version 5.0.5.259 general discussion:

[Cutter]

Thought it be good to have a thread we can chat about the new version.

Well for me, a scary start, installed fine, big update well big for swd, went well, did my scan opened task manager and it locked up, locked everything else up, manually turned my comp off something I hate doing, but now seems alright, cpu usage still high during my now second attempt at a scan, it’s nearly finished my last scan was 4min 55sec so lets see how this compares with the old version with no real changes to my system.

Just finished 6min 59seconds, so noticeably slower scan or is it, maybe it’s just doing a more in-depth scan which has made me worry was the last version any good and is this one really any good over 1min extra scan time is hell of alot

It seems lot more sluggish than the last version.

Not knowing enough is starting to make me worry, scan interface looks nice mind lol.

Cutter.

[mjq424]

Hi
I tried the new version...Cant stand it...STILL TOO MUCH (VIRTUAL) MEMORY USED!
The probable reason for why your scan is taking longer is that CPU usage is turned down by default so it interferes less.
Try changing that under Scan Settings.

[Cutter]

The probable reason for why your scan is taking longer is that CPU usage is turned down by default so it interferes less.
Try changing that under Scan Settings.

Nice one didn’t see that there, it's so sluggish, I don't think I can put up with this if I’m honest really really sluggish, although just finished third scan and 5min 3 seconds which is alot better, but wow is it slow looking through the program and lifting it of the task bar, makes everything else slow.

Cutter.

[vecchio]

:confused: IS the compatibility mode checked by default on the new version?
i installed it 2 times and this option are previously checked and when i unchecked it the program ask for reboot
:confused:

[BenJr]

Cutter, when you say that it's sluggish, do you mean that it's sluggish while it's scanning and your multitasking or are you saying that, by it just running in the background it's causing your system to be sluggish?

[tom.tdw]

it's not checked by default:confused: IS the compatibility mode checked by default on the new version?
i installed it 2 times and this option are previously checked and when i unchecked it the program ask for reboot
:confused:

i really like the new version, it compleatly elemenates the slowdown i was experiencing in safari & a svchost (readyboost, superfetch, networking ect.) which was constantly hogging my CPU

[Cutter]

Cutter, when you say that it's sluggish, do you mean that it's sluggish while it's scanning and your multitasking or are you saying that, by it just running in the background it's causing your system to be sluggish?


If I’m scanning and multitasking it's really sluggish but to be fair I’d expect that, if I just leave it in the background web searching is fine, but if I open ms word, or try to play some music opening what ever program it is takes about 3 to 6 seconds, that's alot longer than normal, I’m going to do a fresh install of xp in a few days so maybe everything will be sorted out by then.

The interface it’s self is also very sluggish, switching between tabs can make some parts vanish for a few seconds.

Cutter.

[Chippa]

If I’m scanning and multitasking it's really sluggish but to be fair I’d expect that, if I just leave it in the background web searching is fine, but if I open ms word, or try to play some music opening what ever program it is takes about 3 to 6 seconds, that's alot longer than normal, I’m going to do a fresh install of xp in a few days so maybe everything will be sorted out by then.

The interface it’s self is also very sluggish, switching between tabs can make some parts vanish for a few seconds.

Cutter.

I guess that if you run a scan and try to do other tasks this will slow down your comp and thats only natural and probably cant be avoided. Especially opening and closing programs or listening to music.

Cheers,
Chippa

[Cutter]

Hey Chippa good to see you about,

I see where your coming from, feels slower than the last version that's all, but i'll do a fresh install if none else says they notice the same thing maybe that will sort it's self out, i know a few programs don't like to have fresh installs over the top, so a new install of xp may help.

Cutter.

[BenJr]

So maybe it's better to stick to the .205 for now?..
I'm not into anything slowing down my system.

[vecchio]

hi
yes i still have language problems,,but the version is very good
-very faster
-clear data and slim interface
-stabilized coounter(for while;) )
-smart updated problems resolved
-now i wait for 3 things:
-PCTOOLS PLEASE KEEP THE SAME COUNTER OF FILES ON FUTURE VERSIONS
-WAITING FOR EMAIL/SITEGUARD
-AND PLEASE PLEASE FIX THE PTBR LANGUAGE ISSUES


make happy a cheerful consumer;)

[Monman]

I have experienced no problems with the new version (yet!!) but I don't understand why PC Tools wait until they have developed the Site & Email Guards and release them at the same time as a new version of Spyware Doctor. Does this mean that each time a new version of Spyware Doctor is released we will have to wait for the Site Guard & Email Guards to developed:confused:

