Why do people recommend MBAM over SAS?

Discussion in 'Security and Anti-Virus Software' started by Kaspersky666, Feb 17, 2012.

?

Which is your favorite spyware/trojan scanner besides your Antivirus that you run?

  1. SUPERAntiSpyware Pro

    10.0%
  2. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware

    70.0%
  3. Spybot S & D

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Ad-Aware

    5.0%
  5. Emsisoft Anti-Malware

    5.0%
  6. Other, please mention in the thread

    10.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Indrek

    Indrek Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    2,264
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Ah, there comes the obligatory IE bashing. Predictable as ever. But fine, I'll play along.

    Built-in Tracking Protection + hosts file = no need for an adblock plug-in. Alternatively, if you absolutely must have a 3rd-party add-on, there's Simple Adblock, for instance.

    Most vulnerable? I suppose if you really go out of your way to disable any and all security features it includes, then yes. Out of the box, though, it's no less secure than others, and possibly even more secure than some. For instance, it's the only other browser besides Chrome that does any sort of sandboxing whatsoever.

    As for that comparison image, I don't see how it's relevant in a thread about security, but for what it's worth, I haven't found IE's level of support for web standards (or, more precisely, what might become web standards one day) to have a significant influence on my online experience. I guess I consider usability, speed and stability to be more important.

    That's what the rating system is for, isn't it? To highlight threads one likes or dislikes. And that's what I used it for.

    And I guess I proved something - that arbitrary numbers on the internet are important enough for you that you'll resort to personal attacks and petty insults over them.
     
  2. SL2

    SL2 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    823
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    101
    You don't need any Ad-block Plus in IE9, just like in Opera.

    Do your homework.
     
  3. JOSEA

    JOSEA NONE

    Reputations:
    4,013
    Messages:
    3,521
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    131
  4. olyteddy

    olyteddy Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    468
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Then by your logic those 'Free Scan Your System Now!!!' pop-ups that find hundreds of things wrong are the best security....You should click a few of those for us...:rolleyes:
     
  5. Kaspersky666

    Kaspersky666 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Well I'm not the only one. Half of the whole internet community how crappy IE was. I agree it improved a lot since v6, v9 is NOT that bad if you had no other alternative unlike how the previous ones were. But still, whne you have a choice and still use IE it's crazy.

    Use the Hosts file? Seriously? You expect me to right click on every ad and paste the URL in the hosts file then reboot? :rolleyes: No thanks Ad-Block Plus FTW and you never ever see an ad in your life.

    My friend hates Firefox, I kept talking him into ditching his IE and trying it out but he refused to even try it.... until recently.....he kept having performance issues with IE where opening a new tab would give him a delay although he has a highly specced system. He kept formatting installing/uninstalling IE but that didn't help until he was fed up. Once he tried Firefox and saw how snappier it was, how you can add themes/personas, the lovely addons that make your life easier like the Photobucket Add-On (with that you can right click on any image on the web and have it uploaded to your Photobucket account which is like imageshack and you can easily get the sharing codes for forums, emails, etc) or the Tiny URL add-on, or the no script add-on for increased secrity, the possibilities are endless.

    Why don't you take the blind fold from your head, use Firefox for 1 day, then we talk? :rolleyes:
     
  6. SL2

    SL2 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    823
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Do you really think that's how people does it? Really.
    My HOSTS file has hundreds of lines. How many have I put there myself? Zero.
    The HOSTS file stops ALL PROGRAMS from accessing those URLs, not only ONE PROGRAM (like Fx, IE, Opera . . .).
    The same goes for IE9, without any addons (and without changing the HOSTS file), but you refuse to understand what Indrek and I said.
     
  7. harrypoker

    harrypoker Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Becose MBAM is the best , dude !
     
  8. Deks

    Deks Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    1,140
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Actually, MSE has only 1 false positive (same as Panda) whereas Avira has a lot more (close to 10 if I'm not mistaken).
    Ever since I started using MSE (since it first came out), I can say that I had 0 issues in terms of infections or malware.
    I will agree it's a bit heavier on the RAM side (55MB with both of it's processes - though to be honest that's practically nothing) compared to Avira, but even when it's doing the scans it doesn't impact my system at all.

    As for Avast... I could be wrong, but I think I noticed it became a bit more of a resource hog recently.
    Well, not so much as in RAM consumption as much as the installation size itself.

    And AVG... oh it's detection rate may have been improved slightly but it's still a resource hog - I wouldn't use it.

    As for why people recommend MBAM more than SAS...
    I would surmise that MBAM is more than enough as an on-demand scanner.
    SAS has a tendency to remove 'tracking cookies'. Those are hardly harmful to be honest and cookies as such can be removed manually either way, so I don't see a problem.
    Comparing both though, they seem to be pretty much equal, with 'popularity' (and image-wise) going more to MBAM.
     
  9. too456

    too456 Resident Angry Bird

    Reputations:
    572
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Firefox is laggy. Chrome FTW :)

    If anything, Firefox is getting worse as of late. It's accelerated release schedule is a PITA and it keeps crashing while playing Youtube videos while running the same version of the Flash plugin as Chrome and IE, yet the other two never crashed. Wonder why :rolleyes:
     
  10. Cylphid

    Cylphid Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    55
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Long time FF user and agreed it's been getting much worse lately.

    OT I've been giving Norton 360 a good trial run lately (free from ISP) and can say they've come quite a long way. Unobtrusive and low resource usage.

    Like MSE quite a bit and had been using that since release. Common sense is still the best defense, if only it would stop those harmful tracking cookies....:eek:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page