Author Topic: Compatibility issues  (Read 14925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2011, 05:25:12 PM »
It would help others along with alot of you if you simply did your homework. Can Avast and MBAM Pro place nice together. Yes. But MBAM's power comes from its on demand scanning. Its real time protection is very poor. ALl you really need to stay safe is a real time antivirus and firewall. Then lock down your system with a hardening tool such as Emet 2.0. If you want more protection then simply add a sandbox such as Sandboxie or BufferZone. MBAM is a fantastic on demand scanner. It is a second opinion scanner to use if your real time protection misses something. Go around and watch the reviews on MBAM Pro and you will notice what I am saying. Clear Cloud can have false positives. I had 2. I submitted them and within 24 hours it was cleared up. Also there is OpenDNS.

Here is a good review. See how MBAM did not find anything till it scanned. Sure it blocked known bad IP's but so does a secure dns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W1oXv33EmM
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 05:27:46 PM by Dieselman »

Offline CraigB

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 11081
  • No support PM's thanks
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2011, 05:28:03 PM »
Exactly.............I am providing a free alternative solution without the need to worry about compatibility or adding additional processes or spending money.
There's already built-in protection in the new IE but we're talking about malwarebytes vs. avast!  >:(
BTW Of-course we all want the AV without any running processes, for free and without compatibility issues...

IE............Anyone who has a brain does not use IE.
There you go again Dieselman, trying to belittle people with your post's again just because they use ie and the 9 version come's with tracking protection, active x filtering, popup blocking and smart screen filter which does make it quite secure.
Your smugness and arrogance and total lack of respect toward's other member's here is disgusting and it's no wonder there is alot of profanity throwen in your direction, you would think that someone like your self would be used to abuse and swearing.
Im sure multiple people in this forum would like you to crawl back into the hole that you came from as you are thoughly disliked on this forum and i dare say that is the general consensis to the other forum's you took part in, i for one would not urinate on you if you were on fire so do us all a favour and leave.

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2011, 05:40:49 PM »
LOL..................all of these which you mentioned tracking protection, active x filtering, popup blocking and smart screen filter have been around since IE 8. The tracking protection was there but been improved since IE 8. IE still lacks an ad blocker and script blocking. IE is also the most attacked web browser. Ask any security professional how to stay safe and they will tell you "Use an alternative browser". Even MajorGeeks tells you this. Google safe surfing and you will see the same advice. One of the first steps in making the step to safe surfing is using an alternative browser such as Firefox,Chrome or Opera. I would think members with a lot of stars next to there names would know this by now.

Notice something...............Not once have a swore. Wanna know why? Maturity my friend.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 05:42:33 PM by Dieselman »

Offline danny96

  • Malware Fighter
  • Advanced Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 668
  • No-malware!
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2011, 05:50:59 PM »
@dieselman
Internet Explorer is also good & safe browser. All these security features were updated and improved so browser is even more secure. It's also more faster. But! this has nothing to do with my topic, so please start a new topic about browsers where you can spam as you want to. This was the last sentence about browsers so please shut up. Or as I said, create new topic.

About your video on youtube
Video was created on 1.07.2010
Don't you think that something changed? For example that malwarebytes' is now better?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 05:55:37 PM by danny96 »
Real-time protection and Firewall: COMODO Internet Security 12.0.0.6810 -- Additional Protection: Web Of Trust, Ublock, NoScript, Malwarebytes Premium, Avast! Online Security, Hitman Pro -- OS: Windows 10

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2011, 06:02:35 PM »
Thats not my video and there are others like it. Same results. MBAM is one of the best on demand scanners. That is what is made for for originally. To pick up the slack where your av left off. Test it for yourself over at MDL.

Offline danny96

  • Malware Fighter
  • Advanced Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 668
  • No-malware!
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2011, 06:11:20 PM »
Thats not my video and there are others like it. Same results. MBAM is one of the best on demand scanners. That is what is made for for originally. To pick up the slack where your av left off. Test it for yourself over at MDL.
...  ::) >:(
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 06:13:44 PM by danny96 »
Real-time protection and Firewall: COMODO Internet Security 12.0.0.6810 -- Additional Protection: Web Of Trust, Ublock, NoScript, Malwarebytes Premium, Avast! Online Security, Hitman Pro -- OS: Windows 10

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2011, 06:13:20 PM »
You people are funny. You all think adding on more protection is better. Well sorry to say thats not the truth. Wilders Security is a great place for info. If you enable UAC,DEP,SEHOP, and ASLR you are already more protected then most. Just use Emet 2.0 and enable protection for any browsers or p2p programs.

Ask yourselves this..................Why are you using Avast if you think you need MBAM Pro to back it up? Should you feel confident enough in Avast's protection? I sure do.

