Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to JackCam614
Re: SpyBot S&D Scan result...
said by JackCam614  :Aloha Mele, I'm delighted to hear that you are PAU with that nagging mystery. (grammar?)  Well Done. Jack Grammar is correct..."pau" is used a LOT here. Waitress in restaurant: "Are you pau?" (finished with the meal). Co-worker: "When will you be done with the copier? I need to use it." "I'm almost pau". Friday afternoon at 4:30PM: "I'm pau work ...it's pau hana time! (finished (pau) work (hana) so it is party time). 
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
| reply to Mele20
That's great news Mele!
Glad you got it sorted out.
I'm using AVG and not Kaspersky, so who knows.
At some point, maybe I'll try removing AVG and running a scan....might get lucky.
This is one of those 'stranger than science' things of course, because, just as I'm sure that many people who are running Kaspersky never had this problem, there are probably configurations out there similar to mine without a problem as well.
So many possibilities that something like this is always hard to pin down.
Oh well...as I said, I rarely run Scans anymore with Spybot, but If I ever decide to 'experiment' a little, I'll certainly post the results.
I'm glad hear at least one of us in no longer bumfuzzled
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem. |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY | reply to claudeo
Hey claudeo,
Thanks for your input. Good info.
Jack |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY | reply to Mele20
Aloha Mele,
I'm delighted to hear that you are PAU with that nagging mystery. (grammar?) Well Done.
Jack |
|
claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| reply to JackCam614
There is a simple way to delete the temporary internet files and the infamous .dat file without running into the "file in use" problem, as long as you know where to look for those files and you are careful enough not to delete stuff that should not be deleted. You just need to have two accounts with administrator privileges defined on the system. As admin, you can go into the local settings for another user and delete anything you want. Just don't try this with fast user switching (even if your configuration allows fast switching), because you need to actually be logged off as a user in order for another user with admin rights to be able to clean up your mess. |
|
Libra
Premium
join:2003-08-06
USA | reply to Mele20
Hi Mele,
I'm happy to hear you figured it out and got it fixed.
Sincerely, Libra |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to JackCam614
MYSTERY SOLVED!!
It was Kaspersky. I had tried turning off realtime protection and then exiting KAV and that made no difference. Since that made no difference in the scan time and the beta version I got of the new MP1 version was AFTER my problem started, I didn't think it was this new MP1 version. But something changed in KAV after Sept 24 that caused the problem. I just uninstalled KAV and then rebooted and ran RegClean and then started a Spybot scan using the Sept 24 definitions and went in the kitchen...came back and wow! The scan was pau! err...finished...(pau is Hawaiian for finished). It took 6 min and 41 seconds so if I update the definitions now to the latest it will probably take 7min 30 sec as it did before whatever changed in KAV.
Since I was in the kitchen while it ran, I don't know if it caused heavy kernel access but I would think not...I think that was KAV also.
I uninstalled KAV to install the new F-Prot so I hope it doesn't interefere with Spybot.
I'm off to the Spybot and KAV forums to post about it. I wonder if the few others I have seen complaining of long scan times now also have KAV.
EDIT: I just updated Spybot to the Dec 8 definitions and ran another scan. This time it scanned in 5:38 seconds! NO excessive CPU usage and no heavy kernel access.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY
| reply to Mele20
Mele,
"Bumfuzzled" yet once again. (Was that Southern Hawaii, or Southern US ?)
Obviously I should not have jumped to judgment in suggesting that it was your machine, and that Spybot was off the hook. I was glad to see jabanut posting that he was experiencing the same problem. Errr, glad that you posted, jabanut, not glad that you were having a problem.
However, 2,815 sets of eyballs here at BBR, plus 231 sets over at the Spybot Forum, yet only 2 reports of problems.
Let me see.... Mele in Hilo, HI, the wettest city in the USA and jabanut in Galaxy M31, believed to be void of H20. Mayhaps Spybot doesn't play well with 'extremes'? 
I guess, as Mele suggested, "Maybe more folks will report this to Spybot boards and maybe that will lead to some answers."
Jack |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to jabarnut
Maybe more folks will report this to Spybot boards and maybe that will lead to some answers. But Jack and I have quite similar computers and he isn't affected...sooooo...maybe we just have to remain "bumfuzzled".
