Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: petek471 on August 08, 2008, 09:41:48 PM
-
I updated to 080807 and now a standard scan of my 40GB HDD takes over 2 hours. I'm using the home free version. My PC is a Dell laptop Inspiron 5100, a few years old, but I noticed lately it takes longer and longer to do a scan. What can I do to speed things up?
-
There shouldn't be any essential difference as it is only a virus signature update so the scan functionality shouldn't be any different.
You don't mention anything about your system spec, OS, CPU, RAM, etc. ?
Nor do you give any info about the type of scan you are doing, Local Disks, Quick/Standard/Thorough with or without Archives ?
I don't know if you have don a defrag of your HDD recently but if your HDD is highly fragmented then it could well add to your scan duration ?
You don't mention what other security applications you have ?
All of the above could contribute to the issue, so we need more information or we are just guessing.
-
Win XP O/S, Pentium 4-2.8GHz CPU/82845G Chipset, 512MB RAM, Radeon 7500GPU, Running Avast w/o archives, standard scan. HDD as defragged recently, Spybot is the only other security app besides Windows firewall.
Is this enough?
I have been noticing it takes longer and longer to scan. Exacerbated by fact that I bought my wife a new Core 2 Duo CPU notebook that checks many more files in a fraction of the time using Avast.
Thanks in advance for any ideas (other than using this older notebook as a frisbee).
-
Your system certainly seems well up to the task, I have only recently upgraded my system which also has a core2duo and it really flies on scans as apart from it being more powerful than your system, avast has been optimised for the core2duo multi core so that would also help. Whilst I have nothing much on my HDD 5GB of data scanned takes 3.5 minutes (on my old system 8GB took a little over 13 minutes, less powerful than your system).
The fact that scans are taking longer and longer (if the data scanned wasn't increasing proportionally) would tend indicate another factor, what is the question. Spybot shouldn't be an issue, but you could disable the resident element (tea-timer, if you use it) and see if that makes any difference.
It would also be worth doing another defrag as we would know that isn't a factor.
Whilst you are not what you could call low on RAM I found when I upgraded to 1GB from 512MB on my old system (not as cheap on a laptop as a desktop), it was more responsive. The on-demand scan is pretty CPU and RAM intensive (your CPU is up to the task) but you may find that with 512MB much of that would be used up and there might be lots of swapping out to the pagefile.sys. This could mean lots of thrashing around on your HDD, which could become a bottleneck in the scan progress.
You could monitor the scan for a while and see if there are any areas that seem to hang for a time.
What version of avast do you have, 4.8.1229 is the latest version ?
What is the rough breakdown of the data being scanned, total size, etc. media files (types), images files (types) as there may be areas that you could consider excluding.
-
good points davidR
my question
did your wife's new computer come with a suite or AV preinstalled
if so we need to chat
hard drive could be quicker on new computer
you might run CCleaner on your older computer and then defrag
as a double check try a scan in safe mode and let's see if some other program is interfering
Ps with avast having both web scanning and on access scanning really frequent system scans should not really be necessary after initial scan
any anti spyware?
-
Thanks for the responses...I have 4.8.1229. I am using about 12 of 29GB on my HDD. I was not aware I could limit the scan to certain file type. So my guess is I'm scanning the entire drive every time I update versions of Avast. The only data change I have is that recently my wife started using my computer to load music files for her ipod. They are all stored on the Apple iTumes app. Could they be slowing Avast down?
I will do another defrag (although the defrag analyzer said I do not need to defrag this volume. And I will tru to fing some more DRAM for this notebook (although with its age, it may prove to be easier said than done!)
Thanks again for your response Davidr
Now Wyrmrider...My wife's computer came preloaded with Norton AV, and the forst thing I did when I booted it up was to uninstall Norton. The I installed Avast and Spybot. I have no doubt my wife's HDD is faster, likely a 5400rpm (I don't know what mine is but maybe 4200 by virtue of its age.
I have been running full system scans whenever I am notified the code changed. So maybe I am overscanning, since I do have resident/on-access scanning active at all times. My spyware is Spybot.
By the way, if you guys are Awill employees, let me tip my hat to you. I originally heard about Awill form Consumer Reports in the US and have been using it for about 2 years.
-
Your system certainly...Whilst I have nothing much on my HDD 5GB of data scanned takes 3.5 minutes (on my old system 8GB took a little over 13 minutes, less powerful than your system).
