1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

MSE slow?

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Teflon, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. Jose

    Jose Flightless Bird

    On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
    wrote:
    > From: "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com>
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    > | I too have been a long-time Avira fan (also an Avast fan), but am now
    > | testing MSE on some systems because of Avira's recurrent problem
    > | connecting for updates, and because of the excellent reviews of MSE I am
    > | seeing, not only in the web pages above, but from trusted colleagues who
    > | are handlers in respected malware removal forums.
    >
    > | YMMV!  :)
    >
    > You said "testing MSE on some systems".
    >
    > OK you are deliberately going to malicious URLs ?
    >
    > You are deliberately trying infect the PC and if infected trying to remove malware
    > infections using MSE ?
    >
    > --
    > Davehttp://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    > Multi-AV -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp


    I do that (deliberately try to infect PCs) frequently.

    If I help somebody remove an infection, I would like to know how they
    got it so I can hopefully get it too.

    When I find something to do that causes a problem, I will see which
    protection methods prevent (or warn) about the problem, then I will do
    my best to get the infection and see what methods are best to resolve
    it - and which ones will miss it or not be able to fix it.

    This helps me decide which tools are best to prevent the infection in
    the first place, detect it and treat it afterwards.

    Microsoft is not in the malicious software detection and removal
    business and (IMHO and experience) their products only care about the
    files that, in their humble opinion, are important to Windows (3498 at
    my last count). But, they HAD to some out with something or the world
    would probably be screaming. Some folks have 100% faith and
    reliability with anything that says Microsoft on it and think MS has
    the answer to everything.

    Other companies are in the prevention and removal business - that is
    all they do, so it makes sense to me to stick with products where that
    is the company specialty.

    Sometimes the simplest things out of the ordinary are not even
    acknowledged by MS products and will at least generate some kind of
    warning with other products like the - hey this doesn't look right and
    what do you want to do about it kind of things. They might not always
    be malicious, but sometimes curious and at least they get flagged
    somehow.

    Plus this whole malicious terminology I overuse, but it is generic and
    nondescript enough to fit all situations. The bad software you get on
    your computer is hardly as malicious as it could be if the authors had
    a mind to be, it is all (so far) merely an annoying and temporary
    inconvenience.

    The people that write the bad code - they know all about the detection
    and removal tools and when they know that, they will write their funny
    code to do things you can't figure out. Break Task Manager, the
    command prompt, regedit, System Restore, Explorer, Safe Mode, Userinit
    - it is just a game for them. "I will not really do anything bad to
    your system but I will fix it so you can't log in anymore - that's
    easy!"

    Then someone that is not smart enough to outsmart the software and
    unable to figure out the problem will tell you that you have to
    reinstall Windows...
     
  2. Unknown

    Unknown Flightless Bird

    The solution is very simple.
    1. Have an external backup for your system.
    2. If you are the type that clicks on every URL you receive or download a
    lot of trash
    then, by all means keep Avira.
    3. If you play safe hex and do not click on URLs that you don't know then
    use MSE
    and your system will be much less prone to problems.


    "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:9f8c891d-3a25-49fc-884e-cbcadb627d83@c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
    On Feb 27, 2:28 pm, "Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > I would leave Avira and not bother with MSE. Avira will do a better job
    >
    > --
    > Peter
    >


    That settles it, I have no idea which way to go, but thanks to all for
    responding.
     
  3. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "Jose" <jose_ease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:d6b5f1a1-706a-426b-b4d6-c92e9734ab9b@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
    >On Feb 28, 1:42 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
    >wrote:
    >> From: "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com>
    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >> | I too have been a long-time Avira fan (also an Avast fan), but am
    >> now
    >> | testing MSE on some systems because of Avira's recurrent problem
    >> | connecting for updates, and because of the excellent reviews of MSE
    >> I am
    >> | seeing, not only in the web pages above, but from trusted
    >> colleagues who
    >> | are handlers in respected malware removal forums.
    >>
    >> | YMMV! :)
    >>
    >> You said "testing MSE on some systems".
    >>
    >> OK you are deliberately going to malicious URLs ?
    >>
    >> You are deliberately trying infect the PC and if infected trying to
    >> remove malware
    >> infections using MSE ?
    >>

    >
    >Jose wrote:
    >I do that (deliberately try to infect PCs) frequently.
    > snip


    So, have you actually tested MSE and Avira, and done a comparison,
    recording the detections and failures?
    Your long reply was merely your opinion about what business Microsoft is
    in and what their anti-malware products focus on, with no facts based on
    actually testing either product, which is what David and I were briefly
    discussing.
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  4. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    On Feb 27, 11:23 am, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > You must uninstall your current AV app & reboot prior to installing MSE.
    >


    Sorry, been out of the loop for several days, but want to thank all
    who offered their advise and opinions.