I only do Spybot scans after an update of the definitions as Spybot never finds anything except the occasional FP. I noticed the long scan after the Oct 13 definitions update and then again recently after the update. Since you haven't been doing any scans in a long while it wouldn't help to look in the log to see when was the last normal scan but for me that confirmed that the problem began after Sept 24.
However, installing Spybot with the Sept 24 definitions yesterday was also slow scan so that sounds like my computer...very confusing.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
| reply to Mele20
Wish I could be more help Mele, but I don't think it's specifically your Computer either.
What ever is causing the problem, the same thing happens with mine (I've since tried it on another Computer and it's horribly slow as well).
Unless we're just 'unlucky' or our machines have something in common (I can't imagine what that would be), then I'm bumfuzzled too.
As I said, I have very little to go on (even though I've always kept the program up to date, it's been ages since I bothered to run scans with it).
Guess I'm just a 'good boy' with my surfing habits and I got tired of it never finding anything worth mentioning. 
Therefore, I really can't come anywhere near close to a time where this 'slow scan' change may have taken place.
A mystery for sure.
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to jabarnut
said by jabarnut :A little hint.....if you run it minimized, the scans go a lot faster. (At least, that's how I remember it). Good luck That is what I did Oct 14 and then again recently...ran it minimized and I checked after about 6-7 minutes and it had just finished a small portion. So, I minimized it again and let it run a long time ...yet it took about 25 minutes. It took even longer after I got the most recent definitions and that was also minimized the first time. Then I decided something was wrong and began running it maximized and watching it. I remember that minimizing it used to make the scan faster but it doesn't seem to do so anymore.
What I find stranger than the long scan time is what seems to me to be very excessive Kernel usage throughout the scan until the end when bookmarks are scanned. I think the two go together and something is causing both and may or may not be something on my computer.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to JackCam614
It would appear from what Jabarnut says after your post that maybe Spybot isn't off the hook at all. It certainly is a mystery.
As for PCPitstop tests, that is weird that you haven't seen radically different results in tests there and we both have hyperthreading machines from Dell. Yes, Belarc Advisor correctly identifies the monitor as a Dell 1901 flat panel with the correct date of acquistion (Oct 2003) and gives the correct serial number. I pointed this fact out to PCPitstop forums but, as I said, Dave and the co-owner of the site whose name I forget, don't post now in the forums so I didn't get a good explanation.
I suggested in my posts that PCPitstop would be better off going back to not being able to identify the monitor at all rather than misidentify it and give a completely inaccurate serial number. PC Pitstop could not identify this monitor when I got it in Oct 2003 so that area of the test was blank. I did have to return the first one as DOA and the second and the third also had power supply problems and one would not come out of test mode if I used the DVI cable but worked on Analog. I went through four of them before I got a good one. I didn't test at PCPitstop though until after I got the good one and it didn't identify the monitor at all until this year. I asked several times from November 2003 onward why PCPitstop couldn't identify the monitor and was given vague answers and now they finally "identify" it incorrectly! The only part they have correct is that it is a Dell monitor.
I think 'bumfuzzled" is a Southern saying but I'm not sure. I've been saying it for a long time.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
jabarnut
Light Years Away
Premium,MVM
join:2005-01-22
Galaxy M31
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :...As for Spybot, I think it and my computer just don't get along any more. For what it's worth, I've noticed my scans take quite a bit longer than they did in the "old days".
I just tested it on one of my OLDER machines (an Athlon T-Bird 1GHz with 1 Gig of ram), and it took the better part of 25 minutes (Spyware check only).
I can't say how long it's been this way as I rarely bother to run full scans anymore.
I do know that it only took 5 or 6 minutes on this machine some time ago.
A little hint.....if you run it minimized, the scans go a lot faster. (At least, that's how I remember it).
Good luck
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem. |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY
1 edit | reply to Mele20
Mele,
Damn Darn. I'm sorry this didn't work out for you.  Oh well, we gave it the old college try.
I should have mentioned that sometimes you would have to close IE in order to delete those hidden files in IE cache.
I discovered that on my own, via trial and error.
