speed up!!

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by honorable1nut, Apr 28, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Is there a way to speed up the loading/verifying of the databse files? That crap is so slow I'm about to remove Spywareblaster just so I don't have to set and suffer throught that again.
     
  2. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Hi there! Sorry you seem to be upset; but if that's running slow it's your PC. Mine takes about 2-3 seconds to load/verify.
     
  3. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,997
    Hi,

    At what particular point does this appear to happen - while the Mozilla/Firefox protection is being loaded/verified? If yes, do you happen to have Netscape installed?

    Also, about how long does it take, what version of Windows are you running, and about how fast is your processor?

    Thanks,

    -Javacool
     
  4. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    I have 3 machines with XP Professional and 1 with XP Home, NTFS file system, which I believe is the culprit. The cpu ranges from 333mhz to 2.0ghz. Also have one real old 486DX with 98SE on it. Believe it or not, the 486DX and the 333mhz loads the fastest. It happens when loading and updating database. Wouldn't dream of putting Mozilla, Netscape or Firefox on here. Opera for me in that department. Generally takes 20-30 seconds as a guesstimate.
     
  5. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    I just spent 5+ minutes updating my XP Pro 600mhz machine. Granted, not the fastest box in the world, but to take that long is absolutely rediculous. I am removing this junk and will just leave it up to Adaware and Spybot to remove whatever might get downloaded. This is absurd!!

    In fact, first thing tomorrow, I am going to remove it from my other 4 machines. The only thing I've ever seen it block is Target.net, Mediaplex, and some advertising thing, that I have since discovered that if I add those places to my restricted zone, they don't get the chance to add their cookies anyway. So, whatever Adaware finds from now on as far as tracking cookies, I will just add them to my restricted site. Use to like the old version of Spywareblaster, but like most programs, once they get popular and updated to a new and improved version, they turn to ****!!

    And, as a by the way, ALL my machines are in tip top running condition. NOTHING takes as long or runs as slow as Spywareblaster.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
  6. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,997
    Hi,

    I have not heard of SpywareBlaster ever taking that long, especially on a machine of that speed. :doubt:

    If possible, I'd love if you could help me troubleshoot the issue. At what point does it appear to take the longest when loading? While loading or verifying what protection part? (Also, even though you don't have Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape, is the Mozilla/Firefox protection enabled? Or does it say it can't find any Mozilla/Firefox profiles on the problem machine?)

    Thanks,

    -Javacool
     
  7. fredbisard

    fredbisard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5

    Know exactly how you feel sir honorable1nut. Program takes just about as long on my sytem too. Has to be something can be done.
     
  8. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Cripe! It just took another full minute just to get it to load to see what part was the slowest. All 3 areas suck, but the restricted site protection is the slowest. The Mozilla/Firefox is none to fast either though. This happens when loading AND verifying. When there is an update and it has to load everything all over again really sucks.
     
  9. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    *scratch scratch*

    Well, let me be the first to say sorry about my last post - I rather assumed it hadda be the machine because it's a rare problem. I shouldn't have done that. However, and please don't take this the wrong way - using words like "crap" and "sucks" just doesn't help to put those who might help in the best mood to do so. If I could help with this I would nonetheless but just please somply accept this as a suggestion from me to you. I do hope Java can solve this asap - and believe me, if anyone can, he can ;)
     
  10. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Sorry about the "crap" and the "suck" and any other slang terms I might've used. Will tone it down. It is very frustrating to just sit and here and wait though, especially when I KNOW it doesn't take that long on most other peoples machines. I've installed Spywareblaster on my neighbors machine and 2 of my brothers, that are all slower mhz/ghz wise than 2 of mine and theirs just flys through the whole operation. Out of those 3 "other" machines, none of them are W2k or XP. That's why I thought it was because of the security of the NTFS file system. Once again, sorry.
     
  11. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    I can certainly understand the frustration, and glad to see another registered member btw :D

    Probably not necessarily a good guess on my part but I wonder if something's slowing fown youe Pcs from reading the registry in general.
     
  12. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    I couldn't even begin to guess what that might be? Nothing else seems to be going that slow. Adaware, Spybot S&D, Kaspersky AV, Easycleaner all seem to load, update, and run like normal.
     
  13. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA

    Can you see about that? Oughta give Java a better idea of what else to check.
     