[vecchio]

I have experienced no problems with the new version (yet!!) but I don't understand why PC Tools wait until they have developed the Site & Email Guards and release them at the same time as a new version of Spyware Doctor. Does this mean that each time a new version of Spyware Doctor is released we will have to wait for the Site Guard & Email Guards to developed:confused:
i think you are right my friend
UNFORTUNATELY

[BenJr]

Hmm, starting to think that maybe I'll do it.:rolleyes:

[Chippa]

Hey Chippa good to see you about,

I see where your coming from, feels slower than the last version that's all, but i'll do a fresh install if none else says they notice the same thing maybe that will sort it's self out, i know a few programs don't like to have fresh installs over the top, so a new install of xp may help.

Cutter.

Great to see you back as well :D

In my opinion, I think 259 is faster then the 205. Its just a little slower when starting up but once its running, seems to be pretty good. Hopefully it works out for you :) Goodluck.

And for Vecchio :p
The counter files looks good, so I think they have this part sorted.
siteguard and emailguard - Sticky mentions that it will be available soon.
And one of the threads from the moderators specifies that it will be fixed asap.

For BenJr, I replied to the other thread about 259 & 205 :D

Cheers,
Chippa

[BenJr]

Well it wasn't as smooth as I hoped it would be. I did have to reboot again before the installation could begin, and the installation program did try to start before the computer shutdown.
After the .259 installation was complete the usual Smart Update was performed and then the Intelli-scan started. A Trojan-PWS.Delf.EJ showed up in the results along with 30 associated items. It appears to be a false positive that has been corrected in the latest data base. I think that the first Smart Update that took place after the installation didn't update to the latest data base, so that first Intelli-scan came up with the false positive.
Anyway, after the first Intelli-scan I ran another Smart Update then did a Full Scan, and it came up clean.
Everything else seems to be fine.:)

[swannie]

The interface it’s self is also very sluggish, switching between tabs can make some parts vanish for a few seconds.

Cutter.

Hi Cutter.

I have also noticed that switching between tabs - specifically from Start Scan, OnGuard, Tools and Settings back to Status causes a sort of vanishing for a few seconds. It also seems to take ages to open the GUI after clicking on the desktop icon.

[swannie]

After two days of smooth running I think this is the best version so far for ages. The new scan screen is very nice, the counter works (thanks Vecchio) and updating causes no problem. Intelliscan took 4.33 mins this am and Full scan 1 hr 40 mins yesterday evening with no FP.

I don't see any slowdown anywhere in FF or IE7 and I have pretty miserable RAM (768) for XP which means nothing moves at the speed of light anyway. So, for those who are hesitating, my advice is to go for it!

[notE]

Hi Cutter.

I have also noticed that switching between tabs - specifically from Start Scan, OnGuard, Tools and Settings back to Status causes a sort of vanishing for a few seconds. It also seems to take ages to open the GUI after clicking on the desktop icon. I have the same eperience with tabs and once the program would not open from the icon untill after a reboot.

[swannie]

I have the same eperience with tabs and once the program would not open from the icon untill after a reboot.

I haven't had that problem yet. I just checked and it took 12 sec to open the GUI after clicking on the icon but I think it was even slower this am.

[Interdit]

Still freezing on my Sony Vaio 1gb ram Vista Pro.

Just disabled it.

Francois

[Cutter]

Just finishing a fresh install of xp, I’ll maybe install swd again tonight, a bit worried about it, some say it's sluggish others not at least I’m not the only one last night became a nightmare with it locking things up and not responding, I thought this version was going to be more responsive and generally lighter if I’m honest, see how it goes tonight i guess.

Cutter.

[tom.tdw]

I haven't had that problem yet. I just checked and it took 12 sec to open the GUI after clicking on the icon but I think it was even slower this am.try toggleing kernal compatability mode (on to off or off to on)

[notE]

try toggleing kernal compatability mode (on to off or off to on)Krrnal mode on or off seems to make no difference on my machine. This version needs work.

[swannie]

Maybe it needs work BUT for the first time in months it did a scheduled Intelli scan right now while I was on the forum AND NOTHING HAPPENED!!! Until now, when I've forgotten a scan is going to happen, been involved in something else, everything has frozen. Restart etc. Progress is being made:)

[BenJr]

Well I'm doing well after the upgrade.
Just wish that it wasn't such a hog. I need more memory. Running Vista with SD5, Firefox and iTunes is so draining on my system.