I'm disappointed to hear that PC Pitstop has apparently deteriorated in performance. I personally have not seen the radical changes in my machines performance tests. (Yep, as you know, I also have Hyper Threading. Dell Dimension Series 8400, P-4 550 (3.4Ghz) 1GB DDR2 SDRam at 400MHz)
The misidentification of your monitor and it's serial number is really odd. If I recall correctly, you had to return a monitor or 2 to Dell for some reason. Maybe switching monitors so often just 'bumfuzzled' the Pitstop diagnostic tests. ('bumfuzzled', your word. I don't know where you got it, but I love it.) I'm curious, does Belarc Advisor correctly ID your monitor and Serial Number?
Anyhoo, I'm sorry you haven't been able to resolve your Spybot scanning problem. That is a real puzzler. It would appear to be a problem that is unique to your machine, so Spybot is off the hook on this one.
Jack
edited for typo |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to JackCam614
Thanks for the instructions.
I can't delete those. I get errors that if I do that the computer will not work. There are only 249 files altogether in 3 folders. I don't think 249 IE temp files are the reason for the dramatic slowdown in Spybot scanning.
edit: I got most of them deleted by doing it a different way with IE closed.
I can get to PCPitstop now on IE... earlier it would only load partially and then hang. I remembered the problem back in Oct when it did this was because I did not have it in the Trusted Zone and when I did put it there, I had to lower the Trusted Zone settings to the lowest possible before PCPitstop would fully load. It was still in the Trusted Zone today but I had put the settings for that zone back like I usually have them...so I had to lower them further before PCPitstop would load.
I don't want to run a test there. It is a fair amount of hassle to do one because you have to shut everything down first and I have two virtual machines running and also have my True Image showing as a virtual drive on my hard drive. PCPitstop would scan the entire virtual drive. I don't want it doing that and don't want to shut that down right now.
The last tests I did there in October, PCPitstop informed me that I have a serial number and monitor that I have never heard of. I immediately posted in the forums and the bad error (the serial number it reported was not even close to the correct one) was shrugged off by one poster and NO ONE from PCPitstop bothered to answer my post. The site is not good anymore I don't think. If that test can dream up a serial number for a nonexistent monitor then who knows what else is inaccurate? And the site's two creators no longer post in the forums to help folks.
I ran tests there on Oct 10 which was three days before the Spybot slowdown so I don't think there is anything wrong with my computer. PCPitstop said I had an extremely fast computer...faster than almost any others that have tested there. (It's very fast for a Pentium 4 (3.8 Ghz with 800 FSB, 2GB RAM and the nVidia 7800GTX card, but faster than some of the new dual cores)??? It never said anything like that when the computer was new in February, rather it told me my computer was "average" and could be improved. I had the saved tests from last February and then the October ones. So, I also asked about this discrepancy in the forums and was told that PCPitstop was unable, in February, to test my computer accurately because it is a hyperthreading CPU and supposedly by October they were finally able to test these computers. But back in February, they said nothing about not being able to accurately test my computer when their tests detected hyperthreading and they should not have misled me with inaccurate results! I was really surprised because the 8300 that this XPS was a replacement for, also was hyperthreading and I wondered with it too, three years ago, why I didn't get better scores at PCPitstop...so all this time they have been unable to accurately test hyperthreading computers (much less the new dual cores) but they never told anyone...except maybe in a forum reply. Thus, I have lost a lot of the respect I once had for that site.
As for Spybot, I think it and my computer just don't get along any more. |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY
| reply to Mele20
Mele,
I couldn't 'grab' the whole page, but I C&P'ed the "Solution". Here you go.
Solutions
For manual deletion, use this method:
1. Open an Explorer folder window (for example, double-click My Computer). From the Explorer menu select Tools | Folder Options | View. Make sure that you have checked the box next to "Show hidden files and folders" and uncheck "Hide protected operating system files".
2. Start Internet Explorer and click Tools | Internet Options | General tab | Settings | View Files.
3. IE should have opened up a folder window, typically viewing a folder with the name of C:\Windows\Temporary Internet Files. Put your cursor in the Address area of the folder window and add the name \content.ie5 to the name, so in our example the Address bar would now read c:\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\content.ie5.
4. You should see a series of four or more folders with random eight-character names like ADOZMZS1. Delete each of these randomly named folders. You may get an error that some files are in use, this is normal if you are currently at a web site since those files are in the cache. Hold down the Shift key when deleting the files so they do not go to the Recycle Bin.
5. If desired, reset the folder options you changed in step 1.
In some cases, the IE cache index (INDEX.DAT) file may be damaged and should be deleted. Microsoft documents 306837 and 293402 have additional information on symptoms of the problem and how to remove the file.
