from v1.52 to v1.6

[user139]

I got few slow hours today and decided to take the risk and update my S&D version from 1.52 to 1.6.
Yes, risk, no other word - after all the hours lost in JULY and yesterday seeing so many threads about PCs slowing down after applying the Immunization Base from the week November 3- 9, my machines included.

A PC is a tool for work, I do not consider time spend for maintenance lost, but if products force reverting to a previous version, as it was with S&D, and considering the time looking for knowledgeable support, I rather revert to a Mac.
The most important for me was the fact that I kind of didn’t trust S&D anymore.

Today my upgrade to v1.6 went smoothly, but most importantly,
things that plagued the application and I was worrisome about are gone,
gone the stupid animation of the icon on the TaskBar,
gone the slowdown in I.E.,
gone the launching of S&D each time I open a file.

However I do not find much speed increase in the Scan function, my usual scan “All Available Checks”, took 30-40 min on a PC running Win XP Pro, P4 2.4Ghz, RAM 1Gb with v1.52, today with v1.6, 34min.
True, items to scan have increased, 343.293.

In conclusion, S&D v1.6 is a keeper, proceed with caution during installation.

I hope developers will be more cautious with future releases.

 

[md usa spybot fan]

user139:

Are these two timings from the same system?

... until the last update on Friday Nov.7th, when a large immunization base was applied, my scans never took more than 40-45min, however after the update I got the following:
PC with XP SP2, single core 2.39Ghz RAM 1Gb - 95min ...

... However I do not find much speed increase in the Scan function, my usual scan “All Available Checks”, took 30-40 min on a PC running Win XP Pro, P4 2.4Ghz, RAM 1Gb with v1.52, today with v1.6, 34min. …

If so 95 minutes to 34 minutes certainly looks like a big improvement to me, particularly considering that scan count increased by 44084 (15%) between the updates of 2008-11-05 and 2008-11-12.

 

[user139]

user139:

Are these two timings from the same system?

If so 95 minutes to 34 minutes certainly looks like a big improvement to me, particularly considering that scan count increased by 44084 (15%) between the updates of 2008-11-05 and 2008-11-12.

Yes, they are,
but :nono:

The way you choose to cite me is misleading for readers, if not intellectually dishonest.

The first citation comes from the thread I joined here,

http://forums.spybot.info/showthread.php?p=252363&posted=1#post252363

where I, together with many others, complained about the snail pace S&D v1.52 took after the update in the beginning of November.

 

[Terminator]

The Reason 1.5.2 runs slow with the new updates is because older versions of Spybot are built on older technology where as 1.6 and upwards have been completely re-designed so it's hardly suprising 1.5 and below take ages. Other factors for Slow scanning can include having other resident programs running e.g. Antivirus Scanners.

Personally I think a scan that takes less then an hour is pretty good going considering a Virus scan can take Hours.

As for the HellzLittle Spy Incident, that was a mixture of user ignorance, an honest mistake on Spybot's part and an incompatibility with older systems.

You should be greatful this site exists, I know I amresent:. I can think of other companies (you know who you are) that will fob you off with nonsense and/or completely ignore you when you ask for help.

 

[md usa spybot fan]

user139:

... The way you choose to cite me is misleading for readers, if not intellectually dishonest. ...

There is absolutely nothing misleading or intellectually dishonest about it.

The only misleading statement is when you state:

... However I do not find much speed increase in the Scan function, my usual scan “All Available Checks”, took 30-40 min on a PC running Win XP Pro, P4 2.4Ghz, RAM 1Gb with v1.52, today with v1.6, 34min.
True, items to scan have increased, 343.293. ...

Separating this thread from the ridiculously slow thread and saying that you "... did not find much speed increase in the Scan function, my usual scan “All Available Checks”, took 30-40 min ..." is a misstatement of the facts and can only serve to dissuade readers from upgrading to solve the problem of radically increasing scan times using old versions Spybot.

The reason that you posted in the ridiculously slow thread to begin with is because running Spybot 1.5.20 your scan time had increased from your usual scan time of 30-40 minutes to 95 minutes. To relieve that problem it was recommended that you upgrade from Spybot 1.5.20 to Spybot 1.6. When you did your scan time dropped from 95 minutes to 34 minutes even though the scan count increased from 299209 (with the 2008-11-05 updates) to 343293 (with the 2008-11-12 updates).

 

[user139]

@MD

Your pathetic attempt to muddy the water shows only your bad faith and do not honor your high post count.