    Just for clarification, my informed(?) decision to not uninstall
    AntiVir (prior to installing MSE) was based on a comment by Ken Blake
    (MVP) in an end of Sept 2009 thread. He recommended keeping
    SuperAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes installed (along with MSE) so they
    could be used to run independent scans. Another poster to that thread
    also suggested that Avast (with active protection turned off) be kept
    on a system for the same purpose.

    Equating a disabled AntiVir to be the same as a disabled Avast, I
    thought turning the Active Guard feature off and leaving AntiVir
    installed would not cause any problems. As suggested by the ensuing
    discussions, that may (or may not) be true.

    Whichever, to eliminate any possible conflict, I will be using Revo
    Uninstaller to uninstall both MSE and Avira to start over.

    Thanks again for your contributions. Always enjoy the 'debates'.
    Could do without the attitudes.
     
  5. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:9533fe83-fbc2-4906-bf1e-85129c2f1010@s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
    >On Feb 27, 11:23 am, "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABear...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> You must uninstall your current AV app & reboot prior to installing
    >> MSE.
    >>

    >
    >Sorry, been out of the loop for several days, but want to thank all
    >who offered their advise and opinions.
    >
    >Just for clarification, my informed(?) decision to not uninstall
    >AntiVir (prior to installing MSE) was based on a comment by Ken Blake
    >(MVP) in an end of Sept 2009 thread. He recommended keeping
    >SuperAntiSpyware and MalwareBytes installed (along with MSE) so they
    >could be used to run independent scans. Another poster to that thread
    >also suggested that Avast (with active protection turned off) be kept
    >on a system for the same purpose.
    >
    >Equating a disabled AntiVir to be the same as a disabled Avast, I
    >thought turning the Active Guard feature off and leaving AntiVir
    >installed would not cause any problems. As suggested by the ensuing
    >discussions, that may (or may not) be true.
    >
    >Whichever, to eliminate any possible conflict, I will be using Revo
    >Uninstaller to uninstall both MSE and Avira to start over.
    >
    >Thanks again for your contributions. Always enjoy the 'debates'.
    >Could do without the attitudes.


    Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
    would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
    issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    latter.

    Uninstall via Add/Remove, then remove any Avira traces using their
    removal tool, which is designed for that one purpose, rather than using
    Revo:
    http://dlpro.antivir.com/package/removaltool/win32/en/removaltool-win32-en.exe

    MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
    installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch, such
    as:
    mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u

    AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
    anti-malware apps and their leftovers:
    http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-security-applications

    Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
    for removal:
    http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications

    These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  6. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
    >
    > Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others.  There were a few that
    > would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    > scanner was active.  But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    > and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    > the other AV and its database being on the system.  Your installation
    > issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    > latter.


    I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    innuendos that some do and some don't.

    > MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
    > installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch, such
    > as: mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u
    >
    > AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
    > anti-malware apps and their leftovers:http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-se...
    >
    > Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
    > for removal:http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications
    >
    > These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.


    Is there a known problem with Revo, that you are aware of? Just
    curious. It has always worked like a charm for me.

    I used AppRemover to completely remove MSE and everything is back to
    the way it was before the MSE installation. AntiVir update has its
    usual server-delay problems, BOTT, BAU.

    Thanks for the pointer to that utility.
     
  7. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b83b3d93-8168-4eb2-a66b-1e7ec12672ed@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
    On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
    >
    > Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
    > would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    > scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    > and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    > the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
    > issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    > latter.


    I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    innuendos that some do and some don't.

    > MSE does not have a removal tool, other than downloading the MSE
    > installer and running it from the command line with the /u switch,
    > such
    > as: mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe /u
    >
    > AppRemover is specifically designed to remove anti-virus and
    > anti-malware apps and their
    > leftovers:http://www.appremover.com/opswat-appremover-thoroughly-remove-your-se...
    >
    > Avira and MSE are included among the apps they have tested and support
    > for removal:http://www.appremover.com/supported-applications
    >
    > These would be a better choice than Revo, IMHO.