Another question...From your note can I infer that one can limit scanning to only data files? Also Is there a way to have Avast scan only what changed since the last scan and not data & programs that were unchanged?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but two hours for a full scan is too long.
-
I tunes ??? someone
new files-- good question
spybot would not be a problem unless you have t-timer on and it's finding something- it should pop up
are you running spybot 1.6? BTW
now norton
did you use the norton uninstall tool?
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallnorton.shtml
if anything starts acting funny on wifes computer run the tool
norton unless it is completely un-installed is the source of many hard to identify problems
also this tool even if never used Antivir-- click on Antivir at bottom of PCHell norton page
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallantivir.shtml
Using the AntiVir Registry Cleaner
If for some reason the normal uninstall does not work, you may have to download AntiVir's registry cleaner utility to remove all traces of it from the registry and allow you to reinstall it.
1) Click on the following link and download the AntiVir Registry Cleaner to your desktop
http://dl.antivir.de/down/windows/registrycleaner.zip
2) Create a folder on your desktop called Antivir and Unzip the file to your desktop
3) Double-click on the file called RegCleaner.exe to run it
4) Since the program is German, you'll have to click on the button called "keys asulesen" to search the registry for any issues. Then place checkmarks next to the registry entries you wish to delete.
5) Finally, click on the button called "loschen" to delete the keys
6) Restart your computer and try to reinstall your antivirus
-
wyrm, I'm running Spybot 1.6.1.22 (very new).
When I uninstalled Norton from my wife's computer, I used the Windows Vista software/program uninstaller. Seems to have been no problems so far and the uninstall completed with no apparent problems. It was a trial version of Norton. I hate imposing annoying programs like Norton and I hate trial subscriptions anyway, and this HP laptop came with plenty of "free" trial programs.
Anyway, if things start to look funny, I will use PCHell. But the moment I saw the trial version of Norton I uninstalled it and replaced it with avast.
Thank you for the advice.
Pete
-
Thanks for the responses...I have 4.8.1229. I am using about 12 of 29GB on my HDD. I was not aware I could limit the scan to certain file type. So my guess is I'm scanning the entire drive every time I update versions of Avast. The only data change I have is that recently my wife started using my computer to load music files for her ipod. They are all stored on the Apple iTumes app. Could they be slowing Avast down?
I will do another defrag (although the defrag analyzer said I do not need to defrag this volume. And I will tru to fing some more DRAM for this notebook (although with its age, it may prove to be easier said than done!)
Thanks again for your response Davidr
<snip>
By the way, if you guys are Awill employees, let me tip my hat to you. I originally heard about Awill form Consumer Reports in the US and have been using it for about 2 years.
I would have though that on your system 12GB would take about 20 minutes tops, with my old system athlon XP-M OCed to 1.8 Ghz and 1GB RAM did 8GB of data in a little over 13 minutes.
So the only thing I can think of would be RAM (both slower speed and only 512MB) and HDD speed, do you notice that the drive light is working overtime ?
Check and see what else is running in the background before starting your scans, you would be surprised what non-essential junk might be running, this would be robbing essential RAM.
Have your scans over the two years been as lengthy, e.g. over an hour and getting longer ?
You can't limit it to data files only (in fact that would make the scan pointless), what you try to do is exclude file types that are a low risk of infection, like some medial files image files .gif etc. Sorry I know all about itunes (read sod all) so I have no idea about the security or exploit potential about their file types. You could elect to keep them all in the same folder and exclude the itunes file types if there is no or a limited risk (e.g. *.itunes file type the * is a wildcard for any number of characters so care has to be exercised.)
You can elect to do a Quick scan as that only looks for the possibly dangerous files. This should limit the data scanned and reduce the scan duration without compromising security. Remember the resident scanners will intercept any executable and scan it before it is allowed to run,
Neither of us work for Alwil, we are avast user like yourself ;D
-
It was the "evangelist" titles that mad me think you might be Alwil employees. Nonetheless, thanks for the help. I am running a thorough scan now after defragging the HDD.
What I am noticing is that 22K files were scanned within a few minutes, but at this moment, the scan is pretty much stopped on the iTunes files. What do you think? Could the iTunes files be the culprit?
-
I think culprit might be the wrong word (you didn't mention what the file type is for the itunes files) but I doubt you are the only one with itunes content on your HDD so I would have expected to have seen reports in the forums if this were the case.
