Malware Defender 2.8.0.0001

[Noob]

Well i mean that i need 64 bit not for the performance increase but because i can have more than 3GB of Ram.

[Brummelchen]

so at least some of your hardware components steal 1gig ram!?
are you using a creative soundcard? if so - creative never answered this
question why an xfi with its own 1gig ram needs another 1gig conventional ram.

[Night_Raven]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

so at least some of your hardware components steal 1gig ram!?
are you using a creative soundcard? if so - creative never answered this
question why an xfi with its own 1gig ram needs another 1gig conventional ram.

Can you please link to this sound card with 1GB of own memory?
Also, just because a 32-bit OS can "see" up to around 3.8GB of memory, doesn't mean this is always the case. It depends on the motherboard, its BIOS and the remaining hardware components.

[EASTER]

I really was counting on going with Avira AV in tandem with MD 2.8.0 on my XP box untill i learned this: Windows XP SP2 (64-bit)

Now that really sux IMO. I never had any intention of a third service pack for XP Pro because SP2 (32 bit) is just fine IMO, not only that but SP3 would no doubt break all the efforts of customizations that make a dull XP box look better then even the latest models around currently.

The majority of security vendors still package for XP users SP1 & SP2 but not Avira unfortunately.

EDIT: As luck would have there is a workaround. Google knows everything.

[arran]

ah yes the good old Malware Defender. its been a while since Ive been on wilders. I used to love playing around with MD it was or probably still is a good HIPS. However I am now running 64bit, only had 3gig of usable ram on my 32bit W7 OS which wasn't enough was always having lockups and freezes, now I have 16 gig ram probably a bit over the top but my OS runs much smoother. don't use HIPS like MD anymore just the apps in my sig. Applocker is a very powerful light pre built in OS app instantly blocking the execution of all unknown programs.

[EASTER]

Yeah, since i'm resigned to XP Pro untill Windows number 8 officially releases, like to make the most of the security apps compatible with it and piece a neatly organized puzzle of shielding together without having to resort to LUA.

[Brummelchen]

Can you please link to this sound card with 1GB of own memory?

Go www.creative.com and chose any fatality or x-fi go.
system is ~2 years old, i920 with 3 gig ram at first, now 6gb.
and the fatality reduced the 3gigs to 2gigs.
user decided to upgrade ram and win7/64bit to regain ram.

myself never would by any creative device - no doubt the products may good,
but driver support is awful and this issue dropped them here to death finally.

as x-fi is no standalone feature of creative there are other producers with
better options and support.

[pintas]

I love this piece of software, but until it keeps crashing and its not available for x64, i can't use it.
But i miss it...

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by pintas

I love this piece of software, but until it keeps crashing and its not available for x64, i can't use it.
But i miss it...

I would pay good money to use it on 64 bit. But development has more or less stopped so there is no chance of that... Lack of 64 bit version is main reason I hesitate to move to 64 bit

[Night_Raven]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

Go www.creative.com and chose any fatality or x-fi go.
system is ~2 years old, i920 with 3 gig ram at first, now 6gb.
and the fatality reduced the 3gigs to 2gigs.
user decided to upgrade ram and win7/64bit to regain ram.

myself never would by any creative device - no doubt the products may good,
but driver support is awful and this issue dropped them here to death finally.

as x-fi is no standalone feature of creative there are other producers with
better options and support.

I'm sorry, I just can't find any information on any Creative sound card having 1GB of its own memory. And I don't believe that such a card reduced the amount of memory that much.

I agree that Creative's sound cards are mediocre (both in terms of hardware and software) at best but I just don't believe they are so memory hungry.

Originally Posted by tomazyk

I would pay good money to use it on 64 bit. But development has more or less stopped so there is no chance of that... Lack of 64 bit version is main reason I hesitate to move to 64 bit

Malware Defender is not a real reason to keep using a 32-bit OS. I loved the application but when I had the choice between it and a 64-bit OS I chose the latter as it offers much more benefits in general, and security can be achieved by other means.

