New
#161
I have removed Malwarebytes Premium3 beta for now - with difficulty (uninstaller hang) but Revo Uninstaller removed it. My PC was like molasses, slow unresponsive.....will try again with newer version.
I have removed Malwarebytes Premium3 beta for now - with difficulty (uninstaller hang) but Revo Uninstaller removed it. My PC was like molasses, slow unresponsive.....will try again with newer version.
Hi:
Yes, this is issue is known to the developers on the LONG list of issues, and has been reported by many users.
The vendor has to start "somewhere" with getting this new product out in the wild, but the current "beta" seems more like an "alpha", vis-a-vis performance, stability, UI/UX.
Unless you have a test box or a VM, you might want to stay with the current release build (2.2.1.1043) until things improve.
>>Note: there is no "mbam-clean" removal tool, yet. To uninstall, use the Windows program uninstall from the control panel, as noted here.
And it would be nice if they would further clarify their marketing stance as an "AV replacement":
Is it a true AV, with full AV capability, in which case users would need to remove their other, 3rd-party AV (and disable WD under W10) to prevent conflicts/compatibility/performance issues?
Or is it a multi-faceted anti-malware tool that is and will remain compatible (as they ALSO claim) with other, 3rd party AVs**?
Or is this a marketing strategy to vaguely claim that one can rely on it for sole protection and that one does not "need" an AV?
MM
(**Time will tell, if/when the 3rd-party AV vendors drop their compatibility efforts and begin to treat "Malwarebytes Malwarebytes" (a.k.a "MB3") as an incompatible, competitive product, rather than a complementary application.)
Hi:
Nothing corrected as there's nothing to correct.:)
You were 100% "spot on".:)
Sorry if my post came across any other way.
I merely pointed out -- mainly for the benefit of anyone else who might read this thread -- that the product doesn't seem quite "ready for prime time", as they say.
Such instability is to be expected for "beta" software, of course.
And I'm sure the devs appreciate the fact that you gave it a try.:)
Cheers,
MM
I thought this Malwarebytes version reminded me of something!
Malwarebytes | Business Solutions
Offered "as is"
New BETA of Malwarebytes 3.0 has been released.
Malwarebytes 3.0 Public Beta Number 2
As this BETA software, it would be advisable to test it only in a non-production environment.
Details:
It appears that the product does report to the Windows Action Center, suggesting that it is indeed being marketed as a full AV.Thank you all for the tremendous help in testing thus far. Based on your feedback, we're releasing a second public beta. The team was able to squash almost 100 different bugs in this release.
1. It is a requirement that you must uninstall the first beta and reboot before installing public beta 2.
2. Due to a bug in the first beta's uninstaller, Windows Defender may turn off. It is imperative that you check the status of Windows Defender after uninstalling the first beta and make sure it's where you want it to be.
Change Log
- Many performance improvements, including reduced memory and CPU usage and quicker Malwarebytes startup times
- Several fixes to program update and upgrade functionality, including incorrectly showing the "Updates not current' message in the dashboard
- Added new error message if an update check failed due to no internet connection
- Fixed the issue where the “Warn user” setting for Potentially Unwanted Programs and Potentially Unwanted Modifications was not honored
- Fixed File and Folder Exclusions entry fields to not allow text entry so specific files or folders are required
- Fixed the issue where you might see inconsistent protection statuses upon install or upgrade Fixed issue where if you had the ‘Recover if missed by’ setting enabled Malwarebytes might attempt to scan after every reboot
- Fixed issue where Anti-Exploit Protected Application settings were not disabling appropriately
- Fixed issue where Web Protection would not start in Premium or Trial modes in Windows XP
- Fixed several issues around integration with Windows Security Center / Windows Action Center
- The majority of translations of supported languages are now included, though there are still a handful of missing strings
- Non-English text should no longer appear garbled during the install wizard
- Fixed the issue where the version listed in the Change Log for was incorrect
- Fixed user interface scaling issues with high DPI settings
- Many minor user interface design improvements (spacing, font sizes, colors, etc.)
- Export button was removed from the main Reports screen
- Fixed issue where anti-ransomware would not show a reboot prompt after a detection if the user interface was closed
- Changed the location of anti-ransomware data folder
- Fixed issue where a Custom Scan would hang on a large file
- Fixed issue that could occur in certain circumstances when upgrading from Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit to Malwarebytes 3.0 where the anti-exploit DLLs would not un-inject
- Fixed BSOD that could happen with self-protection driver
- Fixed BSOD with web protection driver that could happen on Windows Vista
- Fixed a hang during uninstall on Vista x86
- Fixed user interface crash that could occur on Windows XP
Malwarebytes 3.0 beta 2 download: https://malwarebytes.app.box.com/s/2...5gr4q7srl3u3cq
As such, it remains to be seen how long Malwarebytes will be able to support the paradoxical claim that "...rest assured, we will continue to support compatibility if you choose to use a third-party antivirus or other security software alongside Malwarebytes 3.0." Several reports have already surfaced of compatibility issues (as well as at least soft blocks) with some of the other AVs.
Other posts at Malwarebytes forum confirm that the new product lacks some features present in other, full-fledged AVs. It likewise remains to be seen how it will perform in the AV comparatives. In the past, the company long (and justifiably) claimed that such testing did not apply (given that MBAM v1 and MBAM v2 were NOT designated as an AV). If the marketing claims are true, then they will not be able to skirt those comparisons for version 3.0.
Lingering uncertainty persists: is it really an AV, or a replacement for an AV, or is this just a marketing tool?
The curiously vague name for the new product (Malwarebytes Malwarebytes 3.0) further exacerbates the lack of clarity about what it is and what it does.
Oh, well. Perhaps additional explanations, data and a more descriptive/creative name will be forthcoming.
MM
Malwarebytes really need to improve its signature detection, and allow multiple application extensions detection, not just only detect .EXE application only. The signature are really bad that even free Windows Defender can do much better.
That video seems to be making the rounds...
It was previously posted here:
Malwarebytes 3.0 beta 2 test. - Malwarebytes 3.0 Beta - Malwarebytes Forums
(The person who posted it at the Malwarebytes forum did mention that he was not the original author.)
Having said that, I reiterate the concerns shared by many as to the new product's true capabilities.
It seems clear that they are shifting away from the signature-based methods of a traditional "anti-virus".
But it is not yet clear whether the product is robust enough to work on its own, or whether a real AV will still be needed.
As such there remain both cost issues (60% increase over the old MBAM, in addition to the possible cost of a paid AV) and compatibility issues.
It does not make sense that it can be BOTH an AV/AV replacement AND a program compatible enough to run alongside a real AV.
If it really is the former, then there is the nagging issue of whether a single "do-it-all" application really can provide adequate layered protection on its own.
It if really is the latter, then I expect that Malwarebytes will need to work with the 3rd-party AV vendors to quell accumulating suggestions already floating about re: incompatibility, soft-blocks, etc.
Let's hope that the company and the product team will further explain what Malwarebytes Malwarebytes 3.0 really is and really does.
(Let's also hope that they devise a more descriptive and useful name for the product.)
MM
I think Malwarebytes has a history of rolling out products that are "not ready for prime time". (Sorry MM ... not trying to plagiarize you. :)) If memory serves, many people reported many issues when v1.75 was upgraded to v2.0 back around March 2014 and looking back at threads on Seven Forums seems to support that. Personally, I waited about 6 months before installing and Malwarebytes continued supporting 1.75 for quite a while thereafter. I hope they continue supporting 2.2.1.xxxx after they release 3.0 because I fear a lot of people will have issues.