[malves]

Okay, so I installed the new version and immediately noticed that web surfing was very, very slow. The rest of my system seemd a bit more sluggish than normal too. So I began to poke around and here's what I found helped me. File Guard for some reason is slowing down my web surfing and computer in general. Disabling only File Guard greatly improves web surfing speed. So there you go, PCTools; take a closer look at File Guard and see what's doing.

Anyone else with slowdowns care to verify if this helps them?

Specs: P4, Xp Pro, 1GB RAM, IE7, Dell Precision 370, Cyberhawk, Trend Micro Office Scan A/V

[notE]

Okay, so I installed the new version and immediately noticed that web surfing was very, very slow. The rest of my system seemd a bit more sluggish than normal too. So I began to poke around and here's what I found helped me. File Guard for some reason is slowing down my web surfing and computer in general. Disabling only File Guard greatly improves web surfing speed. So there you go, PCTools; take a closer look at File Guard and see what's doing.

Anyone else with slowdowns care to verify if this helps them?

Specs: P4, Xp Pro, 1GB RAM, IE7, Dell Precision 370, Cyberhawk, Trend Micro Office Scan A/V I disabled file guard and found no improvment in surfing speed,still very slugish.

[gringopig]

Working very well for me. This release has no problems at all for me as far as I can make out. Fast to load, doesn't munch system tray icons, scan times are good and integrates well with NIS 2007 and AntiBot.
Surfing using FF 2.0.0.6 and IE7 is fast and responsive and I don't even notice SD having any impact on my computer's performance.

Very happy! :D

[Ngwana]

Working very well for me...Very happy! :D

That is good to hear. Unfortunately for me I have an un-used SD5 after moving to Vista 64-bit. It is good news though. :cool:

[tom.tdw]

Well I'm doing well after the upgrade.
Just wish that it wasn't such a hog. I need more memory. Running Vista with SD5, Firefox and iTunes is so draining on my system.
you could try using readyboost

these days you can get 4gb of highspeed flash drive for just £20

[malves]

I disabled file guard and found no improvment in surfing speed,still very slugish.

Have you tried disabling OnGuard altogether to see if it makes a difference? If it does, then try disabling each guard on at a time to see if one of those is responsible. That's what I did to find that File Guard was slowing me down. I hope this helps in some way.

[webmast]

Have you tried disabling OnGuard altogether to see if it makes a difference? If it does, then try disabling each guard on at a time to see if one of those is responsible. That's what I did to find that File Guard was slowing me down. I hope this helps in some way.

I am one of the users that had to shutdown SD 5.0.205 during the day because it was dragging surfing with IE7. It affected some others like Windows Explorer expansion of folders.
Since I read some good reviews about .259, I decided to go for it.
After completely removing the previous version, shutting down all apps, I downloaded it and installed.
My first test was with IE7... every website, regardless of any stripped of graphics or with graphics just sat there busy but not going anywhere.
I was ready to disabled again but then I remember the suggestion to disable File Guard. I disabled it and just in case I exited SD, rebooted the system.
Since yesterday morning, my system is surfing with IE7 at normal speed, downloads are fine, apps are fine, windows explorer is fine, and on and on...
I think I am sticking with it. I left it running while I do work on the computer and it seems to be acceptable.
I will keep an eye on performance and report anything unusual.
Good job guys!

[looney2ns]

Version 259 works great for me. No problems at all so far.
VNC works once again as well. :D

[suits1346]

Before I upgrade to .259 from .250 what would be benefit for me to do so. It seems that .250 is working ok (not great) so far. Will I see any improvement in speed of programs I open, etc. What is the upside to do so?

[lbray]

Hi PC Tools

I am a licensed user of Spyware Doctor, but have been using 4.1 as a fall-back because of unacceptable slowing of IE7 with SD5. I also use DitDefender 10 AV.

Encouraged to try out 259 following Webmast's report on improved IE7 browsing (see message #33 above) I offer the following findings. Each is the result of 5 separate tests.

SD5 ON (File Guard OFF)
- IE7 restart time 8-10 seconds
- Javascript popup window time to open 5-6 sec

SD5 SHUTDOWN
- IE7 restart time 3-4 seconds
- Javascript popup window time to open <1 sec (immediate)

I conclude that SD5 still introduces a noticeable delay into IE7 browsing for me. The Javascript popup delay is particular concerning, as it takes 5-6 seconds for the blank popup window to open (the fill is almost instantaneous because the html source file is plain text 300 words).

I have previously reported the above observed delays with processing Javascript popups, but this has not found its way to the reported issues list (unless it's intended to be captured under the slow IE7 browsing item?).

Regrettably, it's back to 4.1 for me again awaiting improved IE7 browsing.