You could do test and ad the itunes folder to the Program Settings, Exclusions, e.g. c:\<itunes>\* where <itunes> is the full path to the folder. I don't know if being itunes there isn't some possible protection on the files that could make the scan slow, but as I said I know * all about itunes.
You say you did a thorough scan, if you mean that literally and not a standard scan without archives then I feel that could be a wasted test as it would not be comparable to the previous scan durations you experienced as it is like comparing apples (pun intended) and oranges. So you would need to run the all drives, standard without archives scan again and compare.
-
Last night I ran a "Thorough scan" as defined by avast. Typically I do a standard scan, and that is the type of scan I would run as a benchmark to measure how long it takes avast to run. And I will do this eventually...but for now, here is what happened:
I started the thorough scan at 9:47PM. By 9:53PM about 22K files were scanned. At this point (and coincidentally) the Apple iTunes folder was being scanned. The scanning slowed down to one file at a time. This continued for about a half hour. I stopped watching after about 45 minutes, but rechecked later, and by 10:53, about 34K files had been scanned. At this point, I pretty much fell asleep at the wheel and I cannot tell how long it took to complete the scan, but when I checked this morning, 26.3GB had completed scanning and the process was complete. In the past, I have noted roughly 130K files are scanned (but this is with the standard scan). While I was awake, I did monitor system performance, and my CPU was hitting 100% utilization frequently. About 66% of the RAM was in use, and "ashSimpl.exe" was the program driving the CPU usage from what I could tell (I assume that's Avast using ashSimpl?).
In summary, I concluded that my CPU is likely inadequate to handle the load demanded by Avast. If newer releases of Avast have been optimized to run a a dual thread CPU, by elderly Pentium 4 is slower and has much less L1/L2 cache so it is my number one suspect.
As far as RAM goes, 512MB is a respectable amount of RAM for this vintage notebook (I have a Compaq laptop, same age that has 256MB installed, and I have an IBM T-41 that has 768MB RAM installed, so the 512MB in this laptop seems in line).
In addition, the HDD led was pretty well lit up through the process. I had done a defrag right before scanning, and only about 40% of my HDD is used, still the HDD seemed to be laboring. Surely today's SATA HDDs are able to outperform my older PATA, maybe 4200rpm drive.
Maybe its just time to retire my older laptops. Now that I've been exposed to my wife's Core 2 duo, with 2GB RAM and a 5400rpm SATA drive, I will always feel hobbled with this present equipment.
I will rerun a standard scan now that I got some sleep, and report results on this thread.
-
The ashSimpl.exe is the simple user interface that is used for the on-demand scans.
The scanning is normally fast and CPU intensive as you have seen, but what isn't seen is any HDD bottleneck, though when the CPU % drops it is probably waiting for the HDD to give it more data.
Your right when you got your system 512MB seemed massive and expensive, but now you could buy an new laptop for what you would have paid for an extra 512MB of RAM ;D
I remember my first HDD was only 512MB and they said there was no way I would fill that, then it was using compression software because I had and then buying a 1GB HDD, very expensive. Now I have just ordered an 8GB usb pen drive for $3195 including shipping ;D
-
I just finished a scan. Standard scan, archive scan disabled. It took 1:51:23 to run. During the time Avast ran, CPU utilization was between 90 and 100%. RAM usage was about 60%, Spybot Teatimer used 2-3% in bursts.
Just as a sidebar, I pulled out an older Compaq notebook with the same CPU, 512MB, 40GB HDD and ran Avast. There is only 4.6GB of 30GB used, and it ran in about 18 minutes.
The laptop I have been using is a Dell, but is configured the same as the Compaq, except it has a lot more data on it (22.7 of 40GB)
Still, close to two hours is not a good thing. I guess I will have to be content with the resident scanner running on top of a good standard scan, and a thorough scan from last night.
Yes $/MB in HDDs has done an amazing drop. CPU's as well....Moore's Law and all that! In 1980 I worked as a circuit designer for a big OEM. Our chip project was a 1 million transistor design which was state of the art in that timeframe. But today we see quad core CPUs with almost 300 million transisitors on one chip, and the $/transistor cost is lower than ever.
-
Well 1hour 51minutes is still a huge time, but moving in the right direction down.
Your older compaq if you just did a down and dirty conversion and tripled the time it would be 54 minutes which would be nearer the mark. Presumably that system doesn't have any itunes media files on it.
