New
#1211
As with any new major version, MBAM2 had its share of performance, stability and compatibility issues.
That is nothing new. Most of them were fixed; some of them never were.
I expect that most of the performance and stability issues for 3.0 will be fixed eventually, as well.
I am less optimistic about compatibility problems, now that Malwarebytes 3.0 is being touted in a new light. I hope that REAL side-by-side compatibility will not be a problem for those of us who wish to continue with a true, layered security strategy.
The main difference with the launch of MBAM2 vs. the launch of Malwarebytes 3.0 hinges on the fact that it was not asserted at any time that MBAM2 was sufficient as sole protection and an "AV replacement".
It was accurately marketed as a complementary program specializing in certain types of non-viral malware not well-covered by a standard AV. It was (and remains) a collaborative product to accompany a fully-flagged AV.
By contrast, we are told that Malwarebytes 3.0 surpasses”, “makes obsolete”, “replaces” and is “more proficient” than a standard AV, with -- thus far -- no published data to support the claims.
While Malwarebytes 3.0 does includes new protection against exploits and ransomware, these are not unique to Malwarebytes 3.0. Many (most?) of the better 3rd-party AVs also provide these features, as well as others that Malwarebytes 3.0 does not.
I have no doubt that the Malwarebytes folks will work hard to fix performance and stability issues. Until we see published data from outside testing, however, it remains to be seen whether the enthusiastic claims of Malwarebytes 3.0 as sole protection and "AV Replacement" will hold up.
And if the claims are borne out, will Malwarebytes 3.0 also fulfill the promise of remaining compatible in the real world, not just on paper, with major 3rd-party AVs?
Those issues constitute the crux of what's new and different about Malwarebytes 3.0.
MM