Hope the above info helps in some way.

Regards, Len

[hake]

SD 5.0.5.259 works a treat. It has been worth the wait. It works well with Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro ver. 4.0.1007.7323 (591) and AVG Free.

I will be sticking with PC Tools at my next subs renewal. I look forward to the availability of a compatible site guard add-on.

:)

[AChen]

Many Thanks for all the feedback regarding IE7 and the slow web browsing with File Guard enabled. I have escalated this to the developers with the other additional info and we'll be investigating this further.

[AChen]

For those that are experiencing slow downs with IE7 browsing, once you have disabled File Guard and the SD database has loaded, could you please re-enable FG and see if you are still having any problems?

[Adge]

I have now disabled File Guard then re-enabled umpteen times and I must say, I wish that I had not upgraded to 259. :mad:

Browsing in IE is like trying to browse through treacle. I have to wait ages for each new tab to open. Plus starting up the PC is now like waiting for a bus.

What I find most annoying is that since 250, which was working okay, PC Tools IMO did not check the product version 259 thoroughly enough before releasing this version.

I hope you quickly resolve this issue, as as far as I'm concerned this is a retro-step backwards on what is essentially a wonderful product.

Now over to Firefox at least that hasn't been interfered with.

[Gambit]

I have now disabled File Guard then re-enabled umpteen times and I must say, I wish that I had not upgraded to 259. :mad:

Browsing in IE is like trying to browse through treacle. I have to wait ages for each new tab to open. Plus starting up the PC is now like waiting for a bus.

What I find most annoying is that since 250, which was working okay, PC Tools IMO did not check the product version 259 thoroughly enough before releasing this version.

I hope you quickly resolve this issue, as as far as I'm concerned this is a retro-step backwards on what is essentially a wonderful product.

Now over to Firefox at least that hasn't been interfered with.

This has been an ongoing issue, but from what I can see, PC Tools are going forward. With each build, things are getting alot better and more people are getting better results. The IE7 slow issues, was quite a major problem in the early beta versions and have been improved quite some bit. I have come across some users still having this slow IE7 problems, so I guess its an ongoing issue at this stage. I hope for those experiencing this problem, that things get fixed soon. Lucky for me, I haven't come across this issue before. Stick with FF for the time being.

[plumgas]

well finally this version is smooth, best version so far. However I am using IE6 on xp. No more freezing while browsing.

[Reodor]

This has been an ongoing issue, but from what I can see, PC Tools are going forward. With each build, things are getting alot better and more people are getting better results. The IE7 slow issues, was quite a major problem in the early beta versions and have been improved quite some bit. I have come across some users still having this slow IE7 problems, so I guess its an ongoing issue at this stage. I hope for those experiencing this problem, that things get fixed soon. Lucky for me, I haven't come across this issue before. Stick with FF for the time being.

Quite honestly there is next to no improvements in speed.
File opening in Windows is still slow, opening the GUI is still a couple of minutes, browsing IE7 is still as bad. The only place I have found a 'speed encrease' is switching user accounts which is down from 10 minutes to around 2! If You then add that during the last months I've had to double the RAM just to make SD start at all!
As for IE7 browsing it is perhaps more easy for us in the 'outskirts' to evaluate. It seems to have a lot to do with internet speed. If the speed drops, SD is totally useless. I have a 100Mbs connection that when tested runs up to 1250 kbs to my ISP and 'locally the speed slow-down is not that bad. But going 'abroad' when net is loaded is sometimes impossible and the only way to solve it is to go Firefox. Disable SD (Guards) there is almost the same speed (window opening) in IE7 as in FF with guards.

Sorry, but SD is a resource monster from start-up through browsing and with the slow opening of the GUI switching on/off guards when needed is not an easy task either. Compared to other apps I'm running at other comps which are just as clean as the lap-top with SD I have difficulties in 'defending' SD as being in any way superior and 'Award winning'. What in general have been sorted out during the last 6 months since release might be som conflicts with other apps, but the main issues - nothing in my opinion. Honestly I thought some of the earlier versions worked better and was more complete (Guards) than the present one, but that might perhaps just be a 'memmory' thing.

[Cutter]

I haven't bothered to reply much here, because some seem to have no problems, I get massive lock ups with this could be AOL, if aol locks up which sometimes it does maybe once every few days swd will stop....

That's it nothing, the first time I’ve had to manually turn my pc off since I built it, I have to agree with everything Reodor has said.

Some may not agree, but I’ve been a decent customer to swd, I’ve come to the final conclusion that spyware doctor version 5 is a beta and pctools should just admit it and revert to calling it a beta.

