The Problems DCS Software Has

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by worldcitizen, Sep 5, 2005.

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

    worldcitizen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Posts:
    530
    I started this thread here because I didn't know where else to put it as it concerns all DCS software and I wish users as well as DCS to read it if they have time, so moderators please by all means move it if you feel it is more appropriate elsewhere.

    I called it by this name because it's the best I could think of at the moment but if the moderators can think of a more appropriate name then please change it.

    First let me begin by saying that I praise DCS as probably one of the best security software companies out there and that I want to see them progress because they are just so good at what they do.

    Having said that I think that DCS has some real very serious concerns which have caused them a lot of problems and hope that this thread may assist them or that we can come up with some ideas.

    DCS are revolutionary in that their software is always years ahead of it's time.
    They bring out programs which are so advanced that others marvel at their aptitude and they get accolades and praises for it for a while and then the crises occurs. What crises?

    It's not by mere chance that lately a lot of AV's have improved their game and trojan detection as well as a surge in pro-active applications appearing out of nowhere seeking to emulate such programs as Process Guard, WormGuard and Port Explorer with TDS 3 having been killed by competition that TDS 3 itself created.

    The entire security world has been affected by DCS programs if you take a close look at what they are bringing out. They are all copycats seeking to cash in on the inventiveness and brilliance of DCS and DCS is losing business to others who really wouldn't have a clue if DCS had not set the standard in the first place - agreed??

    DCS's problem is that no sooner do they reveal to the world an innovative and revolutionary new security program than profiteers step in and start emulating the program and making it a bit more user friendly taking away a very substantial amount of DCS's investment and business.

    I personally think that user friendliness and the GUI are the main reason DCS suffers this fate because other companies try harder to cater to the mass market with better eye candy and a bit more user friendliness and win out even though their programs are not half or a quarter as good as DCS's but people who buy these other programs don't know that 'it all started with DCS' and that DCS have the very best and usually go by the GUI and a few cool options etc

    Because I really, truly wish DCS well and don't wish to see others steal their ideas and continually take their business away from them by wrapping them in eye candy, I propose to DCS to not allow this to continually happen and try and improve their icons, GUI and user friendliness so that injustices do not continue to occur as in the case of TDS where a program was killed by copycats.

    I think that a lot of DCS programs would outsell all competition if they took these facts into account. Sure, nobody wants bloat but DCS shouldn't have to fore-go a lot of business just because of a lack of a new coat of paint and some extra user friendliness.

    I have seen some of the very worst programs available get 5 stars etc just because they looked good and that can be a tragedy for a small but trend setting company like DCS when just a bit of a cool look and feel would make a huge difference in their market share. It may not be important for the security buff but to keep a company afloat they need regular good sales and presentation is all important in today's consumer world.

    So, although we know DCS don't want to make bloatware they do need much better icons and presentation to sell their product because eye candy does make an impression and unfortunately in todays world impressions mean a hell of a lot.

    I'm not an artist but maybe just starting this thread will spark some interest in this subject, enough to help DCS make their products more marketable so that the best security software company can grow and thrive instead of battle and struggle all the time losing sales not to better security software but to better marketing.

    Regards to All

    Dave
     
  2. gottadoit

    gottadoit Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    601
    Location:
    Australia
    Better UI's by design

    Dave,
    Here is an interesting article on designing a GUI so that the user has a better experience. There is lots of information like this out there if you go and have a look. A place to start (other than the homepage...) http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html

    If nothing else, this may give people that read it some more concrete ideas and better ways of expressing requests for GUI enhancements

    There is also the "circular" style of GUI with no clicking, I'm sure I saw this link posted here (as well as other places) as while back
    http://dontclick.it/

    Creating good user interfaces is no accident and the difference between an average GUI interface and a good one often takes a non-trivial time investment and a designer that understands how people will use the software (or using trial groups to interact with a number of UI designs for usability testing).