    Is there a known problem with Revo, that you are aware of? Just
    curious. It has always worked like a charm for me.

    I used AppRemover to completely remove MSE and everything is back to
    the way it was before the MSE installation. AntiVir update has its
    usual server-delay problems, BOTT, BAU.

    Thanks for the pointer to that utility.
    _____________________________

    No, nothing bad to say about Revo, I just thought an app designed to
    specifically remove AV apps might be a little more thorough.

    BTW...a BIG oops! in my last reply. I linked a removal tool for Avira,
    but it's not a tool to remove Avira. It's an Avira tool to remove a
    certain malware. They *could* have given it a less confusing name than
    Avira Removal Tool! :)

    They do have a tool they call the Avira AntiVir RegistryCleaner, which
    is NOT a registry cleaner, but a tool that finds Avira entries in the
    Registry after you uninstall, and removes them. Everything in the tool
    is in German, and there are a few Avira Registry keys it can't remove.
    It's probably only useful after a failed uninstall.
    http://www.avira.com/en/support/support_downloads.html
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  8. David H. Lipman

    David H. Lipman Flightless Bird

    From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>

    | On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:

    >> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
    >> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    >> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    >> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    >> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
    >> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    >> latter.


    | I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    | innuendos that some do and some don't.

    NO !

    It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing both
    "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on resources.

    You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
    Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
     
  9. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    news:eOvFp1WvKHA.1984@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>
    >
    > | On Mar 3, 12:38 pm, "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
    >>> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's
    >>> resident
    >>> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V
    >>> installed,
    >>> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due
    >>> to
    >>> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your
    >>> installation
    >>> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    >>> latter.

    >
    > | I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    > | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    > | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    > | innuendos that some do and some don't.
    >
    > NO !
    >
    > It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus
    > application performing both
    > "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on
    > resources.
    >
    > You can however have one fully installed anti virus application
    > performing both "On
    > Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


    You might want to put a "usually" modifier in the second statement,
    David... I recall a number of times in the past, users having
    installation issues as well as co-existence issues with certain AV apps
    installed together, even when only one was set to be On Access/Resident.

    Don't ask me to remember which ones! :) I recall some versions on NAV
    making it nearly impossible to even install another AV. On the other
    hand, I remember AVG being very good about co-existing. It wasn't just
    the On Access scanner that was the issue, as I recall, but the various
    drivers and system hooks that the apps used, that interfered with each
    other.

    I haven't seen multiple AV apps installed on a lot of machines in recent
    times ....perhaps they've gotten better at co-existence? I'd be
    surprised though......
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  10. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
    wrote:
    > From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeis...@gmail.com>


    > >> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others.  There were a few that
    > >> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    > >> scanner was active.  But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    > >> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    > >> the other AV and its database being on the system.  Your installation
    > >> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    > >> latter.

    >
    > | I guess so.  Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    > | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    > | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    > | innuendos that some do and some don't.
    >
    > NO !
    >
    > It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing both
    > "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning.  It is also wasteful on resources..


    David, I love your big word (it's actually spelled correctly), but I
    fear you may have misunderstood some of this thread's discussion. If
    you re-read this thread, you will see that neither Glee nor I were
    ever in doubt regarding the need to have only one resident AV actively
    doing "On-Access" scanning. The question/discussion has always been
    about having multiple resident non-active AV's to do "On-Demand"
    scanning, and the ability of MSE to co-exist with multiple resident
    non-active AV's.

    > You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
    > Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


    So, of those multiple "On-Demand" AV apps (installed, non-active), are
    there any that you know of that could cause MSE (and the system) to
    have a performance problem?

    Thanks for your input.
     
  11. David H. Lipman

    David H. Lipman Flightless Bird

    From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>

    | On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
    | wrote:
    >> From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeis...@gmail.com>


    >> >> Some A-V apps are more tolerant than others. There were a few that
    >> >> would exist concurrently with another, as long as only one's resident
    >> >> scanner was active. But are others that detect another A-V installed,
    >> >> and either complain, won't install, or have interference issues due to
    >> >> the other AV and its database being on the system. Your installation
    >> >> issues raise an immediate red flag as to this being a case of the
    >> >> latter.


    >> | I guess so. Perhaps sometime in the future, someone (MS - perhaps?)
    >> | will provide an online resource that specifically lists those AV's
    >> | which cause MSE to have coexistence problems, versus the current
    >> | innuendos that some do and some don't.


