Malwarebytes 3.0 Beta

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by puff-m-d, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Did a quick install of MB tonight. Newest version seems better than the last time I tried it. Not quite there yet as far as performance goes. Gonna wait a bit more to see how it shakes out.
     
  2. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    4,115
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    I hope I'm wrong but MB 3.x will most likely always use more system resources than MBAM 2.x just because they've merged three modules into one.
     
  3. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    I figured and I did notice the RAM it was using. But on my system at least, which is not high end, it just seems to slow my system down by having it installed more than I like. I am still trying to figure out what to do and have been back to WD only.
     
  4. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    437
    What I find strange is that according to some comments Malwarebytes 3.0 uses more resources than MBAM 2 + MBAE + MBAR.

    Can anyone here actually confirm this?
     
  5. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    4,115
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    Sorry, I've never used that combo as I'm happy with HMP.A.
     
  6. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Same here never used that combination. Ever since I've gone to Windows 10, it's changed everything. :confused:
     
  7. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,101
    @ Trooper
    out of curiosity - what level of RAM do you notice and what level would you consider acceptable?
     
  8. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Mine was well over 200MB. Not sure if that is normal or not, but more than I am used to seeing from other vendors.
     
  9. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    As as side note, anyone here running it along with Windows Defender? Also I assume that default settings with it are ok? (MB that is).

    Thanks.
     
  10. smith2006

    smith2006 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    772
    Thank you, got it! :)
     
  11. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,673
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  12. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,101
    Trooper, yes, mine is about 275. Though I don't think that bothers me much. I have about 10 tabs open in Chrome and each of these is "costing" me from 100 to 200. So for me running Mbam is like adding one more tab in Chrome. My spotify streaming is about the same as is another browser I have open. I guess it depends on how much ram you have available.
    Btw, I am running this parallel to NOD as I still don't want to rely exclusively on mbam. Windows Defender is also running even though I don't care for it.
     
  13. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,846
    As long as the memory usage shown in Task Manager doesn't exceed 74%, then you've still got plenty of free RAM, which is all that matters when it comes to RAM usage.
     
  14. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,439
    Location:
    USA
    I run it along side Windows Defender. The only potential problem is Windows Defender will sometimes have real time protection turned off. If this happens the solution is to go to

    MBAM "settings/application/Windows Action Center"

    and change to "Never register Malwarebytes in the Windows Action Center".

    Then you should be able to turn Windows Defender real time protection back on.
     
  15. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    I was not turned off by the memory usage, but less would have been more in my case. :)

    The thing that made me get rid of it again was due to performance issues, not the memory usage. My PC had a very noticeable slow down in general and web browsing went down the drain. Pretty sure it was a DNS issue. After going back to just running WD performance and web browsing were fine. I hope it gets sorted but time will tell.
     
  16. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Thank you for the heads up. I will keep this in mind when I decide to give it a spin again.
     
  17. rpsgc

    rpsgc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Posts:
    299
    Location:
    Portugal
    How's performance of MBAM 3.0 at this point? Is it still heavy/sluggish?
     
  18. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    907
    I think there isnt a consensus about system impact, some find it light, some find it very heavy. I personally feel that MBAM 3.0 is very heavy/sluggish even on my i5 2500 with plenty of ram, there is a noticeable impact on DNS resolution latency and some apps startup time.
     
  19. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    I concur with everything Nightwalker just stated.
     
  20. Quassar

    Quassar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Posts:
    77
    MBAM scanner detection rate is rly sux they have only good web filter but you need pay version... if you wanna some o/d scanner I more preffer zemana and hitman pro.. about usage currently after half day wokring on pc MBAM display 245k usage ram. So i guess is more light than fresh 3.0 half year ago while it eat me even 400 ram.
    About speed: scan quick scan is rly quick but normal is mid speed not fast but not too slow also.
     
  21. rpsgc

    rpsgc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Posts:
    299
    Location:
    Portugal
    Figures. I guess I'll stay with Zemana for now.

    Thanks.
     
  22. emmjay

    emmjay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Posts:
    1,048
    Location:
    Triassic
    Over the past 2 weeks, I have found that if I right click the tray notification icon and click on 'open malwarebytes' , it will often not open the program. I go back to click it again and the menu is different; 'open malwarebytes' is replaced with 'quit malwarebytes'. Also, 'check for updates' is grayed out. The icon selections are then basically non-responsive. A restart resets it though. I have 3.1.2 installed and all seems to be working just fine except for this one odd problem.
     
  23. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    1,046
    Location:
    USA, MICHIGAN
    Lol not sure what you guys call heavy but I just tried it for the first time on my personal Windows 7 and 8.1 and after a few days now it's like a feather for me I don't even know its there very good program in my opinion. I have it running alongside bitdefender AVP paid with all real-time modules running.
     
  24. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    3,386
    Everyone's setup is different. For me, it slowed my PC down and made web browsing s-l-o-w. Though I will say it is improving, but for me, it is not there yet.

    That said, YMMV.
     
  25. Nightwalker

    Nightwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Posts:
    907
    I like MBAM 3 but in my experience it is heavy (even just MBAM enabled in a clean Windows 10 install).

    Look at the DNS latency while it is active:

    imageproxy.png

    If it is off the latency is just 1 ~ 2 ms, apps startup is very slow too with protection running.

    Kaspersky Internet Security or Emsisoft Anti-Malware for example are much lighter in my machine.

    I will try it again later and measure the impact while launching common software with AppTimer.
     
Loading...