Why you ask, it's buggy, this thing has more software updates than I have roast dinners, there's parts to the program missing, it's a resource hog, why do I feel like a ginnie pig, oh well, three months wasted of my last subscription, and I’ve uninstalled it again.

Great news for everyone who thinks it's fine, but I built my pc for speed, I got swd to get rid of the baddies that slow my pc down, I’d rather have the baddies on my pc if I’m honest, at least it's faster and don't lock it up lol.

Cutter.

[InvisibleMan]

After going through the shock of SD5 "malfunctioning" on my PC in the month of March 2007, I decided to keep all versions of SD off my PC until I began reading better reports here in the Community Forum. I installed version 5...259 this past week, and initially found improvements in things such as the speed of Full System scan, even after Smart Update downloaded the 600,000+ Intelli-Sigs.

For what it is worth, although SD had been off my system for almost 5 months, when I performed a full-system scan after Smart Updating to 600,000+ Intelli Sig's...my PC had not taken on any discoverable new malware within the previous months, per the new scan (after almost 5 months of no SD! Does that say anything?). But, I began to experience insufferable slowdowns after performing a reboot/restart within the first hour.

Among the applications on my PC is Norton Internet Security 2006 (fully updated) and Norton System Works Basic. The System Works has available several sensors which can be custom loaded as viewable meters into a real-time monitoring device called Norton System Doctor. After my PC was rebooted, it took approximately 45 minutes for all expected application icons to load into the systems tray...and subsequently 45 minutes for my PC to be operational. I would watch the Norton System Doctor's CPU usage meter frequently freeze, then advance as SD5...259 did its' magic in getting up to speed. Once SD5 finished its' 45-minutes starting process, my PC became useable, but sluggish. (Please note that I had kept the OnGuard system and "Run Scan on Windows Startup" options OFF, with Kernel Compatibility ON to keep things moving as fast as possible.)

Then, IE7 (fully updated) would initially take several seconds longer than usual to load a new web page. Once that web page had been loaded and I had moved to another web page, any earlier web page would reopen at the regular fast speed when I returned to it. I assume that was because it had already been scanned by SD5 (?).

It would take 5 to 10 MINUTES for SD5...259's GUI to open when clicked on. Once opened, clicking from any button to any other on the GUI ("Settings" to "Status", for instance) would take 10 seconds (for instance) for the requested change to be recognized and to happen.

When an updated database became available and was downloaded, a notice appeared that the new database had failed to install on SD5, with the notice requesting that I again download the new update. Ultimately, after re-downloading the Smart Update, a notice would appear that the updates were actually up-to-date.

Then, per a recommendation in the forum, I turned OFF Kernel Compatibilty as a experiment. After rebooting the PC, everything functionally froze. SD5 may have been restarting, but was taking forever to do so. After 45 minutes, I could not get anything to function on the PC...the Norton System Doctor process meters had frozen...I could not open any applications, so I did a hard reboot: manual Power OFF. Then, after rebooting I enabled Kernel Compatibily again (turned it back ON) with plans to simply (?) un-enable SD5 in order to keep it available for occasional use, when desired. That is when I noticed the "TOOLS" button had disappeared off the GUI!

In the meantime, I think SD5 would currently be "workable" on this 7-year-old PC under two conditions:

1. I would have to not mind any sluggishness, as what happens when opening applications taking several seconds longer than usual.

2. I would have to never reboot (restart) my PC, and would have to leave it on 24 hours per day. Any restarts (even from "hibernation") now render the PC useless for at least 45 minutes until SD5 finished its' restarting process.

Neither option is acceptable to me. Again, I am not a "techie", but after talking with a professional techie where I work, he believes that my PC is the bottleneck issue with SD5 (as in, it is diffcult to push a bowling ball through a garden water hose!).

Let's laugh together: This HP Pavilion was built in the year 2000. HP designed it for and sold it with Windows ME installed. It operates at 800 MHz. It came with 128 MB, PC100 MHz SD RAM; now upgraded to Windows XP, SP2 with 384 MB SD RAM. (It is used for four low-level purposes: Some web surfing, some word processing, some music files and some emailing. No major needs. I keep the system registry clean, and it works well for my purposes.)

My professional techie friend believes SD5 is too exhaustive (too large with too much multitasking) an application to try to squeeze at high speeds through my outdated PC. Consider what is now available in the marketplace: systems with 4 GB RAM (!), DDR RAM PC3200 MHz (?), Much-higher MHz Operating Speeds, Dual Channel systems, ETC!

