MSE 2 Final Released!

Anak said:

ignatzatsonic said:

Dunno about the discrepancy between 887,000 versus 284,000.

If you had MSE2 set to do a full scan, that's what it does. It scans everything.

Do you know how Eset was configured for your scans, and any of the characteristics of that configuration?

After reading ignatzatsonic's post....Curiosity got the better of me, and I had to try this "ESET online complete? (EOLS) scan".

I wanted to see what the difference between apples and oranges was.

The only difference between ignatzatsonic, and me is that I clicked on "Scan for potentially unsafe objects", and I did that to include everything possible to start the scan.
Because, when you research for forums, Fame can be fleeting.....

ignatzatsonic said:

You will note that the screen says that another antivirus app was detected. If you click the "show list" link, it says Windows Defender (not MSE). I did NOT disable MSE or Defender.

Defender is a moot point when you have MSE installed. It is automatically stopped.

ignatzatsonic said:

I'm not overly concerned about the discrepancy in the file count, but would like to hear comments nonetheless.

Neither am I. I attribute it to the way the different developers attack the problem of malware.

profdlp said:

Since one of the biggest complaints about anti-virus programs is their sluggishness and heavy load on the system, many companies skip scanning files deemed not risky. Anak called it with his comment that when you tell MSE to scan everything it scans everything. :)

And for what ever security program you have; If it is "Real-Time" expect a decrease in performance!

sygnus21 said:

Well as for time, this is an on-line scan right? So internet speed could account for the length of time. As to file count, I think Anak asked a very valid question - what was the configuration settings used. I see what's posted, but....

So internet speed could account for the length of time.

My apologies sygnus, but that is somewhat incorrect. it only applies to the length of time to download, and set-up the program.
Once a user starts the EOLS there is a four part process that, starts, runs, finishes, and removes the program.
All Conditions to run EOLS are met before the user starts it.
( Think portable program )

ignatzatsonic said:

I don't know what file extensions ESET or any other scanner might exclude by default---even if the user wants to scan "everything".

I watched the screen on and off during the ESET scan and can say that it did scan JPG files, mp3s, and all of my video files.

There may be a fine distinction between "files" and "objects". ESET refers to the former. I think MSE uses the latter term?

I suspect the bulk of the discrepancy is within Windows--on the C drive. Not in my personal files.

Until further corroboration I can go along with your assumption.
Developers minds are like diamonds...One can never tell which direction a beam will go until it intercedes a value.

sygnus21 said:

ignatzatsonic said:

There may be a fine distinction between "files" and "objects". ESET refers to the former. I think MSE uses the latter term?

That's a possibility, given the discrepancy with the number of items scanned.

ignatzatsonic said:

FYI:

I just completed an ESET online complete scan:

284,000 scanned files in 90 minutes.

This compares to yesterday's MSE 2 scan of 887,000 items---also in 90 minutes.

Total space occupied is 1.05 TB across 3 partitions.

C: 24 gigs on a WD black 7200 rpm
D: 339 gigs on the same WD black
E: 682 gigs on a WD green 5400 rpm

I did not knowingly exclude anything from the scans.

Dunno about the discrepancy between 887,000 versus 284,000.

My finals, using Eset terminology, and again with ranges, low to high:

EOLS scanned 97741 objects.
Scanning duration, 1:03:10 = 63minutes 10 seconds.

Memory Processes observed during the scan:
OnLineCMDlineService.exe ~ Ranged from 28604KB to 75408KB
OnLineServiceApp.exe ~ Ranged from 13920KB to 24720KB

At Idle the CMDService Stopped 000000KB
At Idle the ServiceApp maintained 3684KB

There may be others, but these two were the only ones I observed.


As I said earlier; "Curiosity got the better of me", and I wanted to see how these "Apples and Oranges" compared.

You be the judge.
For myself I can not see how an online scanner can be more proficient than an in-stalled resident program.

, and never the twain shall meet? nice reversal!..............

sygnus21 said:

Anak said:

, and never the twain shall meet? nice reversal!..............

We won't say that....

You have some points, but I think we do too :)

And thanks.

I would like to know why, when you respond Anak is singular, but sygnus21 is plural?



I am not here to tip the scales of understanding, my only desire is to present the efforts of results in an "Un-Official" performance test.

If you think I have blundered into an area that creates ambiguity.
I would like to know.

sygnus21 said:

Anak said:

I would like to know why, when you respond Anak is singular, but sygnus21 is plural?

Well, your reply addressed both myself and Ignatzatsonic (plural) - thus the we in my reply to you (singular).

There's no hidden agenda or anything, and I'm not here to cause problems. I stated my view, you stated yours. We'll leave it at that.

Peace

I can accept that.

English was never my major, and I always had difficulty with the verbiage. I appreciate your honesty.

May peace, and the blessings of the season be with you, ignatzatsonic, and all who have participated in this discussion also.

Peace