CounterSpy 1.5.77

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by rdsu, Sep 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Hi,

    after tried the new version of CounterSpy, I found that they make some nice improvements on the GUI, the scanner is better with more options, some bugs are fixed, but the resources are very bad!

    The "sunThreatEngine.exe" use 45MB of RAM and the "SunProtectionServer.exe" use about 25% of CPU every 2 seconds... :(
    When I close the CounterSpy, these files still remain on memory...

    These only happen on my system, or also on yours?

    Regards
     
  2. WilliamP

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    I'm still running the 1.0.29 version. Is 1.5.77 a beta ?
     
  3. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
  4. feddup

    feddup Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Posts:
    160
    I opted in to beta test for CS and liked the program in general but the CPU spikes are unacceptable. Also having to go into task manager and kill various sunXXX processes after you exited the program is unacceptable. I like to be able to walk away from the PC and have it hibernate but the CPU spikes kept this from ever happening. Other than the resource issues the program seemed pretty cool. However resources are a rather big issue!
     
  5. Stephanos G.

    Stephanos G. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Posts:
    720
    Location:
    Cyprus
    Thats why i uninstalled my paid CounterSpy, never again.
     
  6. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I agree the resource usage has increased rather dramatically. The previous version ran very light and did the job well. And that sunthreatengine running at 45k..good grief. Yet another program that may wind up in the uninstall bin... :eek: o_O :mad:
     
  7. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    The memory and CPU requirements for this new version are insane. Just see the attaced pic. I have email support regarding this issue. Fingers crossed for a positive response.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2005
  8. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    After all the Beta testing this version got I can't believe they would release it with this kinda resource usage. Something must be wrong here. I expect a quick tweak release update fairly soon. These 2 second ram spikes are crazy. I wish I had the previous install package and could revert back til this gets worked out... :mad:
     
  9. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown

    PM me if you want the exe
     
  10. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    You are PM'd...thanks a bunch
     
  11. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    If you disable protection before closing, this doesn't happen.

    The resource usage is very high, though, I was really hoping 1.5 would be slimmer. Overall it creates less syste drag than before, but I still am keeping it around for manual scans only.
     
  12. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    This kind of programming is unaceptable today!

    If this continue, I will change my AntiSpyware...
     
  13. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I received a message from CounterSpy regarding the memory issue in 1.5. The response is below:
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2005
  14. WilliamP

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    Last night I downloaded 1.5 over 1.0. No problems. This afternoon when I came home I checked Task Man. mem. usage for sunthreatengine was at 49,000. I ran an Ewido scan and now the sunthreatengine Mem. usage is 3,600. I don't think the scan had anything to do with it .
     
  15. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    when u remove a spyware from counterspy do u still have to restart the computer?
     
  16. muf

    muf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Posts:
    926
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I read that they had tweaked the new version and is now more compatible with Windows 98SE/ME. I installed it last night on my Windows ME and here's my report.

    Version 1.0 could not get scan to complete. Version 1.5 worked fine.
    Version 1.0 Active protection not working. Version 1.5 worked fine.
    Version 1.5 slowed my pc but not horrendous.
    Kernel32.dll caused an error and will close message.
    systray caused an error and will close message.
    Tried restart and got BSOD. Powered down and up and had to reboot into safe mode. Uninstalled Counterspy and system rebooted fine.

    Not too promising. But if you lot had problems with it on XP then what hope did i really have using WinME!!!

    muf
     
  17. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I'm only using it for on-demand scan... :(

    I hate this kind of things...
     
  18. WilliamP

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    I have since rebooted and SunThreatEngine is back to 49,524 All the Sun Mem.usage comes to 76,012
     
  19. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I emailed their support folks early today and hope to get some feedback soon. One thing about Sunbelt is that they are usually quick to respond to customer concerns. Enough support requests and they will know something is up... :rolleyes:
     
  20. WilliamP

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    I have E Mailed them with the amounts of Mem. usage.
     
  21. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    Yes, they have a very good support, but since the first beta that I told on their forum that this version use a lot of resources, but they didn't care... :(
     
  22. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Hopefully if enough of their customers express dissatisfaction they will realize that it does matter. I was pretty happy with Counterspy up til this hungry beast release. I really don't want to go on another software shopping trip. I may have to go back to the Adaware & Spybot regime with Spywareblaster lurking in the background. Hoping for the best here... :rolleyes: :D :eek:
     
  23. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,456
    I use the Outpost Pro that now also have AntiSpyware protection, so I will only use CounterSpy for on-demand since they started to be a resource hog...
     
  24. Antarctica

    Antarctica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Posts:
    1,617
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm doing the same thing until they fix this problem. I am not sure I will renew my subscription either. :mad:

    This is ridiculous...
     
  25. JRCATES

    JRCATES Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,203
    Location:
    USA
    Looks like ALL anti-spyware programs running in real-time are memory hogs these days.

    For example, Spyware Doctor is using a comparable amount of RAM that CounterSpy is, and while this "WAS" seemingly corrected by PC Tools (lowered memory and CPU usage) a while back, it now appears that the memory usage has gradually crept back in the 45 MB range (currently on my system). At least with Spyware Doctor they have corrected the CPU spikes where they are unnoticeable and nowhere near as consistently high or frequent as they used to be.

    Hopefully both programs will get this corrected, because other than these issues, they are generally two of the better ones available (along with Spy Sweeper) that offer real-time protection......

    EDIT: of course, I just now shut down Spyware Doctor and restarted the program since positing this, and now it is at 7 MB RAM........go figure!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.