Jump to content

Regarding MBAM Beta 4.0


Recommended Posts

Decided to try this out. Installed fine (overlay, not clean). As noted, it's a different UI, takes a little while to figure out what's where, and why! 001.png

Don't care for the micro-font, old eyes have trouble reading small characters like that. Maybe that's change.

Don't care for the animations, toy-like to me. Just IMO.

Takes a bit longer to do the same manual scan. All machines will be different, but 3.8.3 normal scan time here was 50-55 seconds. Now 1:10+.

Now, the one discovery I made after peeling back every option and it's details. If you have any Exclusions set up in 3.8.3, don't expect to find them in b4.0 where you would normally look. Because that option is not there anymore, not there labeled as "Exclusions" like before. You need to go into Detection History, where all the Quarantined items will be, if any. Your exclusions, the ones you manually made, will be under Allowed List. I guess the assumption at MBAM is exclusions are only after they have been detected, and you choose to allow them anyway.

This is not always the case. MBAM themselves recommends in their forum to add Exclusions for Defender, and supplies a complete list. How accurate all that is for this Beta, I do not know. They were retained when I installed b4.0.

MBAM link for recommended exclusions: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/200162-exclusions-for-windows-defender-users/

In any case, until and if this is changed, here is where to look. You can still add/remove Exclusions.

 

 

image.png.c2ea8f9d818aed72545f416c860e6084.png

image.png.d8b62e2e976b171f17a203e2ab866cd7.png

 

This is a link to a post I made on Tenforums.com with this same info.  A fellow member there suggested I post here,  also.

https://www.tenforums.com/antivirus-firewalls-system-security/4469-latest-version-malwarebytes-post1708472.html#post1708472

Hope this helps.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, @f14tomcat.

re: fonts - that is something the devs really *do* need to take a look at.  And as for the cartoon thing - some like it, some don't and I'm personally indifferent about it. 

As for the scan times - verify that you are getting faster scan times after the initial scan, it's supposed to be a bit better.  I didn't actually keep any of the data I had from previous 3.x builds on any machine, as I ended up clean installing on all machines, particularly since I started with the closed ßeta.  And some of the advice being given in these forums, particularly if you're experiencing issues, is to clean install 4 (which will lost all those exceptions items in the Allowed list, so that is something to consider.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, John L. Galt said:

Thank you, @f14tomcat.

re: fonts - that is something the devs really *do* need to take a look at.  And as for the cartoon thing - some like it, some don't and I'm personally indifferent about it. 

As for the scan times - verify that you are getting faster scan times after the initial scan, it's supposed to be a bit better.  I didn't actually keep any of the data I had from previous 3.x builds on any machine, as I ended up clean installing on all machines, particularly since I started with the closed ßeta.  And some of the advice being given in these forums, particularly if you're experiencing issues, is to clean install 4 (which will lost all those exceptions items in the Allowed list, so that is something to consider.

 

Actually, John, it bumped up a few seconds.  I turned off heuristics (called AI now) to test, and time fell back close 3.8.3.  Re-enabled and went back up to 1:15+ vs 50-55 seconds.  Not a huge difference in the scope of things. Maybe it just takes time to "learn". 

May have to clean install, to rule all that out,  AFTER deactivating license since I understand the Support Tool (formerly MBAM Clean) doesn't work with the beta.    Adding the exceptions back is not an issue, a minute or two to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the fonts but the cartoon graphics makes it look like it was designed to attract young children, not adults. Sort of a Captain America meets Iron Man.

Not a fan of the big box with the line sweeping back and forth either, just annoying.

Scan time of 1 min 5 sec was okay.

MBAM4.jpg.58716099223c2bf59a4914399abb5525.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f14tomcat said:

Actually, John, it bumped up a few seconds.  I turned off heuristics (called AI now) to test, and time fell back close 3.8.3.  Re-enabled and went back up to 1:15+ vs 50-55 seconds.  Not a huge difference in the scope of things. Maybe it just takes time to "learn". 

May have to clean install, to rule all that out,  AFTER deactivating license since I understand the Support Tool (formerly MBAM Clean) doesn't work with the beta.    Adding the exceptions back is not an issue, a minute or two to do.

If you have your license info, you should be fine - the clean tool works on 3.x but I was told (before) not to attempt to use it on 4.x - I don't know if that has changed, so you're better off not using it if that is the latest that you've read.

However, if you really want to see if it makes a difference, you might consider imaging your computer and then testing - if it doesn't restore the image and you won't have to worry about all the little tiny things (and will still have access to your 3.x data as well).

When I joined the ßeta test, it was from a clean install of Windows, so I didn't have a lot of idiosyncrasies because it was a purely clean install.  But, at the same time, I also had no idea what the time differences were because my machines are set to scan overnight when I'm asleep - and I never bothered to look at anything unless something was found when I had 3.x running.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @f14tomcat and everyone else for the feedback!

Regarding the feedback on the font - we'll look further into this. Is the issue just with the size or the font type, colour, etc as well?
 

Quote

MBAM themselves recommends in their forum to add Exclusions for Defender, and supplies a complete list. How accurate all that is for this Beta, I do not know. They were retained when I installed b4.0.

This is not typically required. It certainly doesn't do any harm, but you shouldn't encounter any issues between Malwarebytes and Windows Defender without exclusions in place.

The file paths listed in the topic linked are accurate for Malwarebytes version 4.

Edited by LiquidTension
Link to post
Share on other sites

@LiquidTension....

 

Re fonts.

It's the size, but it's also, importantly, the font type.  The combination of small and low contrast makes it rough to see.  Old eyes here, so strain is a factor.   Pipe dream hope:  Dark theme?  😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, f14tomcat said:

Re fonts.

It's the size, but it's also, importantly, the font type.  The combination of small and low contrast makes it rough to see. 

+1 f14tomcat. Excellent point.

Specifically, it's the "weight" = The relative darkness of the characters in the various typefaces within a type family. Weight is indicated by relative terms such as thin, light, bold, extra-bold, and black.[from Adobe Type glossary]

And also a typeface optimized for UI. See for example:

Segoe UI is a member of the Segoe family used in Microsoft products for user interface text, as well as for some online user assistance material, intended to improve the consistency in how users see all text across all languages. It is distinguishable from its predecessor Tahoma and the OS X user interface font Lucida Grande by its rounder letters. Segoe UI was produced by Monotype Imaging.

Segoe UI is optimized for Vista's default ClearType rendering environment, and it is significantly less legible when ClearType is disabled, except at key user interface sizes (8, 9 and 10 point) where Segoe UI has been hinted for bi-level rendering. The standard font size increased to 9 point in Windows Vista to accommodate for better layout and readability for all languages.

From Wikipedia, emphasis added.

I'm not suggesting using Segoe UI specifically, only as an example of a typeface optimized for UI.

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.