Malwarebytes 1.65 Released

[Mops21]

Hi

Malwarebytes 1.65 Released

http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...0&#entry595555

[Cimmerian]

Got it...thanks!

[jmonge]

thank you

[Page42]

Thanks for the heads up, Mops21!

I hope they are right about this...

Realtime protection now starts much faster on Windows Vista and Windows 7

And I hope they look at the same thing for XP.

[The Hammer]

Downloaded free version.

[Syobon]

Any improvements in the real time ? Can I enable it without mbam sucking my machine resources right in the jugular?

[twl845]

Originally Posted by Mops21

Hi

Malwarebytes 1.65 Released

http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...0&#entry595555

Thanks for the tip!

[hayc59]

Thank You!!

[Securon]

Good Evening ! Thanks for the Heads Up. Sincerely...Securon

[LoneWolf]

Malwarebytes keeps getting better n better, thanks for the info on the update.

[zip]

I wish for a 64bit version of Malwarebytes.

[Barthez]

I think the most noticeable change this version brings to Vista/7 users is:

Eliminated performance issues caused by database updates and Ignore List manipulation on Windows Vista and Windows 7

Until now MBAM PRO IP protection database refresh on those systems was performed by one of Windows service hosts and results in high CPU usage. If they really were able to eliminate this problem it would mean a big step forward IMO.

[Techwiz]

Update seems to have resolved the lag on both of my computers (Vista & Seven 64-bit). Awesome

[ComputerSaysNo]

Got it and it's working good here.

[Legendkiller]

wonderful as usual. MB has become a benchmark to even test AV's....i.e if they have left anything behind.

I run the scan once a week to see if the big boys have missed something...

[PJC]

Just testing it.
Thanks!

[itman]

Well, Pro ver. still sucking up 46MB of memory on my WIN 7 SP1 x64 installation. I don't call that an improvement.

[m0use0ver]

Originally Posted by itman

Well, Pro ver. still sucking up 46MB of memory on my WIN 7 SP1 x64 installation. I don't call that an improvement.

Would you rather they hide their true resource usage like a lot of applications do..would it actually speed up your machine if that figure was *lower* or did it slow your machine down when it was *higher* ?

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...=2#post1599831

Link QFT

[cruelsister]

For me, mbamservice is using 103,428K. On the other hand Firefox is taking up 227,500K (18a1). But as neither one is utilizing my CPU to any discernible extent, qui cogitat?

[kjdemuth]

Mine has been running around 38K but haven't noticed any system lag or excessive CPU usage.

[The Seeker]

Originally Posted by itman

Well, Pro ver. still sucking up 46MB of memory on my WIN 7 SP1 x64 installation. I don't call that an improvement.

How much RAM do you have to worry about 46MB being used?

[itman]

How much RAM do you have to worry about 46MB being used?

I have 8GB but that is not this issue. Well designed security software dynamically increases and decreases memory as needed.

I guess WIN 7 users shouldn't complain though. On XP, MBAM routinely uses over 100MB.

Best way to descript MBAM Pro is the "sledge hammer" approach.

[The Seeker]

Originally Posted by itman

I have 8GB but that is not this issue.

I fail to see why you're concerned about a security program using just under 0.6% of your RAM.