VERY slow loading at bootup on Win XP SP3 desktop

[jontalk]

I decided to run a Malwarebytes scan and low and behold, it found 108 PUP type programs on my system, which have been removed. Avast seems to boot up a bit better now or at least I see the icon in the task bar sooner. Am no scanning with the ESET Online scanner which is extremely slow, but highly effective. I'm quite surprised that Malwwarebytes found so many malicious programs with the great reviews Avast has received..Makes me wonder. If ESET finds viruses, I think it's time to find a new anti-virus program.

[Warwagon19792]

By default detection of pups is not enabled in Avast.

To turn it on go to the Security tab / Antivirus / .. then next to "Scan Pups" click "Turn on"

[mchain]

I decided to run a Malwarebytes scan and low and behold, it found 108 PUP type programs on my system, which have been removed. Avast seems to boot up a bit better now or at least I see the icon in the task bar sooner. Am no scanning with the ESET Online scanner which is extremely slow, but highly effective. I'm quite surprised that Malwwarebytes found so many malicious programs with the great reviews Avast has received..Makes me wonder. If ESET finds viruses, I think it's time to find a new anti-virus program.

While you're at it, download and run AdwCleaner:  http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=53253.0  Might be surprised at what it finds in your browsers.  Point is, avast! is doing something other than the apparent slow loading you think, and since you found you had 100's of Possibly Unwanted Programs on your system, AdwCleaner might find more.  All those files were scanned at startup, remove them, and avast! does not have to perform that extensive task anymore.  Should see more quickness if you run this.

How did these PUP's get on your system?

[Undead-Divine-Assassin]

I've had a recent experience with something being flagged up as a PUP by Malwarebytes and not Avast even though I have PUP detection enabled. The odd thing about it was it was an update installer for a disc burning program I've used for months, CDBurnerXP, and as I do in all cases it was specifically scanned with Avast and Malwarebytes immediately after the download.

No problem reported then and the Quick Scans (highest sensitivity in Avast's case) ) using both those programs I do as part of my weekly maintenance didn't show it as being any problem last week post download.

However this week Malwarebytes flags it up as a PUP but Avast doesn't. It was actually quite difficult tracking down where the PUP was because the Malwarebytes log does not present the full location so I just knew it was in my Downloads folder. Apparently the right mouse context menu option to go to the location does not work in the free edition so I had to scan all the downloads to find the culprit.

Anyway once located I scanned it with Avast and again it flagged up no problem. Malwarebytes continued to regard it as a PUP and since I'd installed the update using it already I let it remove the apparently dodgy installer. I did full system scans with Mawarebytes and then Avast afterwards and everything came up clean. 

It got me thinking though as to why this had happened and I had a thought that Malwarebytes after it's most recent definitions update was, maybe, detecting an OPTIONAL toolbar installer. The CDBurnerXP updater did include the usual unwanted browser installer and homepage change options many 'free' good program installers include but, I think, also came with a less common Ask.com toolbar installer option too.

Is that a possible explanation for all those PUP detections jontalk discovered? So is this Malwarebytes being over-sensitive or Avast being under-sensitive.
 

[iroc9555]

Is that a possible explanation for all those PUP detections jontalk discovered? So is this Malwarebytes being over-sensitive or Avast being under-sensitive.

Just a new policy adopted by MBAM:

http://blog.malwarebytes.org/news/2013/07/malwarebytes-adopts-aggressive-pup-policy/

[davexnet]

Used to be able to run Bootvis in XP to get a read out of the startup process.
After the boot is complete, Bootvis will create a report showing you to which services and
drivers the time was allocated.

[jontalk]

Sorry but I don't see this selection on the panel nor do I see it in Settings.. I'm running the free version 8.0.1489

I did run an ADW scan and if found about a dozen entries which I deleted. The Avast icon does load much faster in the task bar, but it still takes a good couple of minutes to check updates, etc EVERY time the system boots up. Thanks for the tips guys though I would love to have Avast block any of these PUPs.

By default detection of pups is not enabled in Avast.

