Could you please add a progress bar?

[Jim G]

I think many user wants to see this feature, please try to add a progress bar in future version, thanks.

[noknojon]

@ Jim G -

This has been put up in the "Comments and Suggestions" area several times in several ways -

I asume you mean like the bottom bar in Spybot -

Also -This is Not a Malware issue related to this section -

[GT500]

Moving topic...

[TeMerc]

Discussed ad nauseum...........not gonna happen.

[mountaintree16]

Well, what you can do is, run a quick scan a few times (and a full scan if you like too), take note of how long it takes, and then you can use that to gauge approximately how long your scan is going to take for each scan type

[swagger]

I guess some reasoning would be just if you haven't seen the thread... Basically this has been discussed several times as mentioned in previous posts above but I believe the reason behind not implementing the progress bar is because there would be no way to accurately measure the progress.

[mountaintree16]

I think that you are right on, swagger.

[RubbeR DuckY]

We can add progress for only certain portions of the scan. Gauging the rest of the scan would require heavy approximations and we are just not ready to focus on that. Instead, we are going to focus on how to better detect malicious software .

[swagger]

Thanks for chiming in Marcin, sounds better coming from someone officially involved who knows more about it

[mountaintree16]

RubberR DuckY,

That's what I thought, and I agree, much much more important to concentrate on detecting and removing malware

[Jim G]

Well, I know that the program cannot detect how many files and folders there are, so it's hard to make the progress bar. But how about calculate the total files first?

What I mean is not the quick scan, it is so quick that user doesn't need a progress bar, but the full scan took quite a long time. I found that when I check the property of drive C: in "My Computer", Windows can calculate the total size of drive C very fast. So if MBAM does this first, the program can know the total size to scan, then the program can calculate the progress.

[catscomputer]

Instead, we are going to focus on how to better detect malicious software .

As a user, this matters a lot more to me than bells and whistles. Thank-you.

[Firefox]

I am with RubberDucky and catscomputer on this one .....

[yardbird]

We talked about this months ago. its rare that any software company bar is accurate! see post # 4 above...

EDIT: Here's the old thread from June 1st. 09.... http://www.malwarebytes.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16617

[noknojon]

Well , we all know a quick scan (the usual type) takes 5-7 mins - End of scan - What more can you want ??

Even the Spybot bar hesitates and hangs at times - It is not a timer - I know of NO accurate scan time bar - Even my Avira bar gets to 99.8% and then hangs for the next few mins -

As said by TeMerc !!!!! - Never - And by me why ???

[RubbeR DuckY]

Jim, it is a feasible idea and definitely not impossible. We will look into making it a reality, especially when we have a bigger release.

[firzen771]

Jim, it is a feasible idea and definitely not impossible. We will look into making it a reality, especially when we have a bigger release.

sounds good, i know its not of the most importance but its a nice little graphical thing to have.

[Beenthere]

The only progress bar I would support would be one based on estimating time remaining based on previous scan times but even this would not be accurate the majority of the time as system contents and system load are not static .

They also don't change drastically.

[exile360]

They do if you surf the net for 5 minutes and don't use a temp file cleaner (which many users don't).

[mbyuser]

i dont see the point.i know how long it should take quick or full scan.

i really hope this isnt thrown in,the program would use resources (even if only slightly) and myself i feel it would be a step in the wrong direction.thats how some others ended up being tossed in the waste basket;at first great dection rates then frills,then a crap bloated program.

frills dont intrest me at all,dection rates do.

[exile360]

I agree with you, but the users have spoken (enough to persuade the developers), so that's what matters here. Malwarebytes' is the type of company (at least in my experience) that listens to its users regardless of how against implementing a change the developers may be, the upcoming exclusion feature for the IP Protection module is a prime example, as is this. I don't think they'll ever stop their work to keep up with the latest threats though, that's always been their primary focus, and based on the individuals who handle the defs and the program, I don't see that changing no matter what other features get added to the program .

[Marcus]

Could I add a view here; I agree with mbyuser and would add that to me it would be an essentially non-functional addition. If the developers go down this route could they at least incorporate a button to hide it if it's feasible?