Spybot-S&D 1.6, beta 2

Scan time has largely increased in this beta 2.
With 1.6 beta 1: 2:50-3:20
With 1.6 beta 2: 4:30-6:00

Using windows xp with sp3.I tested with almost same number of temporary files and browser cache files deleted and the same number of cookies.

Scans are slower, but it is still faster then 1.5.2(from 9:00 - 11:00)
 
Last edited:
So far, it seems whether beta 2 is faster or slower than beta 1 depends on hosts file immunization applied or not, the cases where beta 2 is faster so far where those with a large hosts file.

Got the requested context menu triggered separate scan window now, tweaked the file scanner a bit to be faster on load with just minor slowdown on scan (it's usually for a handful of files only anyway). Need to get some inhouse feedback first though (and add one or two silly features like drag'n'drop on the open window) ;)

@Zenobia: thanks, and I fixed the link :)
 
i notice increasing in scan time with this new beta 2. it used to take less than 4 minutes in vista x64 sp1, now it takes around 7 minutes.
 
PepiMK said:
So far, it seems whether beta 2 is faster or slower than beta 1 depends on hosts file immunization applied or not, the cases where beta 2 is faster so far where those with a large hosts file.
Click to expand...

My hosts file is the same(around 250KB) and beta 2 scanning is slower by almost 2 times than beta 1.
As I remeber also 1.5.2 version was slower than two betas before, and I'm hoping that in the final version scanning time will not increase further.
 
Last edited:
test again on xp home edition sp3, the scan time took around 8 minutes. i don't know the previous scan time in beta 1. it's still faster than 1.5.x version though. :)
 
There is most certainly a slow-down in beta 2.

On my XP SP2 test system, scan results were:

v1.5.2.20 = 20 minutes 17 seconds

v1.6.0.25 = 4 minutes 2 seconds

v1.6.0.26 = 7 minutes 17 seconds

That means beta 2 is only 2.8 times faster than v1.5 (as opposed to 5.0 times faster like beta 1 was) and it is 1.8 times slower than beta 1.

That's a surprisingly significant increase across only one beta build, though it's still much faster than v1.5.

FWIW, I'm not using a HOSTS file.
 
updates

Some time ago, when the servers are disabled, we obtain a message that says "Updates will be back in less than an hour" (or the equivalent in Spanish)
Now the message that I obtain is "No hay ninguna actualización disponible". In English is "There are no newer updates" or somthing like this.

Sorry for my English :oops:
 
More Suggestions: :laugh:

Can you add an option in context menu and settings tab to hide the 'hint of the day' :rolleyes:

At the moment, because Spybot treats it as a result, you can 'clear' it away (but this is only a temporary solution :spider:)

hint.png


Also, if you plan to add more 'hints of the day', that would mean there would be no need for the 'hint' part in the header of the scanning tab:

hintheader.png
 
@honda12: There's a tweak to hide it, see the tweaks page :)
(yes, I admit I copied that information over just now ;) )

We want to point users again and again and again :laugh: at the information, since it might answer them a lot of questions immediately that they would be otherwise seeking by email or forum and would have to wait.

@atchiss: the old thing was a quick'n'dirty trick: we just named one update mirror that way ;) Will think about how we could do this in 1.6.
 
well, I didn't see that tweaks page :laugh:

But, maybe for less technical users an option would be easier :p:

(and also you have to log in to access the tweaks page)
 
Last edited:
Yes, the wiki is just for registered forum users currently ;)
(I want to update the bridge to automatically recognize if a user is already logged in on the forum, but that'll take some time I don't have while preparing 1.6)

Adding options for less technical users is a two-sided sword.
How "important" is that option really? By adding too many options to the settings screen, less technical users might get overburdened just by their number. So the question would be if the additional comfort is worth the additional "confusion" (granted, "just one item", but there are some many "just one items") in general.
So, to be honest, the next release will have a few old outdated settings removed even (toggling the look in terms of header vs. no header on each page for example, as well as the auto-download parameter that does no longer make sense now that the updater is purely external and dealt with otherwise).
 
Scan times for beta1:

Win XP Home, SP3 64-bit w/ an Athlon 64 Processor 3800+, 446MB of RAM):
v.1.6.0.25 - 3'

Compaq Presario, Win XP Pro SP3, 32-bit AMD Athlon Processor 1.3GHz, 1 GB RAM
v.1.6.0.25 - 5'

Scan times for beta2:

Compaq Presario, Win XP Pro SP3, 32-bit AMD Athlon Processor 1.3GHz, 1 GB RAM - 7'09"

Win XP Home, SP3 64-bit w/ an Athlon 64 Processor 3800+, 2G B of RAM - 4'20"

So appparently, beta2 is slower than beta1 - I don't use hosts file checking on either - and remember, I quadrupled the RAM between the first and second beta runs on my wifes' computer.

Strange. Pete
 
PepiMK said:
Yes, the wiki is just for registered forum users currently ;)
(I want to update the bridge to automatically recognize if a user is already logged in on the forum, but that'll take some time I don't have while preparing 1.6)
Click to expand...

Are forum logins supposed to work for that page? because mine isn't.
 
@Broken hope: I can access with my forum user to the wiki page. The page ask me for the user again, but I fill the fields and I access to this page.

@PepiMK: Thanks for the information. :laugh:
This beta version is better than 1.5.2. It's faster, solve the "usage tracks" (the 1.5.2 version doesnt fix the "usage tracks" in my PC) and also solve my update problems with the proxy-cache.

Thanks again
 
atchiss said:
@Broken hope: I can access with my forum user to the wiki page. The page ask me for the user again, but I fill the fields and I access to this page.
Click to expand...

Heh I just get "Login error: There is no user by the name "Broken Hope". Check your spelling." When I try to log into the wiki.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top