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

Malware Defender is not a real reason to keep using a 32-bit OS. I loved the application but when I had the choice between it and a 64-bit OS I chose the latter as it offers much more benefits in general, and security can be achieved by other means.

My primary reason for not moving to 64 bit was lack of 64 bit drivers for some devices I was using (printer, scanner) when I was moving from XP to Win7.
I was looking for replacement for SSM and found MD which is IMO even better and more complete HIPS.
Since I'm only using 3Gb of RAM I don't see much benefits from moving to 64 bit (IMO patch guard is not much of a benefit).
So I will stay with 32 bit until I will change the computer and in meanwhile try to find good replacement for MD.

[Night_Raven]

Originally Posted by tomazyk

My primary reason for not moving to 64 bit was lack of 64 bit drivers for some devices I was using (printer, scanner) when I was moving from XP to Win7.
I was looking for replacement for SSM and found MD which is IMO even better and more complete HIPS.
Since I'm only using 3Gb of RAM I don't see much benefits from moving to 64 bit (IMO patch guard is not much of a benefit).
So I will stay with 32 bit until I will change the computer and in meanwhile try to find good replacement for MD.

No one has said Kernel Patch Protection was the primary benefit of a 64-bit version of Windows. It's a nice feature but nothing spectacular. But even though it's not the reason, it is a reason. There are more advantages to using a 64-bit Windows than just security. There are performance benefits as well. Overall, the x64 architecture is a more technologically advanced. It's definitely the superior one. Also, 3GB of memory are enough to run a 64-bit version of Windows. There is no rule anywhere that says that 4GB is the minimum amount of memory that can run a 64-bit Windows well enough. Yes, it's true that 64-bit processes will eat up more memory and that a 64-bit OS leaves less memory for additional applications (apart from the system processes) but it's not that big of a difference.

Still, if there is no driver for a specific device that is very important and there is no option to change it (with a newer and supported one), then that is a valid reason in my book. I've been there at one point so I understand.

As far as SSM and MD go, yes, they are both excellent and exemplary pieces of software. If SSM wasn't abandoned I think it would've been right up there with MD in terms of efficiency. If a 64-bit version of MD is produced, that is able to provide (almost) the same level of security, I would most likely switch to it and drop my current security application(s).

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

There are more advantages to using a 64-bit Windows than just security. There are performance benefits as well. Overall, the x64 architecture is a more technologically advanced. It's definitely the superior one.

What advantages are you talking about? I have been testing 64 bit Windows 7 on my laptop but did not find any noticeable performance difference to 32 bit. Maybe performance benefits are more obvious on newer machines?
Also, most of applications I'm running are not 64 native software, but 32 bit that is capable of running on 64 bit OS.

I agree that in a few years most of us will probably run 64 bit, but for now I don't see much benefits in switching ...

[Night_Raven]

Well, the x64 platforms have more general-purpose registers which are utilized for passing function arguments instead of the stack, which speeds things up. Also, function calling and transtion between kernel and user mode are faster under x64. There is also the more addressable virtual memory compared to x86. Overall, there are numerous improvements that can even help x86 code run faster. It depens on the application used and what kind of algorithms and data it uses. There are a number of factors, so the difference between x64 and x86 might not be very noticeable most of the time but it's still there.

[Alcyon]

Is there any chances to see this hips running on Win7 64-bit soon ?
Have they fixed the nonsensical "make all your rules in reverse order" ?

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by Alcyon

Is there any chances to see this hips running on Win7 64-bit soon ?
Have they fixed the nonsensical "make all your rules in reverse order" ?

It will probably never be compatible with 64 bit Windows. AFAIK, active development has more or less stopped.

Rules still apply from bottom up. I love it that way

[Brummelchen]

also - as long author dont fix main issues with global rules and stting apps to groups with those rules (they werent used) its useless to install this useless app.

