BugBopper Challenges the Competition

OK, and thanks!

I'm on the case.

 

What is the point of being the smallest if you can find a better product ? I don't know about you but 500k VS lets say 20 megs makes no diff today in World of 500+ Gig drives even in Laptops. Hell my Oldest laptop still has a 160gig HD.

I really have no idea why or how this helps your product or even makes it a better product. The damn AV could take 200 Megs on my drive as LONG as it don't slow down the computer. Now if this was 1999 then Yes I would understand, But now adays it's seems like grasping at straws.

How about we do a comparison of Lowest impact on the System and over all CPU, Memory and other resource usage, then you might have a real challenge. Basically what I'm getting at is your trying to have people judge a book by its cover instead of whats really under the hood.

 

The fact that if you don't detect it the first time it is scanned, the malware will be running and already infecting the user.

What's the point of this type of protection if every malware you entounter you are going to allow the user to execute it unless s/he scans it twice?

 

Not always you are going to need scan twice (if you scann and nothing is uploaded), also since the results a usually ready in less than 1 hour, and the scann times are less than 5 min after the first one I dont see a big problem.

A full scan with any AV can take at least 2 hours (restart the pc and maybe re-scan the pc), well, in 1 hour you can make 2, 3 or 4 scans with BB and fix the problem faster than with any AV.

 

I totally agree !

Like many here I prefer to keep away from the ridiculously bloated applications, but much more than that I want an application that performs at a consistently high level and doesn't create a whole new set of problems.

To market any software application claiming it's small footprint is an inherent advantage is an idiotic approach unless that product also has excellent and bug-free performance comparable to it's competition.

So give us what we're looking for and you will become a player.
Until then, the small size of your product simply means there's less to uninstall.

 

Understand that I'm an old guy, from the days when small was beautiful when it came to code. I knew one guy who created a mailing list program in 56 bytes in APL, and got an A in the course. But that was when a 5 Mb drive might sell for $5,000. Today, terabytes are nearly free, so of course small is beautiful only to coders from the old school.

I completely agree that other measures of greatness are more important. I think the perfect anti-malware scanner would run like the wind, find every single malware -- no matter how hidden or stealth or new, never ever false alarm, etc. etc. We are agreed on that. There does not seem to be any perfection in any of our products.

The real hard part in any product testing is finding testing methods that are perceived as unbiased, of product features widely believed to be important, that are easy to implement, that are extensible to other products as they come along. And of course, a good method used by an organization that doesn't have a user's credibility produces a non-credible result -- unless it fits with your expectations. We have so many testers simply because we don't have tests and testers that meet these criteria. For sure, there is no test of our own product that I could do that would be widely believed -- hence my dare to others to do their own tests.

There is a well-known product that scored 100% in Virus Bulletin tests and NCSA tests of "in the wild". I created a 2 byte file in notepad, and named it "SatanBug", and this product would find the SatanBug virus in the file. If the file was renamed, it would not find any problem. A curious fact, but products must pass tests to survive. I can't blame that vendor for wanting to survive, but I had lots of customers who had expensive site licenses for their product -- and had SatanBug -- and while they thought the virus kept "coming back", I finally figured out that it was only being partially detected.

My goal in the challenge was to try to get people to test BugBopper, or include it in their ongoing tests. If we aren't as good as other scanners in ANY way, we want to know, and we want to correct it.

 

When new malware reaches users, only one user somewhere in the world needs to upload the suspect. Once we've analyzed it, we never need to see another copy of that file. In our early days, this might be tough on users with big drives and slow bandwidth, but if we can live through these times, the situation will improve. As the number of BugBopper users increases, the number of files that we will need to look at from each new machine will decrease.

 

MalAware is a smaller scanner.

 

You are right! I had not heard of it before, but MalAware is smaller. Fortunately, Fajo has talked us all out of caring about size

You win a free one-year license to BugBopper. Please drop an email to Jim at Jim@BugBopper.com and he'll set you up with a license.

For all: I must declare the size competition over. Malexous has won it.