Reset Detections

[Robertiy]

Was told that it should be easy to reset the counters back to 0.  You eliminated the scanned items on the Dashboard.  Fine.  When are you going to allow the users to reset ALL counters back to ZERO (0)?

Give your users the CHOICE!  User does not want to, fine.  I do.  I like a clean/pristine detection's; which is zero.

How many version updates does it take?????

Everything works already...at least for me.  Long time now!

Robert

[Robertiy]

...or just get rid of the Real-Time Protection detections if you cannot do it!   Just put an icon next to each Detections to "Clear or Reset counter to Zero".  However you want to explain what it does.

Robert

[Robertiy]

What? Admin's or xxxx.  Just say we cannot do what you ask. No promise, just the TRUTH!

Robert

[exile360]

Greetings,

I suspect the reason they haven't provided this capability is because it wouldn't be accurate.  That said, if you're really determined to reset it to 0 then you should be able to do so by performing a clean install (I'm not sure where the number/data is stored for the Dashboard unfortunately so I don't know exactly what it is that must be deleted to clear it).  You can use the Malwarebytes Support Tool to perform a clean install:

1. Download and run the Malwarebytes Support Tool
2. Accept the EULA and click Advanced tab on the left (not Start Repair)
3. Click the Clean button, and allow it to restart your system and then reinstall Malwarebytes, either by allowing the tool to do so when it offers to on restart, or by downloading and installing the latest version from here
   

[Robertiy]

I already know what you are saying!  Why do I need to reinstall?  Where in the Registry, ProgramData or Program Files (X64) can I reset?

Win 10 x64 v1809

Robert

 

 

[Robertiy]

Define accutate????? I already know what's going on, in regauards to the Dashboard. What??  You thing all your users are stupid?  I know already!  PERIOD!  I want a choice to reset to 000000000.

 Both!

[Robertiy]

Now you going to to incorporate WFC into what you cannnot or do not know.  We know what you are trying!  Good for alexandrud...he desires it!

[exile360]

Someone from the Malwarebytes staff might know exactly where this data is stored, but no, I personally do not (I'm just a user, like you, though I used to work for Malwarebytes in the past).

This functionality has been requested in the past but I don't know whether or not they actually plan to implement it.  As for things you already know, I just didn't want to make any assumptions so I explained my reasoning as it was relevant to this request.

[Robertiy]

23 hours ago, exile360 said:

Someone from the Malwarebytes staff might know exactly where this data is stored, but no, I personally do not (I'm just a user, like you, though I used to work for Malwarebytes in the past).

This functionality has been requested in the past but I don't know whether or not they actually plan to implement it.  As for things you already know, I just didn't want to make any assumptions so I explained my reasoning as it was relevant to this request.

Thanks, exile360.  I understand.  Why did MB's eliminated 'Files Scanned' on the Dashboard?  Because, know one want's to see 5,000,000 +!

That's why everybody is saying get rid of MB.  How much Memory does it use...160MB?  Not efficient nor effective!

Robert

[exile360]

The number of items scanned was removed because it is of little or no real value.  The number of detections on the other hand does have actual value since it reflects what the product has protected your system against up to this points, so it provides a statistical reference to reflect how Malwarebytes has performed during the time that you've had it on your system.  It's a common thing for security apps to show and I know of none that provide the functionality to wipe it out/reset it to 0 without necessitating a full/clean uninstall/reinstall (and I've used many as I used to be a member of the Malwarebytes QA team and was tasked with testing with tons of AVs on multiple operating systems to test for compatibility).

As for resource usage, displaying the number of past detections has no impact on the amount of RAM used while Malwarebytes is running as that number is just a few bytes in some configuration file somewhere, and while the amount of RAM used by Malwarebytes varies (based on the threat signatures loaded and the tasks it is performing/things it is monitoring which all depend on what processes are running at the time etc.), 160MB isn't very much on any modern systems these days and I'd argue that anyone still clinging to the fallacy that free RAM=a faster system should check their facts (that is not to say that you believe this; I have no idea, only that I know that many have perpetuated this myth historically and this is a common reason for users to complain about the RAM usage of applications running in the background when in fact CPU usage is far more relevant to the impact on system performance than the amount of RAM/memory being used):

https://computer.howstuffworks.com/question1751.htm
https://lifehacker.com/5415355/do-you-really-need-more-than-4gb-of-ram
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-module-upgrade,2264.html
https://www.howtogeek.com/128130/htg-explains-why-its-good-that-your-computers-ram-is-full/
https://techlogon.com/2011/03/28/will-more-ram-memory-make-my-computer-faster/

Basically, as long as you have a sufficient amount of RAM that you don't run out and start having the system use the swap/paging file on disk, then the amount of RAM used by the processes running on your system will have no impact on your system's performance, even when running resource intensive applications like video games and video and photo editing applications and rendering applications and the like.  Also, while I don't know how it is for you, on my own system (7 x64, fully patched), Malwarebytes is not the top process with regards to memory usage, it is by far outpaced by my browsers (SRWare Iron, which is based on the same Chromium source code as Google Chrome so its RAM usage is pretty much identical to Chrome, and Internet Explorer 11, the latest version available for Windows 7) and my email client (Mozilla Thunderbird).  Microsoft Security Essentials, which I also have running on my system at the moment, uses around the same amount of RAM as Malwarebytes, yet Malwarebytes by far has less impact on my system's overall performance (I've tested by turning off MSE and instantly see a difference in how fast applications launch and have done the same test by disabling Malwarebytes and see little or no difference after doing so).  Not all systems are the same of course, so your results may be different from mine as I'm sure we're using different hardware, but just based on my own experience and knowledge Malwarebytes doesn't seem to consume an inordinate amount of system resources.  Scanning is a different matter, and it will use pretty much as many cores/threads/CPU cycles as you can throw at it by default, however this can be tuned using an option in Malwarebytes to have it run scans with lower priority to improve multi-tasking which drastically reduces how much CPU it consumes when performing a manual scan (all scheduled scans by default automatically run as low priority processes to reduce the load on the system and reduce the impact on overall system performance while those scans are running).