Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.50 Public Beta

There has been some issues with changes they have made but the exclusions that are made easier with 1.50 seems to handle them.

 

You can ignore the actual scan times as the hardware is unrealistic but the speed increase % is typical for most systems. The order is XP 1.46, XP 1.50, 7 1.46, 7 1.50. Each is a fresh scan directly after an install, update and reboot so there is no cache effect.

Code:

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.46
www.malwarebytes.org

Database version: 5093

Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.5512

11/10/2010 9:30:32 PM
mbam-log-2010-11-10 (21-30-32).txt

Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 129217
Time elapsed: 2 minute(s), 1 second(s)

Code:

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.50 Public Beta
www.malwarebytes.org

Database version: 5086

Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.5512

11/10/2010 9:37:33 PM
mbam-log-2010-11-10 (21-37-33).txt

Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 116768
Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 7 second(s)

Code:

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.46
www.malwarebytes.org

Database version: 5093

Windows 6.1.7600
Internet Explorer 8.0.7600.16385

11/10/2010 9:34:52 PM
mbam-log-2010-11-10 (21-34-52).txt

Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 132969
Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 23 second(s)

Code:

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.50 Public Beta
www.malwarebytes.org

Database version: 5093

Windows 6.1.7600
Internet Explorer 8.0.7600.16385

11/10/2010 9:40:20 PM
mbam-log-2010-11-10 (21-40-20).txt

Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 121985
Time elapsed: 33 second(s)

 

I have to comment on this. Personally for me when I state when software feels lighter, it means something different for me. I have tested and looked at the same areas you have and I obtained different results. If you don't buy that it is lighter thats fine but that is your particular configuration while others are showing signs of the program running lighter for them. To me you are assuming things about a person testing just because someone such as myself stated it feels lighter.

 

Great. Then you are not going by feel, but you are actually watching the metrics, process explorer, etc., which is what I was suggesting.

 

Indeed I am.

 

Thanks Bruce. Is this 32bit, or 64bit? Not sure if it matters.

Do you have a similar comparison for the resource usage improvements? Faster scan times are great, but I usually perform them when not at my PC anyway. I am more concerned about the lower resource usage. I did some testing of MBAM about a month ago, and while I was very impressed by how effective it's realtime protection was, I was a little disappointed with its CPU time and Disk IO......thanks

 

That was XP and 7 32 pro, 64 bit testing has had the same % increase. If I find some time I will bench my media center machine, that is 7 pro 64 before and after.

It is very hard to bench the PM other than by feel. We have internal apps that test timing of certain functions and there is a solid gain but those tools are not public for a variety of reasons.

 

I installed on a second computer. This is a more powerful machine. Quad-core, 8gb ram, Win7 64bit. I ran a quick scan with 1.46, then installed 1.50 and ran a quick scan with that. Unfortunately, the install of 1.50 required a reboot, which may slightly impact the numbers. Still, I saw a very nice improvement:

v1.46 137,938 files scanned in 5min 7sec

v1.50 147,033 files scanned in 3min 5sec

So while on my old Athlon X2 4200, 2gb Win7-32bit machine I did not see much difference, I did see a significant improvement on a more current quad-core machine.

 

Why does MBAM try to load a 32 bit driver on a 64 bit system? Shouldn't it determine what OS it's running on and if x64, not try?

 

I am looking into this.

 

all i can say is that mbam feels faster/lighter and it doesnt overheat my pc with the high cpu when scaning so a big for mbampro

 

Installed over 1.46 with no problems. mbamservice.exe actually about 10MB higher with 1.50 Beta. Flash scan was faster. Thus far no problems with Emsisoft Anti-Malware & DefenseWall on XP Pro SP3.

 

Good J. I hope you keep it on your system this time.

 

Are incremental updates implemented now?

 

I believe this is slated for the next application update, we needed to draw the line somewhere when it came to additions to keep a good update cycle.

 

This Release of Malwarebytes and new improvements seems to be very nice indeed. And when having said that, so is Malwarebytes still lacking the most important feature SELF DEFENSE. What does it help if the Rogues still easily can disabel your defence, and that we know they do because of Malwarebytes great dectetion rate.
Best Regards

 

Speed specs for my system
mbam 1.46
Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 147869
Time elapsed: 3 minute(s), 37 second(s)

mbam 1.50
Scan type: Quick scan
Objects scanned: 156793
Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 42 second(s)

 

Might wanna read what Bruce said in the first page of this thread regarding self defense.

 

Hey 1chaoticadult
You're right was a little to fast there, read just the first 3 replays from wilders, didn't have the time for more, because work call
Thanks and best Regards

 

1.50 is like night and day over last version. Very fast and light and right now, my only real time protection. Of course big brother is watching his back for back up scanning.

 

Hey Woodgiant,

No problem just thought I would point it out

 

I gave it a try...
Under W7 Home Premium 32-bit, I didn't experience any problems.
MBAM 1.50 Beta runs fine.

 

Very nice
BTW, there is a more detailed changelog in the installer:

 

Wow, that is pretty neat, November 29th, 2010. Does that mean MBAM will pick up all the zero-days coming in the next 20 days .

 

Thanks for good news

I am currently using it (with exclusion) on my security setup. It is lighter and fast but RAM problems are still there. RAM usage during normal usage is around 22 MB (just like version 1.46). Open GUI and close it. Exit MBAM from tray and mbamservice is still taking around 29 MB. Moreover, disabling IP protection feature (unchecking last two options in Pro version) does not seems to work. Log files still show blocked traffic.