Whilst S&D's tea-times is only using a limited amount of CPU it could still have a greater impact as it could effectively interrupt the avast scan, so personally I would disable it and test again, a pain I know but trying to pin something like this down isn't easy and you can't make multiple changes to your set-up or you won't know the true culprit.
Then it would be exclude the itunes folder's itunes file types, how big are these media files in total ?
I still don't know anything about itunes file types but my friend google might help.
Songs purchased through the iTunes Music Store are encoded as 128kbps AAC files. AAC files normally have a .m4a file extension (i.e. U2 - Vertigo.m4a). However because Apple uses DRM to "protect" the files (more on this below), iTunes purchased songs have a .m4p extension.
So perhaps this DRM is getting in the way ?
-
I was thinking the same as you on the Compaq scan time. I'm also not sure there is any special roadblock presented by the iTunes files, as the scan on some of the other apps were just as slow as the Apple scan.
But I will not do a full scan as often as I had been doing. I think with the resident Avast (and now Spybot) I should be virus and nuisance free. Do you think that's adequate? How often do you think a standard scan should be performed? ..same question for a Thorough scan.
-
Archive (zip, rar, etc.) files are by their nature are inert, you need to extract the files and then you have to run them to be a threat. Long before that happens avast's Standard Shield should have scanned them and before an executable is run that is scanned. Thorough is also by its design very thorough and perhaps a little overkill for routine use, were a Standard scan without archives should be adequate.
I have only ever done a Through Scan with Archives once shortly after installation just to ensure a clean start state, but with XP for example avast will do a boot-time scan after installation if you select it, this I believe will be quicker and reasonably effective. Like everything in life things are a compromise.
I generally weekly is fine or even monthly (though the longer it is left I would consider a deeper scan) but still without archives. Of course if you have excluded the itunes files then perhaps that duration won't be an issue.
-
Thanks DavidR, I think I have been overscanning by doing a standard scan every time Avast updates. But I'll just scan less frequently and start Avast before I go to sleep and forget about the long scan time.
When I installed Avast on my wife's PC (Vista/Core2 Duo) the program did a boot scan on installation. So I think we're adequately protected now.
About DRM affecting Apple's files...who knows what evil lurks in DRM. I don't like intrusive programs, copy protects, etc. anyway. I'm thinking of deleting all iTunes files from my PC after we get them copied onto her PC (if drm will allow us to do it).
-
I'm not a fan of DRM either even though I'm no music fan, I believe if you buy it you should be able to move it wherever you like and play it on whatever media player you link. Unfortunately the RIAA and other organisations like these leaches don't agree with my view ;D
-
Agreed!
-
One thing that puzzles me is why all this started only after the latest update (as the thread title says). Surely all the depth testing and investigation suggested above would have been necessary before the prog update. It looks like the slow scanning was a direct result of the latest update???
-
My weekly scan time is one of the first things I check in every avast beta program.
With the most recent avast beta and final release there was no change in the weekly thorough (with archives) scan time of the 5 drives on my Win XP SP3 system. However I am not an Apple customer - for any of their offerings.
-
Before a program update there is usually a beta release announced on the forums and if anything like this is experienced it is ironed out before the regular program release.
However, it is almost impossible to check against all the system permutations out there against those involved in the beta testing. If this were happening on 'all' systems after an update the forums would be swamped by topics relating to it and that clearly isn't the case, that doesn't make it any less a pain in the rear for those experiencing a problem.
You should also note that scans have been getting progressively longer for Peter as it is probably cramped by system resources/components. Program updates alo include additional functionality like the anti-rootkit scan (though this shouldn't have a major impact), it may also include additional archive unpackers which would also have an impact if archives are selected (not in this instance). So the price you pay for additional protection is often an increase on scan duration. Fortunately in this example it isn't common.
-
As DavidR stated, my scans got progressively longer as more files were added to my PC. The subject line does suggest it happened in step function fashion with the latest Avast update, so my choice of words could have been better.
As of today, I have managed to get my standard scan down to 1 hour, 30 min, so that is a big improvement. This was a result of deleting a lot of files that were not used, cached, etc. I also did some other maintenence, and followed all by defragging.
So I apologize for the misstatement of my subject line, and I would like to thank DavidR for his kind support.
-
You're welcome and thanks for your feedback.
