4.0 beta release date?

Well said TH...you beat me to it.

In my humble opinion one of the special things about PrevX is how small the application is in terms of size, etc., which gives follow on benefits we all like.

Now whilst an idea is an idea and should be heard I have to say that why add something like this when in fact there a lots of very good, dedicated PEs around...and most of them freeware to boot.

Anyway, it is not for us to decide. I am sure that the suggestion will be considered and a suitable response given.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you folks. I want it minimal. I would be the first one to take it out of my relatives systems.

But, can someone give a very good explanation showing me, how adding such a feature to Prevx 4, would make it become bloatware?

Also, you seem to have failed to read or see something I previously wrote when I first suggested this, which is:

Based on this, and if Prevx team considers such a feature to be worth adding to Prevx 4, and still keep Prevx 4 what everyone wants it to be, non-bloatware, then why not?

This is what you're failing to explain me. I can't understand how such a feature would make Prevx 4 become bloatware.

Having under consideration that it won't be bloatware, would this be a really bad addition to Prevx 4.0?

 

OK...just my thoughts on an answer. There is a formal definition of 'bloatware' which I won't quote here as one can Google it if interested.

In my mind there are two criteria to be considered in terms of the resulting size increase of adding extra function; (i) how closely does the new feature fit in with the design philosophy of the application, and (ii) how many users will want to use the feature...as putting in something that few users need/will use is pointless.

In terms of (i) only Joe & PrevX can answer that one whilst re. (ii) perhaps you could start a poll thread to see how much 'support' there is for such an addition.

My personal take, detailed in a previous post, was based on the above but basically it comes down to what are the perceived benefits of including this functionality...and at present only you can explain that (in case we have missed something here).

 

I'm familiar with the formal definition of bloatware, which is why I don't see adding this feature will result in Prevx 4 turning into such thing.

How so? Easy. Prevx 3 offers only cloud protection, which means that offline is completely useless. * This made users want more from it, or in other words, to offer offline protection.

Most likely, and this is just a very wild guess, and believing Prevx team does not want to put all the burden of decisions in their userbase shoulders, then it will be some smart behavior blocker, which will monitor processes behaviors and match them with known malicious behaviors.

At least, that's how I'd like it to work like, because I know many people, include my relatives wouldn't be able to handle with complicated stuff.

Within this approach, I do believe that a process explorer would make sense. I'd also like to see the option to send processes to Prevx for analysis, directly from its user interface, by right-clicking a process.

I'm aware that other tools do just that **, but what I believe makes sense if for such feature to be part of Prevx 4, considering what I mentioned above.

If, according to Prevx, it's something that could fit in what the new Prevx 4 is all about, then why not? It would be a great addition. Plus, users wouldn't have to have ABC tools to do XYZ things.

(ii) I don't think starting a poll thread will achieve anything, nor will be a reflection of every Prevx user out there. Most likely, Prevx would have more luck by creating a survey and send their clients an e-mail asking them about it. It would be more realistic of what would be the general consensus. Wilders Security Forums is by no means the reflection of every person's thoughts.

* Considering that offline Prevx 3 is of no use, then this would make it be bloatware. So its ~1MB (I believe that's the size) is 1MB bloatware, when offline that is.

It all depends on one's perspective of how something would fit within a given context.

As you well said, and as I said, it's up to Prevx team to decide what would or not be a great addition to Prevx. Which is why I simply made a suggestion, and demanded nothing.

** Not to send to Prevx for analisys. It's obvious they wouldn't do such. I mean that I'm aware of the existence of other tools that allow me to monitor processes.

 

When you say "Prevx 3 offers only cloud protection, which means that offline is completely useless." you are correct but then again if offline then there is no chance of picking up an online infection. So do not really understand where you are going with that one given that PrevX was designed to supplement other AVs and not be the sole defender of a PC...but there you go.

In terms of the rest, well, once the PX4 beta is out you will be able to put your suggestion to Joe & the Dev Team directly as part of the beta feedback, and then they can advise if they agree or not. Who knows what there plans are for PX4 and beyond and how your suggestion fits in...or not?

Either way, I wish you well with it.

 

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you. I agree that if offline, there's no risk of being infected while online. That's 100% logic and makes 100% sense.

But, perhaps it's just me and I've been wrong all this time, I thought that malware infection vectors weren't resumed to one infection vector - Internet.

So, people don't get infected when opening files offline? Maybe I got it all wrong.

Also, I'll have to disagree with you on Prevx being just a supplement to AVs. This is what I read on Prevx website:

Source: -http://www.prevx.com/freescan.asp

I suspect Prevx simply gave many people what they want - to be assured they're systems are clean by using more than one app.

 

Disagree away...that is your prerogative!

 

Is due to disagreements (I'd like to think healthy disagreements) that humans get somewhere.

Can you imagine someone saying something and everyone following it, without waiting for a second and think about it?

 

Why Prevx was built to be "Compatible" along side another AV. Prevx was built to be its own AV and is powerful enough to do so. The offline protection is against the top threats to your computer so you are protected to a extent even if you are offline. Prevx is always working to make this part better but in all honesty there are VERY VERY few times where you are not connected to some source of the internet now adays.

Hell My laptop is connected pretty much 365 Days a year, 24/7 Between it's mobile Web card, Hotel, Cafes, Mobile Hotspot and Home internet I rarely find my self were I am not connected. And rest assured even if I got infected offline the data can go no ware until I'm back online and by that time Prevx has already detected the threat and removed it.

The last setup I did for a company consisted of 93 Client units and 9 External hookup's. Prevx has proved it self enough on detection, threat removal and low resource impact That the client felt comfortable with it, and is going to be implementing it on its next Renew change out.

