Version 5 is still an unusable barely-beta P-O-C!

sundiegojc · #1 08-12-2007, 10:16 PM

I cannot overstate how disappointed I am with version 5 specifically and PCtools generally as a company. I have installed YET ANOTHER (this is the fourth time since version 5's "release") unusable waste-of-time version on 4 different machines (all running Windows XP >2 GHz, >1 GB ram).
In ALL CASES, it increases the access time for any web page by a minimum of 10X, and in most cases, assures a 2-3 minute minimum load time.
The only thing that makes any difference is turning off "On Guard", and even then web pages still take over a minute to load, where they used to take 5-10 seconds.
Version 4 was an effective product. Apparently after version 4, PCtools fired all their coders and let the marketing weasels "upgrade" the product.
My experiences with version 5 have insured that none of my 5 licensed copies will be be reinstalled and certainly never renewed.

Cutter · #2 08-12-2007, 11:06 PM

I think the program is fantastic, when you say 2ghz is that a single core possessor or a dual core possessor, I could imagine a single core really struggling as version 5 even version 4 was a bit of a resource hog at times.

Cutter.

BenJr · #3 08-13-2007, 02:45 AM

I'm surprised that your having such a difficulty on four separate machines.
I wonder what's causing the browser conflict. I use Firefox with my SD5's without a problem.
Maybe we can figure it out here.

mburton06 · #4 08-13-2007, 08:10 PM

I too use SD + AV 5 with Firefox and have experienced no problems. What seems to be the problem?

sundiegojc · #5 08-15-2007, 03:30 PM

Thank you all for you feedback.
This problem occurs on both single and dual processor machines ranging from 2.6 to 4 GHz, and all with at least 1 MB of RAM. (4 tested)

The installation of SD5 causes massive delays in loading any web page. Without SD5 installed, web pages all load with ~10 seconds.

With SD5 installed, and On Guard enabled, the SAME web pages (such as take a MNIMUM of 2 minutes to load, and some cases over 5 minutes.

With On Guard disabled, the web pages STILL load slowly (all still take a minimum of 1 minute longer than when SD5 is not installed).

In all cases, SD% is NOT scanning the drive when the problems occur.

Version 4 does not exhibit this behavior.

Firefox is not an option as IE is required by several applications and web services that I use. Besides, there is no published requirement for Firefox to be used.

Given PCTools' track record with this product, even getting this version to work would not overcome my fears over how badly they will botch the next update.

tom.tdw · #6 08-15-2007, 03:39 PM

try firefox with the IE tab plugin

other than that i can only suggest sticking with v4

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundiegojc

Thank you all for you feedback.
This problem occurs on both single and dual processor machines ranging from 2.6 to 4 GHz, and all with at least 1 MB of RAM. (4 tested)

The installation of SD5 causes massive delays in loading any web page. Without SD5 installed, web pages all load with ~10 seconds.

With SD5 installed, and On Guard enabled, the SAME web pages (such as take a MNIMUM of 2 minutes to load, and some cases over 5 minutes.

With On Guard disabled, the web pages STILL load slowly (all still take a minimum of 1 minute longer than when SD5 is not installed).

In all cases, SD% is NOT scanning the drive when the problems occur.

Version 4 does not exhibit this behavior.

Firefox is not an option as IE is required by several applications and web services that I use. Besides, there is no published requirement for Firefox to be used.

Given PCTools' track record with this product, even getting this version to work would not overcome my fears over how badly they will botch the next update.

tig2020 · #7 08-15-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundiegojc

Thank you all for you feedback.
This problem occurs on both single and dual processor machines ranging from 2.6 to 4 GHz, and all with at least 1 MB of RAM. (4 tested)

The installation of SD5 causes massive delays in loading any web page. Without SD5 installed, web pages all load with ~10 seconds.

With SD5 installed, and On Guard enabled, the SAME web pages (such as take a MNIMUM of 2 minutes to load, and some cases over 5 minutes.

With On Guard disabled, the web pages STILL load slowly (all still take a minimum of 1 minute longer than when SD5 is not installed).

In all cases, SD% is NOT scanning the drive when the problems occur.

Version 4 does not exhibit this behavior.

Firefox is not an option as IE is required by several applications and web services that I use. Besides, there is no published requirement for Firefox to be used.

Given PCTools' track record with this product, even getting this version to work would not overcome my fears over how badly they will botch the next update.

I get no delays, none, zilch - - using Firefox 2.0.0.6, opera 923 - build 8808 or IE 7. Further, my OS is Windows Vista Ultimate running on an Asus A8n32 sli deluxe mobo, AMD FX60 dual core 2.6 gig and 2 gig of corsair ram. Additional security progs in the tray (all active) are ZAISS 7.1.078 (all items active), TrojanHunter 4.7 (Trojan guard active) and Windows defender while running SD5 (Site Guard add-on installed) with onguard activated and all items enabled. Soooooooooooo - - anyone here think that something ain't right and I am not speaking of PC Tools. Additionally, I have placed 15 machines in the market with essentially the same hardware configuration with the same OS and active background programs as described above. Perhaps some of you peeps need to look a little deeper or maybe a lot deeper. Furthermore, when you peeps come in here blowing that crap, post your hardware, your OS and tell us what is running in the system tray. Does anyone think that may make a difference - just maybe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geeeezzzzzzzzzzz

tig2020 · #8 08-15-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundiegojc

I cannot overstate how disappointed I am with version 5 specifically and PCtools generally as a company. I have installed YET ANOTHER (this is the fourth time since version 5's "release") unusable waste-of-time version on 4 different machines (all running Windows XP >2 GHz, >1 GB ram).
In ALL CASES, it increases the access time for any web page by a minimum of 10X, and in most cases, assures a 2-3 minute minimum load time.
The only thing that makes any difference is turning off "On Guard", and even then web pages still take over a minute to load, where they used to take 5-10 seconds.
Version 4 was an effective product. Apparently after version 4, PCtools fired all their coders and let the marketing weasels "upgrade" the product.
My experiences with version 5 have insured that none of my 5 licensed copies will be be reinstalled and certainly never renewed.

Beta POC - - pffffffffffffffffff see above post

You running simms or dimms on that thing. Do you have something more than a 233 FSB on that mobo. So you are running XP - which one. What do you have running in the background that may conflict with SD5 - State the progs. Have you updated all system drivers - if any are available. What kind of machine do you have - home grown, dell, Hp - what! When you installed SD did you do an over-install or clean install. If you over-installed then good luck - you got what you got. If clean, did you clean out the temps, the recycle bin, the registry and all SD prog directories. Did you clean your prefetch. When was the last time you cleaned your cache or are you sitting there with 100MB booked. When you installed did you deactivate all other spyware and anti-virus progs. What kind of firewall do you have. Have you sufficiently organized and defragged the disks and I could go on and on and on. Tell us what you have in detail and what your are running in the background in detail and you may get some help. Dayyyyyyyyy um. I see that you running 2.6 to 4 gig CPU(s) so the simms and 233 fsb don't apply or does the 233 FSB apply?

BenJr · #9 08-15-2007, 07:58 PM

I think that tig2020 has made a point.
I'm wondering if all four machines share a common program that can be causing the conflict.

tig2020 · #10 08-15-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenJr

I think that tig2020 has made a point.
I'm wondering if all four machines share a common program that can be causing the conflict.

You think that may be the case!!!!!! Sorry for going off but man, that guy has made two posts to the forum - - makes me wonder.

On second thought I think I don't wonder, I think I know!!!