-
I just installed Avast and am running my first thorough scan on a dual core intel machine (HP dv9000 series laptop). It's been running for about 2 hours so far and says it's scanned 8% of the files. I'm also running it on an older machine that's so far scanned 3% of the files in about 3 hours.
-
It would be best to post this in your own topic so as not to confuse the other topics you have jumped into, thanks.
Go to this link, http://forum.avast.com/index.php (http://forum.avast.com/index.php), scroll down to the avast! 4 Home/Pro forum and click it, click the New Topic button at the top of the list and post their.
In that topic we will need some more information about both systems, CPU, RAM, HDD size and amount of data on it which will be scanned. More importantly the Type of scan you have selected, e.g. Local Disks, Thorough, with Archives, etc. Without this information we would be just guessing.
-
I just installed Avast and am running my first thorough scan on a dual core intel machine (HP dv9000 series laptop). It's been running for about 2 hours so far and says it's scanned 8% of the files. I'm also running it on an older machine that's so far scanned 3% of the files in about 3 hours.
I have a similar notebook (HP dv6000, dual core CPU) and I just ran a thorough scan on it and it took 1 hour, 30 min to complete. This is a pretty new notebook I got for my wife and its not yet loaded down with too much other than the original preloads (minus any Norton/Symantec programs which I have removed). Its a 1.83GHz dual core, 100GB HDD, 2GB RAM, running Win Vista.
On my older notebook I can get a standard scan to run in about 1:30, but to do so I had to do all the basic housekeeping I could think of. Good luck with yours.
-
petek
in addition to the add-remove programs uninstall did you run the norton uninstaller?
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallnorton.shtml
http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_can_i_fully_remove_norton_antivirus_from_my_system.html
Then try Using the AntiVir Registry Cleaner
If for some reason the normal uninstall does not work, you may have to download AntiVir's registry cleaner utility to remove all traces of it (NORTON) from the registry and allow you to reinstall Your AV.
1) Click on the following link and download the AntiVir Registry Cleaner to your desktop
http://dl.antivir.de/down/windows/registrycleaner.zip
2) Create a folder on your desktop called Antivir and Unzip the file to your desktop
3) Double-click on the file called RegCleaner.exe to run it
4) Since the program is German, you'll have to click on the button called "keys asulesen" to search the registry for any issues. Then place checkmarks next to the registry entries you wish to delete.
5) Finally, click on the button called "loschen" to delete the keys
6) Restart your computer and try to reinstall your antivirus
-
petek
in addition to the add-remove programs uninstall did you run the norton uninstaller?
Yes wyrm, I did a Windows uninstall. It seemed to work well, with no apparent need to use PCHell. DO you think its will become necessary? Do you believe Norton is not really uninstalled?
I do not know if this is relevant, but the Norton AV was an HP preloaded trial subscription.
-
Norton is notoriously hard to get rid of and although uninstalled there are frequently remnants left behind as many posts in this forum attest to.
It is certainly worth checking out the link and running/actioning any suggestions.
-
Yes, I could read the sense of urgency in wyrm's writing. I should mention that last night my wife restarted her computer and in the HP/Vista intro screens, a Norton Internet progam popped up asking for attention. So I removed that Norton code using Windows add/remove function. I think I'm rid of the Norton "Spyware" which is nothing more than an advertising agent Symantec paid HP to preload on my hardware.
But I will investigate mr. wyrm's advice as soon as my wife lets me near her PC. You know how we get into these PC's and spend endless hours, inhibiting our wives' ability to shop on the web... ;D
-
i am not really too technical so i hope you understand my problems if i explain it as well as i can...
i have a windows sp2 on a 512 mb ram 1.8 gHz AMD sempron processor computer, with about 80% of the hard used. (it's a small 80 gb hard and yes i know i could do way better, i just haven't and can't afford any upgrades soon).
the AV is the avast home edition 4.8 and i also use windows firewall. i didn't install anything more since i am not sure what is good and what is not.
i've been having problems since saturday, the 9th (updates are automatic so i've no idea if there was a program update then or not).
problems are:
first, i had a "powerscan antivirus" popup unrequested on my firefox browser (which crashed immediately). since i've had a bad history with unrequested AV popups, i ran a scan on my c: and all it found were ALL the alwil software files (namely all avast files) that were infected with a trojan. at that point i got really scared, uninstalled avast, redownloaded, re-installed, updated the virus database and ran two scans.