    Regards
     
  3. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    Re: Better UI's by design

    I have to agree (with your whole post). I think putting a little time into making either a user friendly UI, or at least a more user-friendly version of the program, could go a long ways. There have been many people that I would have loved to set up with DCS products, but couldn't because they wouldn't be able to use the program effectively. I'm just one person, but I doubt I'm alone on this. Several hundred dollars lost on the people I would have liked to set up multiplied by who knows how many other people means many thousands of dollars. DCS does have more time on their hands now, though, so who knows what the future will hold for DCS products :)

    That's a great article, thanks! My father was needing something like this for future products (totally unreleated to anything on this forum)
     
  4. gottadoit

    gottadoit Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    601
    Location:
    Australia
  5. nicM

    nicM nico-nico

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Posts:
    631
    Location:
    France
    Worldcitizen, I fully agree with you, except maybe about the "user-friendly" issue. I mean, softs like PG are for "advanced users" anyway, people who hardly deal with a single antivirus are not concerned by this kind of software - I think :rolleyes: . ie, some present it as "Suitable for experienced users only" ( http://www.techsupportalert.com/intrusion-detection-p2.htm ), like every other softs of this kind.

    So the way such a program works does involve a minimum of knowledge, even if that point doesn't exclude anybody: thoses who WANT to use it CAN do it, that's just a matter of will, indeed, learning is fast.

    But about the GUI, I fully agree: I'm sure this point is discouraging some people to try PG, and thus that's a big effect for very few... :( . You just have to look at, let's say Prevx Gui, very smart yet basic: who can deny that it's more "incentive" o_O .

    so, yes, I think too that ONLY few cosmetic improvements could change a lot , and might not be the hard point of the soft building - even if, yes, some other people just don't care about it, but ( tell if I'm wrong :p ) these people are precisely thoses who WILL run the prog whatever it may look like, anyway, so... :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2005
  6. tlu

    tlu Guest

    C'mon guys - what's so difficult about the PG GUI? I think beginners have completely other difficulties: The manual could be improved; the learning mode could be enhanced; during the installation of new software the user should be asked if a driver/service is allowed to be installed; a database should somehow support the user's decision-making in which cases global hooks etc. are acceptable; better support for limited accounts ...

    Not for me - Prevx slowed down my PC considerably (although I'm not sure if that was only due to the GUI). And changes in the settings are conducted much faster in the PG GUI. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against nice colors and new icons. But the GUI is only a minor problem IMHO. The above mentioned issues are much more important and would make a great software even better.
     
  7. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I agree with tlu that there is nothing wrong with the GUI. It is much better than the new GUI for KIS 2006 which includes a process guard. The GUI there is tiny and I can't read the alerts without bending forward and getting my nose against the monitor plus the alerts are in the bottom right corner which I dislike.

    I think the help manual needs improvement, learning mode needs to be better as it doesn't seem to learn very well. Plus, I hate when an application just goes ahead and starts while I am reading the alert and trying to decide what to do. Global hooks particularly has me puzzled and not understanding that very well has caused me considerable problems. There is no mention, for instance, in the help manual about how Process Guard affects something like VMWare. I had Process Guard in learning mode but it still blocked VMWare from creating a low level hook for my mouse and another for the keyboard. I spent days trying to figure out what was wrong with my mouse when I would try to boot my guest pc. I thought PG was learning and would allow or at least ask me but instead it was SILENTLY blocking VMware in many ways. Learning mode might as well have not been turned on for all the good it did. :( I only accidently discovered that tonight and finally was able to boot my virtual pc. These are the sorts of things that need to be addressed. Not the GUI. It is VERY NICE. I don't think it could be improved on.
     