So, I uninstalled SD5 and re-installed the award-winning SD4 (.1), which is designed for systems such as mine. SD4.1 has some features not visible on SD5. One concern however, is that the Smart Updated SD5 has 600,000+ Intelli Sigs while Smart Updated SD4.1 has only 200,000 + Intelli Sigs. (Maybe the lower volume in SD4.1 is part of what makes it functional on older operating systems?)

If SD4.1 will work well on this PC, then I will be satisfied until either SD5 will run OK on it...or until I upgrade to a new PC when 64-bit programs become the norm (if this old machine lasts that long). ;)

Best wishes.

[malves]

For those that are experiencing slow downs with IE7 browsing, once you have disabled File Guard and the SD database has loaded, could you please re-enable FG and see if you are still having any problems?

Re-enabling slows IE7 down again.

[Reodor]

InvisibleMan:

Back in June I did the following post:
http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48120
(system configuraton and requirements)

Not much have changed.
The only 'unfair' in Your test is that You run it paralell to Norton which is why You need the Kernel mode comp - to avoid conflicts. Doubling apps with same function will normally lead to conflicts, but note that kernel mode slows the comp even more!
But the bottom line is: Below 512 in Ram and 1,5GHz in processor, SD V5 as standalone will have difficulties in even starting!

[AChen]

With the IE7 slow downs, for those that are having issues with build 259, could you please also confirm if the same issue occured in build 205? Any feedback will be most appreciated.

[Reodor]

With the IE7 slow downs, for those that are having issues with build 259, could you please also confirm if the same issue occured in build 205? Any feedback will be most appreciated.

Surprised about Your question, this has been going on since release of V5 and is even in the 'sticky'. THERE IS NO CHANGE! IE7-XP (SP2)-SD is a 'Dead Duck', have allways been a Dead Duck.
It seems to me that Your developers or whoever is 'testing' are using high end machines. Get some of the 'real-world' set ups: 512Ram, 1,5-2.0 Ghz and start.
If You can't get that, I'm sure InvisibleMan will make a swap with his.;)

[InvisibleMan]

InvisibleMan:

Back in June I did the following post:
http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48120
(system configuraton and requirements)

Not much have changed.
The only 'unfair' in Your test is that You run it paralell to Norton which is why You need the Kernel mode comp - to avoid conflicts. Doubling apps with same function will normally lead to conflicts, but note that kernel mode slows the comp even more!
But the bottom line is: Below 512 in Ram and 1,5GHz in processor, SD V5 as standalone will have difficulties in even starting!

Yes Reodor,

I now remember that post. On 7-7-07, I gave a reply (#16; entitled "RAM This:") on page 2 of that thread. We all speculated then what proved to be true for me as I tried SD5...259. By the way, my download and use of SD5...259 was standalone, without SD's AV included.

I can afford a new system. I just don't need one yet, and prefer to wait until the next generation arrives, along with the 64-bit software I see on the horizon. SD4.1 will probably be fine for me until then...at which time I will open my wallet and watch the moths fly out. :D

[lbray]

With the IE7 slow downs, for those that are having issues with build 259, could you please also confirm if the same issue occured in build 205? Any feedback will be most appreciated.

Hi Anthony,

I skipped build 205 awaiting news on improvements to IE7 browsing, but build 200 gave me the same slow down (ie, essentially the same number of seconds time delay with restarting IE7 and Javascript popup windows as I mention above for build 259). Not quite the answer to your question, but the best I can offer.

Regards, Len

[swannie]

The solution to the many problems those with less than 512RAM min. (or 1 GB maybe) have was suggested by Reodor months ago. Minimum system requirements.

[Reodor]

The solution to the many problems those with less than 512RAM min. (or 1 GB maybe) have was suggested by Reodor months ago. Minimum system requirements.


Unfortunately the 512 is needed just to get it started. The 'surfing' speed is partly knocked down by huge page filing in and out of disk. This may only be 'corrected' by disk speed and cpu as the PF is 'locked' in system set-up. How much RAM you add will not inflict on the speed unless SD starts to use 'free' RAM when available instead of PF. To get it off page-filing you would need around 750RAM for SD alone!

What a 'system requierment'.:D

[webmast]

[QUOTE=Reodor;It seems to me that Your developers or whoever is 'testing' are using high end machines. Get some of the 'real-world' set ups: 512Ram, 1,5-2.0 Ghz and start. ;)[/QUOTE]

Bingo! I am sure that the reason behind the developers releasing these poor performance versions is because they do not notice slowdowns while using powerful computers. The suggestion is just on the money.

