I use the free version, so obviously I can only do only on demand scans. I have no use for the realtime protection of the paid version, as feel it would have an impact on my system (probably only very slight). If I was not using any antivirus then maybe I would consider using the realtime protection. Also, I have no use for IP blocking features as I never want to block access to anything at all on the internet. Internet advertising really does not bother me and I don't want any webistes I visit blocked, or it would block some of my downloads of potentially unwanted programs. However I really like the speed of the flash scans in the registered version, and may end up buying it to for this, and more importantly support the developers as I have always found it to be an outstanding piece of software. I always install it when I'm cleaning an infected machine.
My second post in this thread to say I only rcently upgraded to MBAM Pro and would not want to go back to the freeware version. The malicious website blocking almost totally eliminates re-directs and that alone makes Pro worth the money. The flash scan feature along with real-time updating are also super additions. I feel and hope MBAR will be soon incorporated into the Pro version as a fourth scanning option. MBAM- free or Pro- is one of those relatively rare applications that just gets better and better and seems to never have a bad version. Major Kudos and thanks to the developers.
I have a licence for MBAM - On Windows 8 Pro I use MBAM fulltime alongside Win Defender - On Windows 7 - used as on demand only.
I don't any more. Hitman Pro is the only scanner I currently bother with; otherwise I mostly just use Sysinternals tools.
I always hear that MBAM concentrates on malware other programs usually miss. Is there some stats or test results that shows how MBAM does against prevalent and older malware?
Until recently I had a slow AM2+ dualcore Athlon. In that time I tested the Malwarebytes Pro version (realtime scanner enabled - trial version) in addition to WSA ... and well .. I had noticed a small but annoying drag then. - So I am back to using Malwarebytes only on demand even if I have a faster CPU now. I don't think it's necessary for ME (!) to have 2 realtime scanners and I enjoy the speed of the new system. The most important thing for me is how much an av solution is (not!) slowing things down. Not detection, not protection, not repair. That's because I never get malware infection anyways. - So I am happy with WSA only for realtime protection. In addition to that I use not only MBAM on demand but also MBAR, which I like because it found a while ago something on another - strange acting - computer (not mine) while Avira didn't! Regarding the pro version of MBAM I liked the flash scan (1 minute duration), but that isn't enough incentive for me to buy a license. - If they should include MBAR into MBAM and test results are good I might think about that again.
Now I'm using it on demand. It's a little blot as realtime. But powerful scanner I tell you. It found two trojans and cleaned them swiftly.
On demand. I have Avast and SAS realtime. I do have the Pro version of MBAM and it updates every two hours so I can quickly do a context menu scan with the latest database of any suspect files downloaded etc.
I'm tempted to change my settings to 5 minute real time. I may also add a quick, silent, daily scan to the schedule and do a full manual scan every week or two... How many times would you say you notice MBAM update in an hour? Once, twice or several?
Because you asked, I looked back over my logs for the last three days. Keeping in mind that I do not leave my computers turned on 24 hours per day, the quick answer to your question is that MBAM (over the course of the three days I examined) did update on average of once every two hours. But as you might have guessed there is indeed more to it than that. Over that span of three days, I logged 18 hrs, 21 hours and 15 hours of uptime, and a total of 28 updates occurred during that time. A truer test would have been for me to leave my machines turned on for 24 hours every day. A quick glance shows me that the updates happen every one, two or three hours, but then here's the part that is meaningful to me... on 1/18/13, there were three updates that happened within 15 minutes, 25 minutes and 5 minutes of the proceeding update. So the 5 minute realtime silent updates' true value is in the fact that the program is checking the MBAM server every 5 minutes to see what might be available. If a user only checks every 2 hours, it's entirely possible to be up to 1 hour and 55 minutes late on an update or updates. An example of this would be an update released at 2:01, where the system checked at 2:00 and then again at 4:00. HTH
I use it in real time and have done for over a year without any problems or slow downs. Currently running it along side EAM 7 with no problems what so ever.
Good. Glad it helped. It would be ideal if someone would do these calculations over the same time period (three days) but without any machine downtime , so that we knew for certain how many updates occurred and what the frequency was. I'll try it, but I might found my habit of daily shutdown hard to break.
