No it did not. But interesting info.

I have seen the Free clean up issues.. but, I use the paid and don't get any.. MBAM is the best IMO

Hi there

All these comparisons are DEAD IN THE WATER and totally useless -- by the time these reports come out (tests performed usually at least 4 - 6 weeks earlier than the date the report is published) a whole slew of NEW Virus definitions could be out there which totally invalidates any previous result.

It matters not a jot if the one that "alleges 99.5% success" ( none don't but imagine if it did) fails to spot a particular problem you might have on YOUR machine but on no one else's. As far as you are concerned it's a failure. So choosing the one with the 99.5% success rate doesn't guarantee anything - especially since we all access different websites and use computers differently.

Try and cast your mind back to those Halcyon days before the Mobile phone invaded every part of modern living when you had to rely on the fixed line phone service. The phone company could say that the phone system was up and running 99.9999% of the time - but if YOUR PHONE was broken and the ONLY PHONE on the planet that was broken -- as far as you were concerned the system was 100% NOT operating !!!

In any case these days Virus protection isn't the major issue -- it's exploits caused by USERS themselves -- for example clicking on links from unknown email senders, opening up and replying to questions on Fake Govt / Bank / Utility (electric /Gas) / Other official looking websites or giving out too much info on social media.

Another problem is the "Green Arrow syndrome" - when trying to download software the web site deliberately hides or makes it really difficult to find the REAL download you want while all the other arrows (usually green - hence "green arrow syndrome" - point to other software / trial ware / adware / cr@pware etc. Unwanted toolbars are also a problem.

Even if you do find the program you want you still aren't out of the woods completely -- check carefully and unclick any "special offers" or "toolbars" etc.

Finally any AV that doesn't offer real time protection is just JUNK -- what use is POST analysis on a computer -- If you find out at 23.00 you have a Virus -- you don't know WHEN you got it or what it's done between infection and detection. (I think in the USA Post event analysis is called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" !! -- perhaps a US user can confirm).

If a computer IS infected I still maintain that I'd NEVER use any clean up program on it -- even if it said computer is clean how could you KNOW -- the infection could prevent the clean up software doing its job properly.

I'd always restore from a CLEAN virus free backup. In extreme cases I might even perform a new Windows install. Restoring a clean backup only takes around 20 mins on decent hardware - probably a lot quicker than running a cleanup program.

Cheers
jimbo

DavidW7ncus said:

Why would anyone compare a free On Demand Anti-malware scanner to any real-time Anti-Virus product ?
Talk about comparing apples and oranges ...
I use MBAM real-time on all my systems, and won't stop using it because of this BS.
Who the heck is Dennis Technology Labs and can THEY be trusted ?

Dennis labs is one of the trusted testers out there yes.

Like they stated in the article, the reason it was in there was it was requested by people to be in the report. Like also stated, malwarebytes on there website seems to imply that the free version helps protect the user. But in reality it does not, only after the user is infected can the program do its work.

The article explains why it was in there, and why it failed.

Nothing really more to see here.

But yes, it was def. an apple vs orange scenario.

Malwarebytes pro has good protection, its the free version that was tested.

Regardless of if any program will protect you, I'd rather have the 95% program protecting me then the 55% program

And Malwarebytes is going to be there trying :)

A Guy

self delete