one in safe-mode, after installing the AV - it found only one infected file - not an .exe file - (a trojan, it said) in the d: partition system restore files.
i am not sure if i did well but i disabled the system restore hoping to delete all files, then re-enabled SR.
then i did a second thorough scan, with archive scanning included, after entering windows. it didn't find anything more.
so this took care of the unrequested popups.
second problem: it takes forever since then to access the internet with firefox. i don't like iexplorer and i don't want to use it, i like firefox and i want to keep using it. but it takes a very long time to go online and also to browse pages once the browser is open. the main processes that strain the system are svchost.exe which seems to be running in separate locations for SYSTEM and NETWORK (i'm in a network so maybe that's ok but i'm not sure. avast is only installed on my computer, i don't know what the others have.) the processor hits 100% usage all the time and it's not really healthy for it.
reading through this thread i noticed that some users have disabled the archive scanning after doing the safe-mode scans so i've disabled it too to see if it makes any difference. so far i've seen none.
so what i wonder is this...
1. does the latest update make this happen? overusing the processor and slowing down my system??
it's getting annoying when even google won't show because of the long delays that cut the connection.
2. is it possible that by uninstalling the "positive" infected avast files i actually allowed a virus to spread and infect my computer? does re-installing and scanning in safe-mode provide a safety belt for this?
3. is it possible that a virus database used as an update was corrupted and made my AV go crazy on me?!
4. which online scan could i use to make sure the system IS clean and not giving me false good reads? i don't want to stop avast for an online scan by another AV, are there some good enough that wouldn't require stopping the running AV?
5. is it really the fact that avast was updated to fit with better, newer systems that's making it incompatible with my older and slower system?
sorry for all the questions. i am just getting really freaked out here.
-
HI EGR
different problem here so best not to Reply to this but to start a new post in the virus and worms forum (below)
start by going to malwarebytes and running their on line ROGUE REMOVER and THEN
their FREE ANTI MALWARE update and run a full scan
post the log in your new post/ thread
Are you using Windows XP/Vista?
Scheduling the Boot Time Scan
Click on the Menu button.
Choose Schedule Boot Time Scan.
Doing so displays a dialog allowing you to schedule virus scanning.
Check Archives, if you want scan all the archives.
Specify whether all the disks or just a specific folder should be scanned.
Select Advanced options for scheduling details.
Select how to automatically process infected files (suggestion: send to Chest)
Choose how to automatically process infected system files (suggestion: ignore/do nothing)
Click the Schedule button to confirm the settings.
-
Are you using Windows XP/Vista?
Scheduling the Boot Time Scan
Click on the Menu button.
Choose Schedule Boot Time Scan.
Doing so displays a dialog allowing you to schedule virus scanning.
Check Archives, if you want scan all the archives.
Specify whether all the disks or just a specific folder should be scanned.
Select Advanced options for scheduling details.
Select how to automatically process infected files (suggestion: send to Chest)
Choose how to automatically process infected system files (suggestion: ignore/do nothing)
Click the Schedule button to confirm the settings.
wyrmrider, better quoting then copying...
-
Mr. wrymrider & Mr. DavidR,
I'm thinking about my laptop and how slow it scans compare to my wife's newer Core Duo PC and I'm wondering if I should run an anti-malware program just to see if there are any hidden programs that are not checked by Avast and Spybot.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks in advance.
-
Well the two most commonly recommended are SuperAntiSpyware amd MalwareBytes AntiMalware (MBAM).
SUPERantispyware (http://www.superantispyware.com) On-Demand only in free version.
MalwareBytes Anti-Malware freeware version http://download.bleepingcomputer.com/malwarebytes/mbam-setup.exe (http://download.bleepingcomputer.com/malwarebytes/mbam-setup.exe), right click on the link and select Save As or Save File (As depending on your browser), save it to a location where you can find it easily later.
However, there is a down and dirty way you can quickly check what is going on, open Task Manager and see what is running, especially those eating CPU time and check those you don't know about on google, etc.
-
DavidR,
I did both scans and both showed no issues. I am now confident I know the cause of Avast running slow...its is CPU power, pure and simple, but proven in a more scirntific way. I guess its time to let go of this old laptop and search for something new. This laptop is like an older pair of undershorts. It is worn and maybe thin in places, but its so damn comfortable.