Let follow again the time line but before let me say that I am using S&D since 2001, have recommended it on numerous occasions and will continue to do so; I have found support here on the forum and only a particular problem made me join to be able to ask a question.


1. Version 1.52 until the release of the botched v1.6 in July worked fine and usually scan took about 40minutes.

2. In July I installed the version 1.6 but had to revert to v1.52, v1.6 did not live to do a scan with as it plagued my PC unbelievably. “Revert” means using a Ghost image to restore my system, as S&D offers no possibility to undo LAST changes.

3. From July to last week I used the v1.52, was careful to deselect “Main Update” and “TeaTimer Update” and lately the “I.E. helper” and took all other weekly updates, did full scans, see point 1 above.

4. Completing the Update from the first week of November as described above I was asked to reapply the Immunization Database and conduct a Full Scan, this is the scan that took 90minutes on one PC, and more than 4 hours on another. Let me spell it again, this is the v1.52 I am talking about, with the updated Immunization database it took forever to complete a scan.

5. Checked the forum and discovered that many people are/were in similar situation, only way out suggested being upgrading to v1.6, therefore my question Is it trustworthy considering what happened in July.

6. Got few hours two days ago and updated to version 1.6, scan took half an hour.

7. Started this thread and wrote about my experience.


In short:
Until July 2008, v1.52, scan 40min (+/-)
July 2008, update to v1.6, had to revert to 1.52
July 2008 - November 2008, v1.52, scan 40min (+/-)
First week of November, updated v1.52 ONLY with the Immunization database, scan 90min!!
November 13, 2008, joined a thread
November 14, 2008, opened this thread to share my experience after updating the main application to v1.6, scan was in the same time range as previously with v1.52

Plz read again the closing TWO sentences from the Opening Post

 

[Terminator]

Make your mind up!

I don't get what your complaining about, 1 minute your complaining that 1.5.2 is slow and next you start moaning about 1.6 being fast:crazy:, Make your mind up:buried:!

As I said in my previous post:

"As for the HellzLittle Spy Incident, that was a mixture of user ignorance, an honest mistake on Spybot's part and an incompatibility with older systems."

You will always get false positives with what ever security program your using, As A wise man once said "If in Doubt, Don't"

Nuff Said:lip:

 

[bitman]

Everyone in this thread is arguing about a different thing, mostly due to the fact that user139 is focused on past issues with 1.6 that even he admits have been fixed.

Unfortunately, like always the confusion is due to the fact that these fixes are only available in either beta or Intergrated Update releases that don't come with the main release package. For that reason, no one who doesn't read these forums regularly would even know they existed.

This has been a problem with all forum supported products for years, leading to non-technical user issues and technical user rants. The real problem is simply communications and will continue until something fundamental is changed.

Though the impending Spybot Search and Destroy 2.0 has the potential to fix this with its modular design, this isn't necessarily a given. I do hope that it will finally completely automate the operation of updates to the program, so the issue of partial updates by uninformed users will be removed.

Bitman

 

[Terminator]

Everyone in this thread is arguing about a different thing, mostly due to the fact that user139 is focused on past issues with 1.6 that even he admits have been fixed.

Unfortunately, like always the confusion is due to the fact that these fixes are only available in either beta or Intergrated Update releases that don't come with the main release package. For that reason, no one who doesn't read these forums regularly would even know they existed.

This has been a problem with all forum supported products for years, leading to non-technical user issues and technical user rants. The real problem is simply communications and will continue until something fundamental is changed.

Though the impending Spybot Search and Destroy 2.0 has the potential to fix this with its modular design, this isn't necessarily a given. I do hope that it will finally completely automate the operation of updates to the program, so the issue of partial updates by uninformed users will be removed.

Bitman

I couldn't agree with you more:2thumb:.

 

[user139]

Thank you Bitman,
finally a voice of reason, or simply a poster who reads and penetrates himself with the meaning of words.

Engaging a FAN comparing apples and oranges was not a mistake, I believe,
and for me as an USER what is under the hood is good as long the soft does its job.
Under such light and I insist, few minutes difference do not represent a MAJOR improvement, but let bygones be bygones.

Count the number of threads where users complained, OK, word is too strong for sensitive eyes maybe, reported sounds better?,
where people reported a slow down after a major upgrade.

If some of them after having read that thread got convinced to switch to v1.6 this thread has lived to its purpose.

I think that the biggest praise S&D might get will be a diminished number of postings asking for support, don’t you agree?