To turn it on go to the Security tab / Antivirus / .. then next to "Scan Pups" click "Turn on"

[mchain]

Sorry but I don't see this selection on the panel nor do I see it in Settings.. I'm running the free version 8.0.1489

I did run an ADW scan and if found about a dozen entries which I deleted. The Avast icon does load much faster in the task bar, but it still takes a good couple of minutes to check updates, etc EVERY time the system boots up. Thanks for the tips guys though I would love to have Avast block any of these PUPs.

By default detection of pups is not enabled in Avast.

To turn it on go to the Security tab / Antivirus / .. then next to "Scan Pups" click "Turn on"

Well, have XP also, and volume orig date is 2008/05/07, so it has been running for some time now.   It generally cold boots to usable desktop in about two minutes, but was used by another family member before I got it, and at that time, it was very slow to get there.  Something around five to seven minutes, so I'm happy with the way it is running now.

The difference?  A lot of unnecessary programs, PUP's running in the background, some malware, etc.,. 

Yes, I do see a system slowdown as avast! checks/updates the virii definitions, but, that is not an issue once that is done.  It is, after all, a P4 system, and runs with old and outdated technology not supported anymore by most vendors out there. 

It is not cutting edge at all, not even close to it.  Would never recommend installing W7 on it, as one would never see the end of W7 support with such an old machine, nor would one be necessarily happy with how it would run on it, either.  That's assuming one could find W7 drivers for all the old hardware in the first place, and also assuming a 32-bit setup as well.  You can't run a 64-bit os on a 32-bit machine

Seems like the system is freezing if asked to do more than the usual, as noted above, for example, Windows Update comes online when avast! is also updating.  Way to avoid that is to delay WU install til after avast! is done or do it manually.  Also not recommended to delay any updates for more than a week or so, as any updates will take more time, not less, to complete.  Two minutes or less to update avast!, (if it is current) is about right for a XP system.

We have been fortunate Microsoft chose to support XP for as long as they have; fortunate avast! still does, and that their XP version works as well as it does.

[jontalk]

Thanks.. I did figure out how to enable PUP scanning so I'm good to go.. And yes, my system is far more current than yours and as I said, it appears the PUP's and malware were at the root of the problem where the Avast icon in the task bar was concerned. And it's good to know that the normal updating/installation process is longer than others, making my system now as fast as it will be. Yes, I'm also grateful Avast is supporting XP since I don't see myself going to Win 8 quite yet nor do I have a touch screen, LOL.

[mchain]

Glad you're now satisfied with avast!  Plus, with help here from many others, you now know that just because a program like avast! is taking a long(er) time to load does not mean it is failing to do its' job.  avast! 's primary mission is to protect against virii, and as there was more stuff running on your system than should be, it took it longer to scan all those extraneous and unnecessary files.

In a nutshell, that's what a computer's basic function is, to run and find files.  It's a glorified filing cabinet many times over.  Fewer files to run will always result in a faster system.

For example, !Donovan basically runs only what he needs on his XP system, hence the speedy boot time and very fast avast! load.  Knowing what to do as he does, only helps.

Keeping a system clean and mean is a trick, and one way to do that is remove what you rarely use.  And once a system is set up the way you want it, leave it alone.  Just make it a point to update all programs when a security update for each of them comes out, just as you do Windows update, and you will be good to go.   

[grenneam]

I've had a recent experience with something being flagged up as a PUP by Malwarebytes and not Avast even though I have PUP detection enabled. The odd thing about it was it was an update installer for a disc burning program I've used for months, CDBurnerXP, and as I do in all cases it was specifically scanned with Avast and Malwarebytes immediately after the download.

No problem reported then and the Quick Scans (highest sensitivity in Avast's case) ) using both those programs I do as part of my weekly maintenance didn't show it as being any problem last week post download.

However this week Malwarebytes flags it up as a PUP but Avast doesn't. It was actually quite difficult tracking down where the PUP was because the Malwarebytes log does not present the full location so I just knew it was in my Downloads folder. Apparently the right mouse context menu option to go to the location does not work in the free edition so I had to scan all the downloads to find the culprit.