[gringopig]

Unfortunately the 512 is needed just to get it started. The 'surfing' speed is partly knocked down by huge page filing in and out of disk. This may only be 'corrected' by disk speed and cpu as the PF is 'locked' in system set-up. How much RAM you add will not inflict on the speed unless SD starts to use 'free' RAM when available instead of PF. To get it off page-filing you would need around 750RAM for SD alone!

What a 'system requierment'.:D

The last suggestion is incorrect: I've got 3GB of RAM and Windows will always set a page file of 1.5 times yr installed memory if you allow Windows to control it. At the moment, SD is allotted just over 210MB of virtual memory on my PC and this will not change as the paging file is used to swap memory in and out of real RAM. The allocation between RAM and the paging file (virtual memory) is fluid, always used and depends on the memory demands of each running process. You can't 'get it off page-filing'...
Want SD to stop slowing down yr computer? Buy more RAM.

[swannie]

Unfortunately the 512 is needed just to get it started. The 'surfing' speed is partly knocked down by huge page filing in and out of disk. This may only be 'corrected' by disk speed and cpu as the PF is 'locked' in system set-up. How much RAM you add will not inflict on the speed unless SD starts to use 'free' RAM when available instead of PF. To get it off page-filing you would need around 750RAM for SD alone!

What a 'system requierment'.:D

Well, let's not exaggerate :rolleyes: I've only got 768 at the moment and XP Pro uses quite a bit of that!

[Reodor]

The last suggestion is incorrect: I've got 3GB of RAM and Windows will always set a page file of 1.5 times yr installed memory if you allow Windows to control it. At the moment, SD is allotted just over 210MB of virtual memory on my PC and this will not change as the paging file is used to swap memory in and out of real RAM. The allocation between RAM and the paging file (virtual memory) is fluid, always used and depends on the memory demands of each running process. You can't 'get it off page-filing'...
Want SD to stop slowing down yr computer? Buy more RAM.

Does not help how much RAM You have - SD still pulls off PF, around 250Mb!!
Just turn it ON/OFF and note the difference. Did a 'test' of adding up, had 500'free' in RAM, still the same. Went back to 512! What Windows allocate for allowed PF is one thing and may even be changed manually. SD is not looking for free RAM, it is 'set' to use PF.

[Reodor]

Well, let's not exaggerate :rolleyes: I've only got 768 at the moment and XP Pro uses quite a bit of that!


When I say 'SD needs 512 to get started' it is included in what XP and other apps needs. With 256 the engine never starts! I noticed peaks up to 170Mb of RAM during 'engine starting' in SD alone!
Just like an old car mid winter, needs a lot of battery just to turn over! When running, a different story but still high compared to competitors.

[BenJr]

I think that SD is using much more that 250MB of virtual memory on my system. According to Process Explorer, the swdsvc.exe process has a Virtual Size of over 312,000K.
It's just too much.

[swannie]

When I say 'SD needs 512 to get started' it is included in what XP and other apps needs. With 256 the engine never starts! I noticed peaks up to 170Mb of RAM during 'engine starting' in SD alone!
Just like an old car mid winter, needs a lot of battery just to turn over! When running, a different story but still high compared to competitors.

Yes, very good analogy Reodor, I agree. And to tell the truth, it does take a while to 'turn over' on start up. And that's with having eliminated almost all other programs from start up. However, once running it does seem to be a bit lighter than 205 - fewer lockups first of all.

[malves]

With the IE7 slow downs, for those that are having issues with build 259, could you please also confirm if the same issue occured in build 205? Any feedback will be most appreciated.

Actually, for me, 205 ran better. Only upon installing 259 did I notice a slowdown with IE7 and File Guard.

[Cutter]

I'm taking back everything i said in my first post, i did a fresh install of xp (again lol) and version 5 is running perfect, i did have a problem when aol froze and spyware doc went funny, but it sorted it's self out, if im careful with it, and dont try and force it to fast it runs perfect, so happy here, and i just saw the kernal mode is turned of by default at the start, which is a great move in my opinion.

Cutter,

[Reodor]

A rather anoying thing has happened with the sys-tray icon since the 259 build. First time after start-up, whenever right clicking on the systray icon it even opens the drop-down menue of the tool-bar on top of the drop-down of SD. Then I have to right click the bar to get rid of the drop-down menue befor the SD menue gets active.

[Cutter]

There's still problems but it is working here's a list of problems i still have with it.

- When AOL locks up, spyware docotor will also decide to lock up taking a good 5 to 10 min to sort it's self out, i shut it down, but it doesn't do anything but does sort it's self out after about 5min, this only happens maybe once every few days so no biggy.