Better HIPS actually is Online Armor reduced to the hips part.

[Kees1958]

Why I replaced two Win x64 home premium OS-ses with two Win7 x32 Ultimate versions (with 4GB and 2GB Ram).

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

There are more advantages to using a 64-bit Windows than just security.

True, but on Win7 the file and registry virtualisation enforcement through the RunAsInvoker trick only applies to 32 bits processes. So in terms of security it is x64 (kernel patch + more effective ASLR) against x32 (RunAsInvoker trick) so 2-1 score IMO. Also the freeware availability of HIPS etc is much larger on x32 than on x64, so in terms of security this means an 0-1 advantage of x32 systems. Totalling the security aspect to a draw 2-2

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

There are performance benefits as well.

They promised us 20% performance gain, in practise the x32 OS are a bit faster than the x64, because command piping and path anticipation is facilitated through cache memory on CPU. Doubling the instruction size (from 32 to 64 bits) means that half of the commands can be preloaded with the same primary and secondary cache. Especially cheap CPU's (low end dual and quad core's) have substantial smaller secondary cache mechanisms. So the performance decrease of x64 vs x32 on these low end cpu's is nearly 10%. No 20% gain, but 10% pain, I would say two strikes advantage for x32 so 0-2.

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

Overall, the x64 architecture is a more technologically advanced.

Unfortunately the current x64 OS is a dual engine also facilitating 32 bits processes, so the architecture of x32 OS is simpler. I would call this aspect a draw 1-1. On the other hand on x64 you can use more ram (4GB and up), still a 4 GB laptop with 3GB effective memory is still more than sufficient on x32, also a 2GB x32 system on Win7 is still snappy in performance, but yes, this totals it up to a 2-1 gain for x64

[Alcyon]

To each their own preferences, Brummelchen.

Personally, I find that MD is an extraordinary hips. The only little downer is the non-conventional "last rules having priority over the first rules".

[Night_Raven]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

also - as long author dont fix main issues with global rules and stting apps to groups with those rules (they werent used) its useless to install this useless app.

Better HIPS actually is Online Armor reduced to the hips part.

As long as you don't speak proper english it's useless to read your useless posts.
Not good enough? Then how about this: a person who at one point defends an application and at another point turns 180 degrees and bashes it deserves not to be listened to, as his opinion are worthless.

Kees, keep believing what you want. I would try to explain further but it would be pointless. The simple fact that you use "x32" (incorrect) instead of "x86" (correct) goes to show how wrong you are and how little aware you are of how things work.

[Kees1958]

Originally Posted by Night_Raven

Kees, keep believing what you want. I would try to explain further but it would be pointless. The simple fact that you use "x32" (incorrect) instead of "x86" (correct) goes to show how wrong you are and how little aware you are of how things work.

x86 is the architecture, it is used to seperate the first 16 bits cpu's (8086) from earlier 8 bits CPU (8008 ). Later on you had 80286 and from 80386 it was a full 32 bits instruction set setup. Originally the 64 bits were called x86-64 to seperate them from the 32 bits (x86-32) versions of the same architecture family. This was shortened to x64. I also took the liberty to shorten x86-32 to x32. Since we were talking about the OS and not the CPU.

So try explain your awareness and knowledge on how things work

[tomazyk]

Originally Posted by Brummelchen

also - as long author dont fix main issues with global rules and stting apps to groups with those rules (they werent used) its useless to install this useless app.

I don't have any "issues" with rules. When app rule is added to group it inherits group's global rules. Add an app to group before you start modifying it's global rules. Simple as that.

And don't blame author if you don't know how to use an application...

[RADEON0101]

I am curious...

What mode did you initially run in, and what do you run in now?

Learning Mode, Normal, etc.?

[tomazyk]

First in normal mode, now in silent mode.

[RADEON0101]

Originally Posted by tomazyk

First in normal mode, now in silent mode.

Thanks, am in the process of testing this one out.