21 replies to this topic

[Jim G]

I think many user wants to see this feature, please try to add a progress bar in future version, thanks.

[noknojon]

@ Jim G -
This has been put up in the "Comments and Suggestions" area several times in several ways -
I asume you mean like the bottom bar in Spybot -
Also -This is Not a Malware issue related to this section -

[GT500]

Moving topic...

[TeMerc]

Discussed ad nauseum...........not gonna happen.

[mountaintree16]

Well, what you can do is, run a quick scan a few times (and a full scan if you like too), take note of how long it takes, and then you can use that to gauge approximately how long your scan is going to take for each scan type

[swagger]

I guess some reasoning would be just if you haven't seen the thread... Basically this has been discussed several times as mentioned in previous posts above but I believe the reason behind not implementing the progress bar is because there would be no way to accurately measure the progress.

[mountaintree16]

I think that you are right on, swagger.

[RubbeR DuckY]

We can add progress for only certain portions of the scan. Gauging the rest of the scan would require heavy approximations and we are just not ready to focus on that. Instead, we are going to focus on how to better detect malicious software .

[swagger]

Thanks for chiming in Marcin, sounds better coming from someone officially involved who knows more about it

[mountaintree16]

RubberR DuckY,

That's what I thought, and I agree, much much more important to concentrate on detecting and removing malware

[Jim G]

Well, I know that the program cannot detect how many files and folders there are, so it's hard to make the progress bar. But how about calculate the total files first?

What I mean is not the quick scan, it is so quick that user doesn't need a progress bar, but the full scan took quite a long time. I found that when I check the property of drive C: in "My Computer", Windows can calculate the total size of drive C very fast. So if MBAM does this first, the program can know the total size to scan, then the program can calculate the progress.

[catscomputer]

RubbeR DuckY, on Nov 20 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

Instead, we are going to focus on how to better detect malicious software .

As a user, this matters a lot more to me than bells and whistles. Thank-you.

[Firefox]

I am with RubberDucky and catscomputer on this one .....

[yardbird]

We talked about this months ago. its rare that any software company bar is accurate! see post # 4 above...

EDIT: Here's the old thread from June 1st. 09.... http://www.malwareby...showtopic=16617

[noknojon]

Well , we all know a quick scan (the usual type) takes 5-7 mins - End of scan - What more can you want ??

Even the Spybot bar hesitates and hangs at times - It is not a timer - I know of NO accurate scan time bar - Even my Avira bar gets to 99.8% and then hangs for the next few mins -

As said by TeMerc !!!!! - Never - And by me why ???

[RubbeR DuckY]

Jim, it is a feasible idea and definitely not impossible. We will look into making it a reality, especially when we have a bigger release.

[firzen771]

RubbeR DuckY, on Nov 20 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

Jim, it is a feasible idea and definitely not impossible. We will look into making it a reality, especially when we have a bigger release.

sounds good, i know its not of the most importance but its a nice little graphical thing to have.

[Beenthere]

nosirrah, on Jun 12 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

The only progress bar I would support would be one based on estimating time remaining based on previous scan times but even this would not be accurate the majority of the time as system contents and system load are not static .

They also don't change drastically.

[exile360]

They do if you surf the net for 5 minutes and don't use a temp file cleaner (which many users don't).

[mbyuser]

i dont see the point.i know how long it should take quick or full scan.
i really hope this isnt thrown in,the program would use resources (even if only slightly) and myself i feel it would be a step in the wrong direction.thats how some others ended up being tossed in the waste basket;at first great dection rates then frills,then a crap bloated program.
frills dont intrest me at all,dection rates do.