Piece of cake, Mele. Let's hope this works for you.
Jack |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :said by JackCam614 :You certainly have every reason to feel frustrated at this point. May I suggest you run a free 'Full PC Tuneup' at PC Pitstop. » pcpitstop.com/ Did you mean run this: PC Pitstop Optimize 1.5? That is a scam. You download it and run it and it tells you all this stuff it will fix and then won't fix a thing unless you buy it. It says FREE test but it is a scam. If you meant just run a PCPitstop scan, I can't. IE chokes on the site and won't load it. Most likely due to my having had IE7 beta on this computer for a while. PCPitstop still doesn't work with IE7 and even though I removed IE7 long ago, I had a horrible time a month or two ago trying to get PCPitstop to load on IE. It loads fine on Fx but you can't run tests on Fx. I used to really like PCPitstop and have used it since its inception many years ago. But recently....well, when I was having all these problems there earlier and I posted in their forums...gee...they have stripped down their forums drastically and Dave never posts regularly anymore...just a few regular users seem to do the help ....but there is no help now, when you have problems, from the owners like there used to be. Do you happen to know of any other program (free) that will remove Temp files? The PC Pitstop Optimize test showed I have a fair amount of Temp files (261828 KB) but very little Internet Cache. Removing Temp files manually is a pain unless there is a way I have forgotten for doing it easily (probably is a way and I've just forgotten) as when you select all and then try to delete it hangs on a file that is in use. I think there is a simple way to exclude a file like that and yet have the deletion process not stop but go on to delete the other files. I can't recall how to do it though as I haven't done it in a long time. Mele,
No, I did not mean "Optimize 1.5", I meant the free "Full PC Tuneup" that is at the heart of the PC Pit stop site.
I understand that you are having a problem running this, but I can post the detailed instructions regarding a fix for the "Internet Explorer Cache Overflow". It's really quite simple, and I will grab a copy from the site and post it here for you. Sorry I'm taking a while to get back to you, but my phone is really keeping me busy at the moment. I'll get it to you ASAP.
Thanks for your patience,
Jack |
|
Indy Sabre
Sabre Rider From Indianapolis
join:2003-10-02 | reply to Mele20
Mele20, Have you tried CCleaner to remove browser and windows temp files?
»www.ccleaner.com/
|
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to JackCam614
said by JackCam614 :You certainly have every reason to feel frustrated at this point. May I suggest you run a free 'Full PC Tuneup' at PC Pitstop. » pcpitstop.com/ Did you mean run this: PC Pitstop Optimize 1.5? That is a scam. You download it and run it and it tells you all this stuff it will fix and then won't fix a thing unless you buy it. It says FREE test but it is a scam.
If you meant just run a PCPitstop scan, I can't. IE chokes on the site and won't load it. Most likely due to my having had IE7 beta on this computer for a while. PCPitstop still doesn't work with IE7 and even though I removed IE7 long ago, I had a horrible time a month or two ago trying to get PCPitstop to load on IE. It loads fine on Fx but you can't run tests on Fx.
I used to really like PCPitstop and have used it since its inception many years ago. But recently....well, when I was having all these problems there earlier and I posted in their forums...gee...they have stripped down their forums drastically and Dave never posts regularly anymore...just a few regular users seem to do the help ....but there is no help now, when you have problems, from the owners like there used to be.
Do you happen to know of any other program (free) that will remove Temp files? The PC Pitstop Optimize test showed I have a fair amount of Temp files (261828 KB) but very little Internet Cache. Removing Temp files manually is a pain unless there is a way I have forgotten for doing it easily (probably is a way and I've just forgotten) as when you select all and then try to delete it hangs on a file that is in use. I think there is a simple way to exclude a file like that and yet have the deletion process not stop but go on to delete the other files. I can't recall how to do it though as I haven't done it in a long time.
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.msfirefox.com/ |
|
JackCam614
Premium
join:2000-08-24
New Hyde Park, NY
| reply to Mele20
I'm glad you share my appreciation of the English language. Somehow "rude" just didn't quite cut it.
I hope you can get the Full PC Tuneup test running properly for you. We may get lucky, and find the 'bug' that's interfering with your machine running the Spybot S&D. Once again, Good Luck. And please keep us posted.
Jack |
|