    >> NO !


    >> It is contraindicated to have two fully installed anti virus application performing
    >> both
    >> "On Demand" and "On Access" scanning. It is also wasteful on resources.


    | David, I love your big word (it's actually spelled correctly), but I
    | fear you may have misunderstood some of this thread's discussion. If
    | you re-read this thread, you will see that neither Glee nor I were
    | ever in doubt regarding the need to have only one resident AV actively
    | doing "On-Access" scanning. The question/discussion has always been
    | about having multiple resident non-active AV's to do "On-Demand"
    | scanning, and the ability of MSE to co-exist with multiple resident
    | non-active AV's.

    >> You can however have one fully installed anti virus application performing both "On
    >> Demand" and "On Access" scanning and multiple "On Demand" scanners.


    | So, of those multiple "On-Demand" AV apps (installed, non-active), are
    | there any that you know of that could cause MSE (and the system) to
    | have a performance problem?

    | Thanks for your input.

    I will admit that my spelling S U C K S on Usenet. It is my ADHD getting in the way.

    I have to use those polysyllabic words or I'll have to go idiot. U no wut I mean. :)

    Anyway...

    I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed AV application.
    This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not just a command line
    scanner (CLS).

    The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command line scanners.

    The problem is the language used; "...multiple resident non-active AV's."

    One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed AV application that
    performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On Access" scanner has been
    disbaled. This is contraindicated.


    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
     
  12. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    news:%23Rmp74hvKHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >
    > snip
    >
    > I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed
    > AV application.
    > This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not
    > just a command line
    > scanner (CLS).
    >
    > The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command
    > line scanners.
    >
    > The problem is the language used; "...multiple resident non-active
    > AV's."
    >
    > One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed
    > AV application that
    > performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On
    > Access" scanner has been
    > disbaled. This is contraindicated.


    Bingo! Well said, David....that's a good explanation.
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  13. Teflon

    Teflon Flightless Bird

    On Mar 7, 9:47 am, "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nosp...@Verizon.Net>
    wrote:

    > I know of NO "On Demand" scanners that interfere with fully installed AV application.
    > This includes BitDefender free which is an installed GUI prouct not just a command line
    > scanner (CLS).
    >
    > The published version of Multi-AV Scaning Tool provides four command linescanners.
    >
    > The problem is the language used;  "...multiple resident non-active AV's."
    >
    > One can presume that resident non-active AVs means a fully installed AV application that
    > performs both "On Access" and "On Demand" scanning where the "On Access" scanner has been
    > disbaled.  This is contraindicated.


    Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Just so I fully
    understand, are you saying that any resident AV app that has an "On
    Access" scanning option, even if that option is not activated, would
    present a coexistence problem for MSE? If so, it would seem most
    resident AV apps would be a potential conflict, since most seem to
    offer an "On Access" scanning option.

    Do you know of any 'resident' AV apps that are strictly "On Demand"
    scanning only? I'm aware that SuperAntiSpyware has an "On Access"
    option (can only be enabled in the paid-for version), yet it doesn't
    seem to cause MSE any perceptible problems..

    I wonder if MSE conflicts with those online scanning services, like
    Panda, that do the scan from within the browser?

    Thanks for the clarification Dave.
     
  14. David H. Lipman

    David H. Lipman Flightless Bird

    From: "Teflon" <spambaitmeister@gmail.com>


    | Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Just so I fully
    | understand, are you saying that any resident AV app that has an "On
    | Access" scanning option, even if that option is not activated, would
    | present a coexistence problem for MSE? If so, it would seem most
    | resident AV apps would be a potential conflict, since most seem to
    | offer an "On Access" scanning option.

    | Do you know of any 'resident' AV apps that are strictly "On Demand"
    | scanning only? I'm aware that SuperAntiSpyware has an "On Access"
    | option (can only be enabled in the paid-for version), yet it doesn't
    | seem to cause MSE any perceptible problems..

    | I wonder if MSE conflicts with those online scanning services, like
    | Panda, that do the scan from within the browser?

    | Thanks for the clarification Dave.

    The only resident "On Demand" scanner I know is BitDefender Free which had (has ?) a GUI
    component and gets installed.

    SuperAntiSpyware is not anti virus and doesn't have the same restrictions. Same goes for
    Malwarebytes' Anti Malware.

    The Online scanners are "On Demand" scanners.

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
     

Share This Page