 

Isn't the offline mode meant for those users who are still on dial-up? They connect to the 'net then disconnect when done or when computer shuts down. I guess that protecting this kind of user with no connectivity is the goal of the offline mode as they'll be downloading a subset of the centralised database when online. Perhaps PrevxHelp will clarify.

As to adding a Process Explorer, I'm not sure it's necessary in Prevx; the average user isn't necessairily aware of the standard Windows Task Manager, let alone programs like Process Explorer. Shouldn't we be trying to create a product that meets their needs as well as the more technically minded?

For the record, I use WTM.

 

I'm not on dial-up, nor are any of my relatives, and we don't always have out Internet connected turned on. Why should we?

I'm not 24/7 connected to the Internet, nor do I allow my machine to be. So, in all honesty I say that I don't believe Prevx is providing offline protection for people still using dial-up.

Isn't that the same as saying every other antimalware application not relying on the cloud (The Internet; I really hate term cloud.) to offer protection is meant for people still on dial-up?

The average user isn't necessarily aware of what settings Prevx has, even less knowing what they mean. Does it mean Prevx should not have them? I'd say the larger % would only start a scan.

Let's remove every other option from Prevx, because if users aren't aware of them, nor know how to use them, then Prevx in its essense is bloatware; as it is pretty much every other antimalware application, full of settings users do not really know about them nor understand them.

I do know that, educated by me, relatives and friends would be able to monitor processes and see whether or not something belongs there; if unsure submit to Prevx for analysis.

Windows Task Manager is pretty much useless. All of the other tools simply aren't available in native language.

Just as an example, sometime ago I've seen a thread started by user aigle where he had shown Process Explorer couldn't reveal a hidden process, but COMODO Defense+ process explorer could.

I really don't see how much useless for Prevx 4 to have such a feature, and a pretty damn good one, as I'm confident Prevx team is a great one.

 

Then let's see what PrevxHelp has to say on this suggestion.

 

Here's the thread I was talking about https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=283910

 

Look...I am sure that PrevX could introduce a Process Explorer if they want to...but it would be good to be clear about one thing. Are your really looking for a full blown Process Explorer-type addition (with all the bells & whistles...which in themselves many users would probably on balance not use) or a type of process monitor that is focussed on what PrevX does best?

If it is the latter then I think I see where you are coming from, and you may have a point, but if the former...well, no change in view.

Anyway, let's see what is in the beta when it arrives and then make our requests/suggestions to Joe (PrevxHelp), as we have always done, and let him & the Dev Team decide.

 

I believe I already gave a hint on that one.

 

Not sure what you mean? Do you know something that we don't?

 

I'm curious on what you mean also. Because to my knowledge 4.0 does not come with any sort of program or edition and my info is normally pretty accurate.

 

You were asking him whether he means adding a full-blown Process Explorer type of application or a process monitor focusing on what Prevx does best. He replied that he had already hinted on it meaning he believes he has made it clear what type of process addition he would like to see in Prevx 4.

 

Exactly. I actually pointed out a thread showing a more simple process explorer revealing a hidden process, while one other not so simple failed to do so.

I'm not suggesting a process explorer full of features, rather one of easy use, but that's effective revealing what does not want to be revealed.

I hope this makes sense. lol

-edit-

Adding a full-blown process explorer, say something similar to Process Explorer, would defeat the purpose of my suggestion, which is to make relatives and friends to use something simply simple and that they can understand. Something that allows them, precisely, as I mentioned, to see what isn't suppose to be there.

 

Well, he did not...as far as I was concerned...otherwise I would not have asked the question...would I?

A simple answer like...'full PE' or 'process monitoring function' would have been clearer...IMHO.

 

Considering you quoted the link to the thread I mentioned, I thought you made your question based on that, which is why I said I have given a hint.

COMODO process explorer is simple, yet very effective. That's how I'd like to see the possible process explorer feature in Prevx 4. Something in that line. Simple, but obviously effective, as I'm sure Prevx team can do it.

 

I just don't see this as a possibility at least not in 4.0 as they have there feature set and patents in place. Also there is just so many other programs out there that would do this and only a small % of the user base would use it to begin with, as it would be considered more of a advance feature more then anything. It would be hard for Prevx to divert dev dollars to something that really would not give them much in return or set them apart in anyway.

 

Personally I still think that even the CIS PE you refer to, whilst relatively simple, is too much and IMHO taking PrevX away from what I believe it is designed to be.

I am with Fajo on this one. But as you have said...this is a disagreement. One that I believe, in the final analysis, is relatively pointless in the greater scheme of things given the we cannot directly affect what PrevX decide to include. All we can do is represent wishes/desires to Joe (PrevxHelp) & the Dev Team and let them decide what to include or not. They are in the end, the final arbiters.

Anyway, hopefully we will not have too long to wait before we know.

 

You would be amazed over the years how many things Joe has changed based on community feedback they are one of the VERY VERY few company's that have that kind of connection with there user base. Joe takes all feedback into real consternation and I can guarantee he will maul over this idea also.

Even if I don't agree with it, it does deserve it's time to be looked at.

 

Hi Fajo

I would not be amazed as I have been following & using PrevX for a long time now and have myself submitted numerous suggestions & ideas to Joe over the years. Just one of a very large number who have done, and no doubt will continue to do so.

Yes, PrevX does listen carefully to what it's user base suggests, hence why I also posted that "All we can do is represent wishes/desires to Joe (PrevxHelp) & the Dev Team and let them decide what to include or not...".

Que sera sera...as they say!