Avast! is now "slower than molasses" and reports false scan times!

[Grays]

Hi Folks, I'm new to Avast (this morning) and started a thorough scan (with archives) at 9.30am. I've approx 180Mb on my PC and its currently at 63% at 4.20pm. Just thought I would report for info. My CPU is an old AMD XP2500 so its not the fastest machine out there.

[DavidR]

I suspect you have somewhat more than 180MB of data on your system, when the minimum RAM is usually in the 512MB-1GB, so I suspect you HDD is somewhat larger than 180MB.

If you only have one PC and you have continued to work on it, like browsing and posting this, then the scan will take much longer, even more so than the current slow scans.

[neiby]

I just did a couple of tests. It definitely appears to be a UI problem. If you select Local Hard Disks for a quick scan, you will get a standard scan instead. For some reason, selecting that option forces Avast to do a standard scan. I tried selecting quick scan before I selected local hard disks, but it didn't make a difference.

[Lisandro]

Did you use the skinned Simple UI?

Yes, avist skin.

Does it make any difference if you use the skinless with the same settings? (and folder selection if it's a quick scan, not "local disks")

I've used folder selection before. I'll test the skinless at the same area.

[Lisandro]

I'll test the skinless at the same area.

1h 11 minutes... not a significant difference... could be anything running in background.
Igor, what I'm surprised is that you can't reproduce this in your labs 

[igor]

So, it is faster than the skinned Simple UI scan, isn't it?
If I understand your previous posts correctly, you had 10 hours when using the Skinned SUI, 1 hour using ashQuick and 1 hour using skinless SUI. Or were they different areas or sensitivities?

[MarshallO]

I'm not computer-savvy enough to know what Vik meant by whether I have "some exclusions defined", so I couldn't answer the Question.  Sorry.

In addition, I couldn't reply to it, as I haven't received a singleEmail notification regarding the last three pages of replies to this Post!

Too, neiby's comment, "I would recommend that you just stop blaming your anxiety disorder and start acting a bit more professionally," was very hurtful!  I've struggled with my mental illness for 55 years, and you just don't "drop it on cue", as 
neiby apparently seems to think you can.

Therefore, I will leave the solution of this problem to those of you who apparently know what you are doing--and are apparently free from any mental illnesses--and will just slink away quietly.

I apologize to all of you who feel that I've somehow offended you.  That certainly was not my intention.  All I wanted to do was to have my on-demand scan times returned to being as speedy as they were in the last release.

MARSHALL

[neiby]

Igor, does it appear to you that by selecting Local Hard Disks for a quick scan that it is forcing a standard scan, instead? That certainly seems to be the case in my testing.

[igor]

halfmilefinal, don't hijack this thread with issues unrelated to Simple UI slowdown, please!

[neiby]

Marshall,

I apologize for the tone of my comment. It wasn't intended to be hurtful, but my phrasing was very poor. Let's all get back to working toward fixing this problem. I'm sure we're on the right track.

[igor]

neiby, yes, something like that - but it's not the only issue, there's some more.

[MarshallO]

neiby:  Thank you for the apology! 

I still haven't really got anything to offer here, however, as I am just not that computer savvy.

I'll keep an eye on this thread, though--and if there's any way that I can help, I will!

Thanks again!

MARSHALL

[Lisandro]

So, it is faster than the skinned Simple UI scan, isn't it?
If I understand your previous posts correctly, you had 10 hours when using the Skinned SUI, 1 hour using ashQuick and 1 hour using skinless SUI. Or were they different areas or sensitivities?

You've understand it correctly. I've tried to use the thorough scanning (same sensitivity) in all scannings.

[alanrf]

Igor - I'm sorry but every test (of the hundreds on multiple systems) I have performed shows that the selection of "local disks" versus "folder selection" does not appear to be a relevant factor in the observed slow down.

[igor]

Well, I believe there are actually 2 problems here.

1. When using "Local disks" for a Quick scan, it performs more like a Standard scan. However, (unlike a Thorough scan) Standard scan should not be significantly slower than the Quick one with usual file structure / names.

2. Slowdown of Simple UI in general. Right now, I think that the problem is related to the skins (slow painting on them) - so the problem should not occur in skinless SUI, Enhanced UI, ashCmd, ashQuick, ...