  14. eaw

    eaw Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    6
    Hi,

    I also have a slowness problem with Spyware Blaster. Perhaps my experience can add more details. My PC is a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 512K RAM and 80 GB HD running on Windows XP Home. Some other software loaded are Netscape 7.1, Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, SpywareGuard, Norton Anti-Virus 2003, and Norton Internet Security 2002. Here are the measurements:

    - 4.5 minutes to launch Spyware Blaster (see blank dialog box until then)
    - 9 minutes to update database once the text is filled for the dialog box
    - 30 secs to enable IE protection
    - 30 secs to enable Restricted Sites protection
    - 10 minutes to enable Mozilla protection

    As you can see, it is painfully slow. Part of it may have been my fault. Once, while I wanted to update the Spyware Blaster to latest version, I tried to uninstall the old version. I wasn’t thinking right when the old version seemed to freeze but I went ahead to uninstall while it froze. I loaded the new version and noticed it was slow. I did an uninstall again. I suspect that I left some stuff in the registry due to my error, so I went there to delete everything that had Spyware Blaster labeled. The only thing left after that I found was some mention in the Symantec IP Filter Rules registry on Rule Application Object and Rule description which I left in. Even re-installing it after removing the mentions in the registry did not fix the slowness problem.

    As I believe that the product is a very good one, I’m sure that someone will figure out a solution to this.

    EAW
     
  15. steveUK

    steveUK Guest

    mines win2k, 650mhz, 192ram and only takes 8 secs to load (less than adobe photoshop etc).... anyway who cares if it takes a while, you only load it to check for updates and it provides great protection from there on. chill out....
     
  16. steveUK

    steveUK Guest

  17. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,875
    Location:
    New England
    It's such an extreme amount of slowdown that I doubt it could be just registry hive fragmentation. It sounds like some kind of conflict - something external to SB blocking the elements that it checks will initializing, and changes when updating. Very odd indeed.

    On my Celeron 1.2GHz, running XP Home using NTFS it opens in 5 seconds (from icon click to full status have been calculated and displayed), which is very much the way it normally works, but then I don't have Mozilla/Firefox installed either. Javacool seemed to be implying it might be related, if I read into the question he asked about those being present.
     
  18. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Forgot that one. Says it can't find any Firefox/Mozilla profiles on any of the machines.

    As to the one poster who said I only need it to load once for checking for updates, that might not be so bad if I only had 1 machine this was happening on. But it happens on ALL 5 to some degree.
     
  19. eaw

    eaw Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    6
    Hi,

    Subsequent to my May 1 post, I tried the defrag but it didn't improve the speed. Nice try though. Is there a way I can find the conflict that slows down my machine?

    Thanks,
    EAW
     
  20. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Was just checking the thread to see if there had been any updates. :(
     
  21. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Getting to the point of dreading having to do an update to Spywareblaster. Just took 9 minutes to install the 21 updated files from today. Can't believe there aren't more people with this problem as, like I said, it is basically this slow on all 5 of my machines. :oops:
     
  22. amoeba

    amoeba Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Posts:
    22
    Location:
    Illinois,USA
    Just a thought--Do you have SpywareGuard installed?
    Whenever I update SpywareBlaster,"Download Protection" in SpywareGuard always has to be re-enabled.This makes me think that Dload Protection is disabled as a part of the update process for SpywareBlaster. Mabe your Dload Protection in SG is still running,perhaps slowing the update to SB.

    Just brainstorming here.
    Could be WAY offbase!
    Rich
     
  23. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Sorry. For me anyway. No, don't have Spywareguard. Thanks for taking a crack at it though.
     
  24. Clint

    Clint Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Posts:
    17
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA USA
    Hi all, I don't see any recent updates to this thread. Has the slow down been fixed? I too am having the exact same issue as others mentioned here. I've uninstalled SWB, reinstalled it, and that didn't help. There are no errors at all and it works fine, it just takes minutes to load the databases and to enable protection! The program will open, then the green progress indicator(s) at the bottom will go all the way to the end, then they just stop at 100% and nothing happens nor is anything clickable for minutes. The strange thing, is on my PC I don't get this slowdown. But this is on a customer's new computer of which they haven't even picked up yet that's having the slowdown. It uses the same AV software as mine, as well as the same firewall, XP Pro, updates, etc, etc. It's an AMD 3200+ Barton and an AN7 mobo.
    Thanks,
    -Clint
     
  25. honorable1nut

    honorable1nut Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    19
    Issue hasn't been resolved totally yet, but isn't as bad since updating all systems to SP2. Now, on one machine in particular, it only takes 5-6 minutes to update instead of 9+!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.