Spybot S&D Getting Slower As Time Goes On?

[kjv1611]

I have no particular instance that I can give all the details of at this time, as I've all but quit using Spybot, unfortunately. I've helped several people with their computers, and one of the programs I had always suggested or installed in the past was Spybot. Well, it seems that for at least 3 computers, that weren't speed demons, yet they weren't clunkers, either, that Spybot would bring them to a screaching halt. Just a year ago, the same program on the same machine would slow them down a little, but not to a halt.

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the same sort of thing out of this program, and whether there is some way to get around this performance issue with it, or whether others had just decided to drop the use of it.

Any thoughts/comments?

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[Glenn9999]

In my experience, the versions after 1.4x and before 1.52 were flaky. One of the major problems I would notice would be a very slow load-up. So perhaps that might be the first question - what version are we talking about? Is this 1.52, the most current?

 

[kjv1611]

I don't recall. I first started noticing it at least a few months ago, though, possibly 6 months.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[sggaunt]

The Spybot scan does take a long time these days because the database has become huge.
But most one time scanners will slow a system when they are running.
Do you mean Teatimer? I tried that for a while, not very good in my opinion.

Steve: N.M.N.F.
Playing the blues isn't about feeling better. It's about making other people feel worse.

 

[2ffat]

I, too, have noticed that Spybot is getting slower and slower. It's about 2 to 3 times slower than the other AS programs I use. For that reason, I only run it once a week and other programs on the other days. I assumed that it was the size of it database, too, but just now when I checked to see which version I was using, I uncovered an "Easter Egg."

In Spybot, if you go click Help and the About menu, you get the standard "About" screen. In the upper left of this screen is an icon next to the Info button. If you press this, you will hear a horse whinny and start the game. I'm not certain what the game is about or how to "win."

Unfortunately, as much as I like "Easter Eggs" I don't like them in "business" programs as they tend to take up extra hard drive space and in some cases, slow down the program. IMHO, "Easter Eggs" should stay in entertainment packages. I can't say for certain if this is a cause of the slowness or not.


James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
^{I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!}

 

[Glenn9999]

Well, one problem with Spybot is that it has a "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality to it anyway. It has everything you can think of almost that isn't a spyware scanner (registry scanner, system startup viewer, uninstaller, LSP viewer, secure shredder viewer, skinning, numerous languages, etc). I guess add "game" to that list as well.

One knock on it, though, is that it's always been slow. No doubt IMO, Spybot is a program that would benefit greatly from a rewrite that has a professional outlook.

 

[Glenn9999]

FWIW, I did some quick research about the game. It's called "The Knight's Tour". It's a small little puzzle game.

The object:
1) The board is a chess board.
2) A chess knight starts in one corner of the board.
3) The knight moves with the same rules as the knight in chess.

To win: Move the knight so it touches each and every square on the board once and only once.

 

[sggaunt]

This is how I think it works (Sorry)
When you click on a square it changes to part of the picture and it tries to create a pattern of max 8 squares (in white) around the square you click.

if a square is already selected (part of the picture) you don't get a white one. How may you get is the moves left number.


X X
X X
X X
X X

Unless you do it right you will run out of squares without completing the picture.


Steve: N.M.N.F.
Playing the blues isn't about feeling better. It's about making other people feel worse.

 

[pechenegs]

You don't need spybot today as there are many other better alternatives.

We don't even suggest now to posters at Tech Support Guy forums that they run spybot as AVg, super antispyware and spysweeper etc are better products at finding and cleaning threats!

Member of ASAP Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals

under the name khazars

 

[goombawaho]

Spysweeper is likely a superior product - no doubt. But how much does Spysweeper cost compared to Spybot??? You obviously missed the reason why a lot of people use Spybot - it's FREE.

 

[pechenegs]

And so is spyware terminator, Arovax, AVG antispyware and superantispyware which are better imo than spybot which like adaware have become somewhat bloated and outdated!

There are a lot of better free products out there including, anti virus, HIPS and firewalls!!

Member of ASAP Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals

under the name khazars

 

[pechenegs]

Also, I didn't suggest to buy spysweeper, as one can download a free trial and it will clean many threats, spysweeper is an excellent product, but has also become a bit bloated and causes system slowdowns!

I did actually buy this product but had to remove it as it was causing too many freeze ups!

Member of ASAP Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals

under the name khazars

 

[kjv1611]

pechenegs,

According to this review, Spyware Terminator is worse than Ad-Aware.

Are there any other documented reviews to the contrary?

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[sggaunt]

Occasionally it released a pop-up encouraging me to enable added free features such as smileys and e-cards.

Its never done this for me.

and it's better than the paid version of Ad-Aware,

I think you read it wrong kjv.

Spyware Terminator looks tough and talks tough, but when it comes to protecting your system against malicious software and phishing, it's a wimp.
It's free, so you might use its scanning tool as a second opinion alongside a more effective antispyware tool.
I'd much rather pay for security done right than settle for mediocre security for free.
It only takes one system-destroying infestation to ruin your whole day, after all

I don't use it that way anyway, but as part of a suite of Firewall, AV and SWT (as do most here I expect).

Even then I don't expect it to save systems from an all out attack by one of the nastier vermin's out there, You minimise that by being 'careful on the Web'.
I don't believe any one security suite paid or not can do that.

Finally
This is a magazine article, I don't read that one but the Mag I subscribe to takes much the same view of free protection, but consider,
Magazines survive partly on advertising, and the biggest advertisers are the 'Paid for' security providers, would you really expect this review to say SWT is better than Norton or Spyware Doctor?


Steve: N.M.N.F.
Playing the blues isn't about feeling better. It's about making other people feel worse.

 

[kjv1611]

sggaunt,

Well, on the Ad-Aware comparison on the recent article of reference, I was specifically referring to this quote:

Terminator definitely doesn't perform as if it's armed with, say, a phased-plasma rifle in the 40-watt range. Spyware Terminator scored a mediocre [highlight]5.7[/highlight] out of 10 on my standard malware-removal test. Not bad for a free app, you say? Consider this: The free scan-only version of Ad-Aware 2007 managed [highlight]5.9[/highlight] on the same test, and CyberDefenderFREE scored 6.5 against an earlier set of samples. Of course, the high-end products do much, much better.

So, if that author is saying that it's better than the paid version of Ad-Aware, but it scores less than the free version, um, something is amiss, I think.

Ahh, here, when we look at the full context, we see why the discrepancy. Your reference was to the blocking ability, whereas mine was to the scanning ability:

I wish I could say that these multiple protective layers protected my clean system from malware attack, but they just weren't so tough in the crunch. Spyware Terminator [highlight]blocked[/highlight] most of the low-risk items such as adware and rogue antispyware, but failed on samples that use Trojan-horse and rootkit technology. Overall, it scored 5.5 out of 10 on the spyware blocking test. That's the same score CyberDefender got against an earlier set of samples, and it's better than the paid version of Ad-Aware, which got [highlight]5.0[/highlight] with the current sample set. But Spy Sweeper scored 8.1 on the same test and Spyware Doctor got a phenomenal 9.8.—Next: Not a Mission Priority

Yeah, I can see where there might be a bias as well towards the paid commercial versions of programs, so I can see that point. But on the scanning, if it is really taking twice as long as Ad-Aware and the other mentioned, hopefully the editor didn't just make up the numbers.

I try to find other sources than magazines, but that just happened to be the first "real" review that I saw.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[2ffat]

PC Mag just listed their options of the worst products of the first quarter of 2008. Spybot was on the list along with some other anti-malware products.


James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
^{I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!}