kzinti1

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kzinti1

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. One last question. I've clicked "NO Notifications" on this topic ever since I 1st posted and I keep getting e-mails saying I've been responded to. How do I get out of this endless, pointless debate? I don't agree with you and I never will. I just don't want to hear about it any longer. I followed the directions to opt out and they obviously don't work.
  2. I'm still not trying to argue with you. Since the newest update you download completely replaces whatever you had prior to the new update, there is no possible way to know what update you may have had a problem with unless, of course, you report a problem with an update before checking for a new one. I know of nobody who runs a scan BEFORE they download a new update that's waiting to be downloaded, so any problem will always be with the newest update, or the person would've already asked about a problem before they even checked for the next update. The new numbering system only complicates what was a very easy way to check the number of a new update to the last update. As far as numbering updates with random numbers, previously, I'll take it for granted you really don't mean that. Every single update I have ever performed had a number that was different from the prior update by just the last one or two decimals. The updates being generally, in series, from one to the the number of the last update. A completely non-random numerical sequence. You believe that, for example, the date right now, 12/23/2011 plus the number of the present database version update (I just checked) 05, making it 12/23/2011 #05, is harder to comprehend than the seemingly random numbers you now use (911122205), which means exactly the same thing? If so, then I've awakened to an alternate universe with neither rhyme nor reason and I want to go home! As I keep repeating, I'm not arguing. You can call the new updates "Pink Badger" for all I care. Just as long as a new update actually is "New"! Which is not as easy as before, regardless of what you say. Change, just for the sake of change, is completely illogical. You appear to have been tasked with a "Make Work" job as if you had nothing better to do. Nothing has been accomplished. I'm completely happy with M-Bam or I would have never paid for the PRO version!
  3. "We will use the date in the UI still, this naming scheme gets more specific though. It tells you which number of database it is on a particular day, something the date info does not tell you." I'm afraid I can't remember the update number I just performed. As I have always done, I update before each scan. Is there some reason I should actually pay attention to the number of the update I'm installing over an older update? All I ever do is look to see if the number of the available update is greater than the one that I'm overwriting. The only reason I can imagine why this is important is if, somehow, an older update was replacing a newer one. I've never seen that happen. Wouldn't that be called a retro-update? (An anti-update? Actually, a downgrade?) I'm not trying to start an argument, but it seems that you're hinting at something of which I'm not aware. Has MBAM actually sent out any old updates that are marked as new updates? I just don't get it. I don't mind the change in the numbering system at all. I just see no need to overcomplicate it. Most of us can easily handle 9,999 changing to 10,000. It isn't like whenever the new Millenium started and no one knew for sure when that was. I saw the points brought up by both sides of that non-argument and decided I really didn't care. Neither the world, the internet, nor my computers self-destructed. Win-win, either way. As long as the updates keep rolling along, this is also a non-issue. I wouldn't even have posted here if I was actually informed of the change and didn't have to come here to see if my copy of MBAM had been corrupted. You should've at least have informed your MBAM-Pro customers. For the people running the free version, WYSIWYG.
  4. "Using this new naming scheme, a user or support helper can easily determine if the database used is fairly current or badly outdated." Why not just use the date, directly above the update version? Or is that also going away? I've no problem with the new version designation at all. When it changed I imagined a new MBAM was on the way. Will MBAM now automatically work with our Anti-Virus programs, or do we integrate them in the same old way, so that they ignore one another?
  5. That sure did it! I don't know how or why but "Scan Filesystem Objects" was unchecked. Quick Scan took 1 minute 37 seconds. Full Scan took 34 minutes 21 seconds. No infections detected. I feel a lot safer now. Thank you!
  6. Thank you Mainard!
  7. How do I go about elevating a problem that hasn't been solved? I'm referring to my other post "Version 1.51.0.1200 Too Fast?" I attached the 2 logs as requested and haven't heard anything else. Is there something else you need?
  8. I didn't mean to post 2 of the same scans in my last post. I'm not very familiar with transferring files. Here are the 2 logs you wanted. BTW, I tried to update and I couldn't. My computer reported that the program (MBAM) was unresponsive. mbam-log-2011-06-02 (03-22-40).txt mbam-log-2011-06-02 (03-22-19).txt
  9. Thanks. Here you go: mbam-log-2011-06-01 (18-44-38).txt mbam-log-2011-06-01 (18-44-38).txt
  10. The version prior to the latest took about 1 minute 45 seconds to run a full scan on 4 hdd's. This new version takes 4 seconds? How could that possibly be correct? I've checked all my settings and they're the same I've been using. A properly completed scan couldn't possibly be executed in 4 seconds on 4 hdd's.
  11. Thanks for the fix!
  12. I tried to send this to you but your address was unacceptable to Hotmail. Here's wht I tried to send to you: I went to update Malwarebytes Pro and got the following message, which also said to send it to you: PROGRAM_ERROR_UPDATING(404,0, HTTPSTATUSCODE) No, the program didn't update. At present the database code is 6658.
  13. Still getting the alert, and now I'm up to version 6619. I update several times a day. Gotta keep up to date on all the virusii, you know? When I update, the correct version is shown as being replaced by the latest, so it isn't suddenly devolving to whatever version it was 3,423 days ago, (were you even in business way back then?), so I'll just leave it as is and just treat it as a novelty. Hell, some people would consider something like this as being a Bonus, or ub3r 1337 or some other such nonsense. So let's just put this down as Problem Solved. Thanks for your help!
  14. Actually, that was the 1st thing I checked. Here's the log. Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.50.1.1100 www.malwarebytes.org Database version: 6609 Windows 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Internet Explorer 9.0.8112.16421 5/18/2011 7:44:42 AM mbam-log-2011-05-18 (07-44-42).txt Scan type: Quick scan Objects scanned: 200773 Time elapsed: 1 minute(s), 1 second(s) Memory Processes Infected: 0 Memory Modules Infected: 0 Registry Keys Infected: 0 Registry Values Infected: 0 Registry Data Items Infected: 0 Folders Infected: 0 Files Infected: 0 Memory Processes Infected: (No malicious items detected) Memory Modules Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Keys Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Values Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Data Items Infected: (No malicious items detected) Folders Infected: (No malicious items detected) Files Infected: (No malicious items detected)