  8. beetlejuice69

    beetlejuice69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    780
    Well first PG has to be installed on a completely fresh computer. In that I mean that it`s virus free and all the rest. Once you know that you then install PG and you put it in learning mode with the global options unchecked and run all your main programs and then after a couple of reboots down the road you can then check the global options and take it out of learning mode. I`m hoping that`s right cuz that`s what I did and never had any problems. :)
     
  9. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I did all of that. I had the free version for a long time. It had already learned but when I got the full version, I put it in learning mode again (just I would for installing a new application). I already had VMWare. I assumed, and rightly so, I believe, that by putting the full version into learning mode that would be all that was needed. I found that, instead, it silently blocked a bunch of things and doesn't learn well. The free version works much better, because it is simpler and it does learn. With VMWare, what threw me was that it ignored Process Guard and started while I was looking at popups from Process Guard. I allowed all the popups but evidently Process Guard had already blocked some essential part of VMWare while allowing the application itself to start before I gave permission. Why I needed to give permission I don't know because it was already allowed in the free version. The permission was not for the global hooks which I didn't know VMWare used. It was a basic permission that PG had already learned I thought. VMWare is not started from Start/programs. It runs all the time and starts on boot and has a bunch of processes in Task Manager. PG doesn't not handle something like well at all. And why? Most likely because PG isn't being further developed. It's a dead dodo from what I have heard. Not a dodo yet...but will be in the not too very distant future. That's sad but PG does need to be more user friendly so that the market for it will be wider. There could be a regular version and a Pro version.

    I certainly didn't enjoy the three days I tried to figure out what was wrong with VMWare. There was nothing wrong with it. But I scoured the Internet, posted at a bunch of forums and the NG for VMWare. I couldn't get registered to get in the official forums and I tried and tried. Then I got so irritated with PG because it was NOT learning anything that I uninstalled it. I also uninstalled VMWare and reinstalled that and my mouse worked and the keyboard worked! I thought it was because I uninstalled and reinstalled VMWare but two days later when I decided to try PG again and it installed it, I couldn't boot my guest PC again(actually I could boot it what I couldn't do was get past the welcome screen because the mouse and keyboard would not work within the virtual window). Then by accident, I saw the problem was, to my amazement, PG silently blocking VMWare's low level global hooks for the mouse and keyboard. What really bothers me is that PG did not pop up anything to let me know it was taking this drastic action with learning mode on no less. Makes me leery of using it and I think it is excellent protection...but not worth it if it doesn't work right and does stuff silently when it should be asking/notifying.
     
  10. SpikeyB

    SpikeyB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    478
    When PG is in learning mode, it still blocks the things ticked under Global protection options. To get it to learn properly you need to untick all of the Global protection options while it is in Learning mode.

    In the help file it says that when PG is installed it starts in Learning mode so it can learn the startup applications. After this, you then tick the Global protection options you want.
     
  11. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    It was in learning mode for several days and I did not have global hooks checked. PG already knew to allow VMWare from the free version. But I kept it in learning mode anyhow for a couple of days. It did not learn anything about VMWare global hooks and I was rebooting a lot at that time.

    I agree whole heartedly though that very few persons are going to be willing to reboot and load every program they use for PG to learn. Most users only reboot if there is MS hot fix that requires it. XP doesn't need rebooting and it is a royal pain in the ass to have to do that. I try not to reboot unless absolutely necessary. I don't want to have to restart my guest machine. I never turn off my computer and one reason to use XP is that you very seldom need to reboot. PG needs a better way of learning because most users will not put up with having to reboot and then start all your applications which would take forever. I just leave it in learning mode for ages. That is what I did with the free version so eventually it learns.

    The way it should work is that you get PG. You continue to use your computer in a normal manner. PG asks on everything ONCE. You tell it "always allow" with applications you use and that is it. It should ask on global hooks. It doesn't. It just blocks for no reason. It should ask on everything one time, just like cookies in Fx do. Fx learns the first time and never asks again. You should not need to put it in learning mode when you get new applications, which I do all the time, because that means it runs in learning mode all the time. It should just ask once for everything as you use your computer normally. That would work far better. It works perfectly for Fx and cookies set to ask each time because actually that means ask once and remember the instruction.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.