti-Malware 2 needs only updates for the databases, nothing else. 

So basically, only support Malwarebytes Anti-Malware with definition updates, which have been proven to not be that effective against 0-day threats and leave the new technology development and integration to 3.0. In other words, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.x users will be less secure than those running Malwarebytes 3.0, but you still want Malwarebytes to "encourage" that in a way. That's how I see it.

[davei1]

4 hours ago, Aura said:

It doesn't matter what kind of new protections it offers if it fails to start properly or basically makes the system unusable.

================================================================================================

So basically, only support Malwarebytes Anti-Malware with definition updates, which have been proven to not be that effective against 0-day threats and leave the new technology development and integration to 3.0. In other words, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.x users will be less secure than those running Malwarebytes 3.0, but you still want Malwarebytes to "encourage" that in a way. That's how I see it.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by davei1

[Guest]

6 hours ago, davei1 said:

It doesn't matter what kind of new protections it offers if it fails to start properly or basically makes the system unusable.

You nailed it!

Just another comparison:

What does avail a car alarm, which doesn't work or which even makes your car undrivable? 

If you will get together with the car alarm a sticker for the windshield, which draws attention to the installed car alarm, you maybe will get a very small protection for your car. But would that be effective enough for you? I doubt...

It's the same with an only accidently starting real time protection of MB3.

And by the second above mentioned effect of the car alarm your car even can't be stolen at all and from that point of view the car alarm is effectiv.  

But I seriously doubt, if such kind of effectiviness is favored...

And of course it's the same with a PC made unusable by MB3.

 

Now I repeat once again without subtlness and irony:

At least at time it would be the best solution for Malwarebytes and especially for all customers to offer and support Anti-Malware 2 and MB3 parallel for a much longer time than June 2017.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by GMork

[ZVAXX]

Well, it is clear, that the new designation v.3 serves the identification for a up-to-date and future-proof product. On the other hand, there is, of course, nothing to be objected to, even if the effect - just the real-time protection  - to most users does not remain covertly resp. unambiguously can be proved (independent tests have to prove this, because confidence is good, control is indispensable). This modernisation is in order, as long as the product does not get worse, since a purchased program with lifetime support is the responsibility of the manufacturer to comply with the purchase agreement. Everything else would be legally problematic and not without consequences. So let us hope, that the transitional phase of all these efforts will pass as soon as possible, and that a quality is reached, for which MB is so far known.

---

Learning foreign languages in the classroom - such as English, French and Latin - were always a tiresome devotion to duty (if one can say this so). However, I will do my best!

[buckeyewalt]

I for one will NOT be going with  MB3 for the reasons I see here on this forum until things are worked out. I too am in favor of keeping support  AM2 until the staff feels confident that issues are solved. I did not subscribe to be a beta tester. I realize that there are issues from time to time, but offer support to your loyal base who choose not to install until problems are sorted out.

[Guest]

@Aura

Please, Aura, don't feel critizised or even atttacked in any way, maybe only a very little bit teased by my following words.

Some minutes ago you wrote in another reply.

Quote

I don't have Malwarebytes 3.0 at work, 

Seeimingly you have second thoughts about the current version of MB3 as well.  

[Aura]

Just now, GMork said:

Seeimingly you have second thoughts about the current version of MB3 as well.  

Or I am not allowed to install a version of Malwarebytes restricted for home usage in a work environment without the proper licence? Ever thought of that?

[Guest]

No offense - None taken, that's a plausible clarification for your current situation.

And what's the matter on your home PC?

[Aura]

There's no matter on my home computer with Malwarebytes 3.0.

[bdubrow]

We've got a new beta for your to test out that includes numerous fixes.

We'd appreciate your feedback!

[cchilderhose]

Getting Qt5Core.dll issue with Access Denied when installing latest beta.  Guess it is uninstall and reinstall time.

[bdubrow]

Yes, if you experience any issues installing the latest preview, please first uninstall your current version and then install the new one.

 

[Kurttb1]

On two computers I updated the MB3.0.6.1469 to the new beta? 1.0.69 from the  1.0.50 and things are operating smoothly on my i5 and i7 computers as stated I'm back to MB2 on the old quad core 1.65MHz, I'll check it out later and see if it's ok....I'm phasing it out  -way too slow on scanning and back-ups.  Some of the above issues sound more like conflicting programs which are slowing things down to a crawl on scanning and operations, just a thought.  As I had mentioned I have ran MB2 and Norton side by side for years and the past year I have ran MB-anti-exploit premium and MB- Anti-ransomware beta too boot.. that is running all 4 programs together without any operational issues.  Before installing the anti-exploit and Anti-Ransomware I was constantly going back to restore points to get rid of some issue sneaking in causing havoc.  I was truly amazed at how great all these programs worked to keep me safe, I was getting bored not having to fight with my curser moving without my permission or listening to that awful dum-dum upon start-up, which seemed to be a haunting taunting tune to let me know I was being invaded.   Well, enough... I'm boring you..    MB3 working good on 2 computers so far.