NoVirusThanks

I read this article here:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virus-malware-remover-fast-alternative-malwarebytes/

Is NoVirusThanks a legitimate MBAM alternative or an aspiring wanna-be. We already have SAS which is also a great MBAM alternative. What makes NVT a possibility with 2 great players in the field to choose from?

 

The two comments on the bottom of the page aren't very positive.
I wouldn't pass up SAS or MB for this new program.

 

I'll test NVT on some infected pc's before I pass judgment.

 

Will you post the results here and let us know?

 

It needs dot net 3.5. NO thanks.

 

Err, and why is that?

 

Here's one issue (if this kind of thing bothers you):

 

Oh cmon, no one can hate .NET just because Microsoft made a mistake of force installing a firefox ClickOnce AddOn, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If anything, you'd blame Microsoft for it, not .NET... There are many good programs that use .NET, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

I agree...

 

What is ridiculous to you may not be ridiculous to others.
It didn't particularly bother me. I used the hack from the link to get it off Firefox, and continued to use it.
But it did bother a whole lot of other people that there was no uninstall, etc.
(Bellgamin may have other reasons for what he posted).
Relax. We're friends here.

 

Yeah I'm sure it did bother a whole lot of others, but I highly doubt they all went around hating .NET for it, they'd be hating Microsoft for it.

 

This has nothing to do with dotnet v3.5. It has everything to do with its detection rate in comparison to the other huge players in the field, notably MBAM and SAS.

 

I just did a scan - it took half and hour, which is a lot slower than doing q quick scan in MBAM. The posted link talks about full scans being slow in MBAM. I can't comment on this as I have never ever run a full scan - not even a heavily infected machine. I do guess that they wold be a lot slower than with NoVirusThanks.

The scan found nothing on computer, which was the expected result, even though I use nothing at all to protect my computer from attacks.
I will have to try it on some infected machines to compare it with MBAM for detection abilities.

 

Please let us know how its detection rate is.

 

I did a quick scan with this the other day at default settings. Took 15 minutes. Probably similar to a MBAM quick scan on my computer.

 

I thing I noticed is that. It's updates are very fast comp[ared to MBAm. Either they don't download the entire Database like MBAM or SAS, I mean by increment. Or they have a very small or very compact database. Also updates are not too often as MBAM.

 

The installer includes the latest definitions and the installer is only 1.2MB.