Offline danny96

  • Malware Fighter
  • Advanced Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 668
  • No-malware!
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2011, 06:26:36 PM »
You people are funny. You all think adding on more protection is better. Well sorry to say thats not the truth. Wilders Security is a great place for info. If you enable UAC,DEP,SEHOP, and ASLR you are already more protected then most. Just use Emet 2.0 and enable protection for any browsers or p2p programs.

Ask yourselves this..................Why are you using Avast if you think you need MBAM Pro to back it up? Should you feel confident enough in Avast's protection? I sure do.
Avast! + Malwarebytes' Pro are certified combination. They should cooperate and create a good protection.
I fixed the problem -
solution is very simple, disable malwarebytes' web shield - avast!'s network+web shields are better I think
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 06:28:08 PM by danny96 »
Real-time protection and Firewall: COMODO Internet Security 12.0.0.6810 -- Additional Protection: Web Of Trust, Ublock, NoScript, Malwarebytes Premium, Avast! Online Security, Hitman Pro -- OS: Windows 10

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2011, 06:56:27 PM »
Good idea danny boy but you still have a program using 95MB of ram and adding on two additional processes for what? Nothing.

Offline spg SCOTT

  • Massive Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 4125
  • There is no magic, only lost physics
    • spg SCOTT
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2011, 07:02:35 PM »
I think it boils down to personal preference.

On one machine, that is shared, I have avast Free, and MBAM free which I (try to ;)) scan with regularly, and keep up with things on it.
On another, all I have is avast Free and Winpatrol Free.

I am comfortable with these setups, but given the option, I possibly would take the pro version of MBAM for the shared pc at least, but not having ever used MBAM pro, I can't really judge anything about it.
For me, the detections from each (while they may overlap, and cause some issues - understandable) are different. (for instance MBAM pro could stop some Rogues from installing before some AVs - that is the point of MBAM after all...)

For a lesser powered machine, the pro version of mbam in conjunction with an AV may not be the best option but the free version is still an option.

That's my opinion anyway...

Something else I want to add as a general thing to all here. What you use is your choice, based on your opinions. So insulting another user because their opinion differs, is completely uncalled for. Whether you agree or not. The whole point of this thread is to get a balanced view of everyone's opinions, not to call out each other on what they use.
Seeing loads of thread degenerate into users bickering back and forth at the moment... :(
“There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you 'play' with them!”Richard Feynman

Offline CraigB

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 11081
  • No support PM's thanks
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2011, 08:19:27 PM »
Good idea danny boy but you still have a program using 95MB of ram and adding on two additional processes for what? Nothing.
Actually the two processes only use 36MB on my system's and that while it's scanning, you most likely have the gui open which is not needed with the pro version.

Offline Dieselman

  • Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 621
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2011, 08:34:47 PM »
Good idea danny boy but you still have a program using 95MB of ram and adding on two additional processes for what? Nothing.
Actually the two processes only use 36MB on my system's and that while it's scanning, you most likely have the gui open which is not needed with the pro version.

Nope..................You are wrong. MBAM tray and MBAM services were using 95MB of ram when just sitting at idle.

Offline CraigB

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 11081
  • No support PM's thanks
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2011, 09:11:58 PM »
Good idea danny boy but you still have a program using 95MB of ram and adding on two additional processes for what? Nothing.
Actually the two processes only use 36MB on my system's and that while it's scanning, you most likely have the gui open which is not needed with the pro version.

Nope..................You are wrong. MBAM tray and MBAM services were using 95MB of ram when just sitting at idle.
Dont know why it's so high on your system, my crappy old xp with 512 mb ram uses about 34 mb, the system on on now uses 36 meg and my other win 7 system uses 31 mb but they all jump to around 80 mb if i open the gui.

Offline YoKenny

  • Serious Graphoman
  • **
  • Posts: 8784
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2011, 10:35:31 PM »
Nope..................You are wrong. MBAM tray and MBAM services were using 95MB of ram when just sitting at idle.
On Windows 7 MBAM is only using 5,728K and on XP it is using 34MB just like craigb says.  
E5200 2.5GHZ, 4GB RAM, 320GB HD, Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit, avast! V9.0 Free, IE10
P4 2.8GHZ, 1.5GB RAM, 40GB HD, XP Pro SP3 32bit, avast! V9.0 Free, Google Chrome
with hpHosts, MVPS HOSTS files, SpeedFan, WinPatrol PLUS

Offline igor

  • Avast team
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *
  • Posts: 11791
    • AVAST Software
Re: Compatibility issues
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2011, 10:36:24 PM »
OK, that's enough.
Any "memory usage" numbers are complete rubbish - without knowing how the program works internally, which you don't unless you're the author maybe, they don't mean a thing.
Substitute any random number and you'll be exactly as close to the truth as you are when you're looking at the numbers in Task Manager or similar tool.

Summing the numbers of various processes together is especially funny.