Anyway once located I scanned it with Avast and again it flagged up no problem. Malwarebytes continued to regard it as a PUP and since I'd installed the update using it already I let it remove the apparently dodgy installer. I did full system scans with Mawarebytes and then Avast afterwards and everything came up clean. 

It got me thinking though as to why this had happened and I had a thought that Malwarebytes after it's most recent definitions update was, maybe, detecting an OPTIONAL toolbar installer. The CDBurnerXP updater did include the usual unwanted browser installer and homepage change options many 'free' good program installers include but, I think, also came with a less common Ask.com toolbar installer option too.

Is that a possible explanation for all those PUP detections jontalk discovered? So is this Malwarebytes being over-sensitive or Avast being under-sensitive.

From what I've seen the programs that are of common usage like CDBURNERXP, IMGBURN, etc, are flagged as PUPs because of the bloatware that accompanies their "setup" programs.  That's why you must be careful in what you are 'Clicking' when doing the installations and make sure you completely read the screens during the installations.  Once the programs are installed - Delete the SetUp programs and the PUPs will no longer show up in a scan.

[jontalk]

Good point about CDBURN and IMGBURNXP.. I removed the latter since it was installed. And another post mentioned scanning with Hit Man Pro, which I installed and scanned and it found a trojan which I removed. The ADW cleaner also found some crap but I have to say that both of these programs when removed wreak havoc with the system and Hit Man has you think its free until you need to remove anything. I'm sticking with Malwarebytes and Super Anti-Spyware.. Avast does load much quicker in the task bar now so I'm leaving it at that

[!Donovan]

Hi all,

As mchain stated, my setup is somewhat minimal. I upgraded my computer to Vista in 2011 but then reformatted and switched back to XP earlier this year.

I have mostly stuff for work (all the browsers, local programming languages, photo manipulation software like gimp, IDEs, Github, 7-zip, foxit reader, DreamMail, kalkules, etc.) as well as stuff for personal activities (aimp, a windows 7 theme, media player classic, puush, teamviewer, skype, all my games, etc.) Over 3/4s of my 128gb HDD is dedicated to "My Videos".

You can see the full list of my "officially installed" programs in the attachment.

I hope this helps,
~!Donovan

[!Donovan]

Do note that most of these programs do not execute on startup, hence the faster load time.

~!Donovan

[Undead-Divine-Assassin]

From what I've seen the programs that are of common usage like CDBURNERXP, IMGBURN, etc, are flagged as PUPs because of the bloatware that accompanies their "setup" programs.  That's why you must be careful in what you are 'Clicking' when doing the installations and make sure you completely read the screens during the installations.  Once the programs are installed - Delete the SetUp programs and the PUPs will no longer show up in a scan.

Obviously that is case now but my point was that it hadn't been so until last week. The program update concerned, for CDBurnerXP, as I said was downloaded and installed without any problem. As I also said before using it the download was manually scanned as I always do with both Malwarebytes and Avast. Neither then flagged it up as containing a PUP. Neither did my weekly system scans carried out a few days later.

It was only after the most recent Malwarebytes weekly update on Saturday 10.08.13 and the system scan I did later that day which suddenly decided to flag the CDBurnerXP update as a PUP. I'm sure it must have been the Ask.com toolbar option it included.  Yet Avast did not despite being set to the highest sensitivity.

If all the program updates which contain 'bloatware' or specific 'bloatware' are now going to flagged up by Malwarebytes as PUPs it's going to cause quite a bit of unnecessary trouble. 

It's certainly not just dodgy programs that contain 'bloatware', and neither CDBurnerXP or ImgBurn, could be described as such anyway, they're actually very good  programs. Things like Adobe Reader and Flash Player updates usually include an unwanted McAfee 'security' scan option and have in the past included Chrome installers all on by default.

In fact I can't think of any 'free' program I use who's updates don't include at least a Chrome installer and default browser and/or homepage swap option. It is what pays for them and if you use 'free' versions you have to accept this and just be careful not to accidentally install something you didn't want.
 
What you don't want though is the unnecessary additional hassle of dealing with a security program which may now flag those mostly benign extras as PUPs.