- When you shut it down the spyware doc try icon will just stay there, but i worked out if you move your mouse across it, then it will vanish.

- The program running with other programs runs in genral faster, but the program it's self is very very sluggish. Press a button, the menus vanish for a few seconds then come back, but it's more of a cosmetic annoyance.

- Final cosmetic, i brought this up when swd5 first come out, and come on i'm not the only one, the spyware doc desktop icon, it aint smooth like version 4, it's all jaggerdy, plzzzz can we have the v4 desktop icon, it looked smoother.

Cutter.

[lbray]

Hi PC Tools

I am a licensed user of Spyware Doctor, but have been using 4.1 as a fall-back because of unacceptable slowing of IE7 with SD5. I also use DitDefender 10 AV.

Encouraged to try out 259 following Webmast's report on improved IE7 browsing (see message #33 above) I offer the following findings. Each is the result of 5 separate tests.

SD5 ON (File Guard OFF)
- IE7 restart time 8-10 seconds
- Javascript popup window time to open 5-6 sec

SD5 SHUTDOWN
- IE7 restart time 3-4 seconds
- Javascript popup window time to open <1 sec (immediate)

I conclude that SD5 still introduces a noticeable delay into IE7 browsing for me. The Javascript popup delay is particular concerning, as it takes 5-6 seconds for the blank popup window to open (the fill is almost instantaneous because the html source file is plain text 300 words).

I have previously reported the above observed delays with processing Javascript popups, but this has not found its way to the reported issues list (unless it's intended to be captured under the slow IE7 browsing item?).

Regrettably, it's back to 4.1 for me again awaiting improved IE7 browsing.

Hope the above info helps in some way.

Regards, Len


Hi PC Tools, and SD5 and BitDefender 10 users,

I thought it useful to report back on some more findings related to my previous posting above.

I recently upgraded to Bitdefender Antivirus 2008 (BD AV 2008), which is a free upgrade for BD 10 and BD 9 users, and have rerun the above IE7 startup and javascript popup tests with SD5 in various configurations. My findings were:

1. With SD5 running, but On Guard Protection OFF (for 5 minutes), SD5 adds no extra time to IE7 startup or javascript popup time for me over SD5 being shut down. This is an improvement over before.

2. With SD5 running, and On Guard Protection ON but each guard turned OFF, SD5 adds another 4-5 seconds to the IE7 startup time (about the same as before), and js popup takes 2-3 seconds to appear (about half the previous delay). The same result occurs if all Guards except File guard are ON.

3. With SD5 running, On Guard Protection ON and all Guards on (ie, including File Guard), IE7 startup time is extended 6-7 seconds over SD 5 being shutdown or configured as in item 1 above. Javascript popup delay stays at 2-3 seconds.

I think all this is pointing to less time consuming interactions between SD 5 and BD AV 2008 (versus SD5 and BD 10), at least in some instances, so for licensed BD 10 users taking the free upgrade would appear to help.

I find it strange that with with On Guard Protection ON but each guard turned off that there should be a time penalty of 4-5 seconds over the option On Guard Protection OFF. This is saying it takes SD5 another 4-5 seconds to determine individually that each guard is off over the higher level condition (On Guard Protection OFF) that no guards are on.

Please note also that with SD5 shut down, neither BD 10 nor BD AV 2008 add any noticeable delay to IE7 startup time or the time for a javascript popup to appear (on my PC).

Hope this information proves useful to others...

Regards, Len

[riley50]

Hi - on a different tack - after upgrading to .259 I the SD start screen keeps popping up on my desktop for no apparent reason. I close it (x) but it returns!
What is the view - its me, a setting or the program?
its irritating!
cheers

[Reodor]

Hi - on a different tack - after upgrading to .259 I the SD start screen keeps popping up on my desktop for no apparent reason. I close it (x) but it returns!
What is the view - its me, a setting or the program?
its irritating!
cheers

Are You running 'Paid licence version' or one of the free-bees? (Google/Trial)

[riley50]

Hi Reodor - I have a registered paid up version
cheers

[Reodor]

This does not seem to be a common problem. Normally the screen just flashes so quick that You never notice what it is and disappears. You may have gotten something 'corrupted' during download/install.
The only thing I think might solve it would be to uninstall (from windows uninstaller), clean out properly, I use CCleaner (free), and then reinstall from a fresh download. Have Your licencenumber at hand so it may be re-activated after clean. Disable all other securityapps during both uninstall and re-install.