Again, than you for your support.
Pete
Raleigh, NC USA
-
gland you found nothing on your good buddy
What OS your laptop?
usually some additional memory will make it seem like a new computer
run CCleaner and defrag will also help
you can go to BlackVipers page and find a guide on slimming down the overhead (W2k-XP)
-
DavidR,
I did both scans and both showed no issues. I am now confident I know the cause of Avast running slow...its is CPU power, pure and simple, but proven in a more scirntific way. I guess its time to let go of this old laptop and search for something new. This laptop is like an older pair of undershorts. It is worn and maybe thin in places, but its so damn comfortable.
Again, than you for your support.
Pete
Raleigh, NC USA
You're welcome.
I know what you mean by being comfortable with a system, I have just bought a new system (spec in signature) and it took almost 5 days straight to get it set-up to how old system was.
My old system was still more powerful than yours, but I was starting to notice it wasn't as responsive as it used to be. I still have it (my new system sits on top of it, two black, Tower PCs, looks impressive). I very occasionally run the old system for one thing or another and boy do I notice the difference in speed or should I say the lack of it ;D
So there is no need to break the bond right away until you get comfortable with the new system, but you will gradually use it less and less until you pack it away, just in case ;D
-
http://users.telenet.be/bluepatchy/miekiemoes/slowcomputer.html
http://www.blackviper.com/
-
Thanks gents, I'm presently virus, spyware and malware-free. When I run Avast, it uses between 85 and 100% of my CPU's processing power. No other programs or processes are hogging CPU (TeaTimer from Spybot resident scanner takes about 2-3% of CPU, and no other processes look significant or unauthorized). So I'm just out of CPU steam. Its time to call my brother and see which one of my nephews wants this laptop. And its time for me to start shopping. Maybe I'll switch back to a desktop so I can get a quad core CPU, a giant LCD and a real graphics card.
Thanks again for your kind support!
-
New AMD integrated graphics is as good as low end graphics card plus you can add a PCIe graphics card for dual card - best of both worlds for all but the hard core gamer or professional CAD or Graphics apps
mate with AMD quad core for best value
Intel may have better performance at only the very top end- add $1000
-
DavidR,
I did both scans and both showed no issues. I am now confident I know the cause of Avast running slow...its is CPU power, pure and simple, but proven in a more scirntific way. I guess its time to let go of this old laptop and search for something new. This laptop is like an older pair of undershorts. It is worn and maybe thin in places, but its so damn comfortable.
Again, than you for your support.
Pete
Raleigh, NC USA
I had an old IBM ThinkPad like that but it died.
I spent two and a half wonderful years working in Raleigh, N.C. but I could not get a L1 visa to work longer so I had to return to The Great White North:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_Doug_McKenzie
-
New AMD integrated graphics is as good as low end graphics card plus you can add a PCIe graphics card for dual card - best of both worlds for all but the hard core gamer or professional CAD or Graphics apps
mate with AMD quad core for best value
Intel may have better performance at only the very top end- add $1000
I guess my days of overclocking and playing with expensive graphics cards are over. But if the $$/performance tradeoff is significant, I would go AMD over Intel. But if you're going to look at 4 CPU (Quad cores), does AMD compare to Intel? I don't do CAD/CAM, and I'm not a gamer, but HD has appeal, especially if you have a good panel. Do today's PCIe cards have HDMI ports? I've not done a lot of research lately, but its amazing how technology is scaling today especially considering it has not slowed in 25 years. I need to find a good PC architecture site and refresh my memory now that I've been retired for over 2 years.
OK, one final addition to this experiment....I was abkle to find a 1GB SODIMM for this laptop. It had a total of 512MB (two 256MB DIMMs) and I removed one piece of 256MB and added the new 1GB DIMM. Now the system can only address 1GB according to the user manual, but Windows sees the 1.256GB, but can olny use 756MB (the original 256, plus only 512MB of the new 1GB DIMM) So I increased my RAM by 50%. Well the 1hour 31min run time for Avast did not change very much at all (went down to 1hour 27min). So adding RAM is a deadend for Avast purposes. An like I said before, the CPU was maxing out at 100% utilization, so that is the best I think I will see with this old laptop.
Thanks and so-long to all that helped.
Oh yes, one more thing...my spyware checker did improve in its time very significantly, so it was worth the time and effort.
Cheers!
-
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=135446
or 780