Windows defender update

[Guest]

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Not easily. See a message from Simon Zerafa dated February 25th in the
..install group.

 

[Guest]

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.

 

[Steve Dodson [MSFT]]

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed files,
unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was a balance
we needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but also finds and
removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard balance, but one I
think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I should point out that the issue of "server bandwidth" is one reason
signature updates can be deployed via WSUS.

If you are concerned about that issue, surely you've considered implementing
WSUS?

--

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.

 

[Guest]

Thanks (to each of you) for your comments. I appreciate your input.
It's good to know that the additional scan time being used is due to
beneficial improvements. I confess, I had not considered that.
Sounds like good advice... and long overdue at more than 1 site I can think
of (ours, I mean!).
---
ST

I should point out that the issue of "server bandwidth" is one reason
signature updates can be deployed via WSUS.

If you are concerned about that issue, surely you've considered implementing
WSUS?

--

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.
--
The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks

 

[plun]

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed files,
unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was a balance we
needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but also finds and
removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard balance, but one I
think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not connected
to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[Bill Sanderson]

One other comment that might be useful: AutoUpdate--the native automatic
update mode of Windows Defender uses the BITS service. This service is
specifically designed, as I understand it to minimize bandwidth impact.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/bits/bits/bits_start_page.asp

--

Thanks (to each of you) for your comments. I appreciate your input.
It's good to know that the additional scan time being used is due to
beneficial improvements. I confess, I had not considered that.
Sounds like good advice... and long overdue at more than 1 site I can
think
of (ours, I mean!).
---
ST

I should point out that the issue of "server bandwidth" is one reason
signature updates can be deployed via WSUS.

If you are concerned about that issue, surely you've considered
implementing
WSUS?

--

in
message news:[email protected]...

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved
as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
--
The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks

 

[Bill Sanderson]

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines, with
relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times in the 1-3
minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection carefully--but it
seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed
files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was a
balance we needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but also
finds and removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard
balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for
a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved
as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[plun]

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot
of users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans
then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines, with
relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times in the 1-3
minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection carefully--but it
seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed
files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was a
balance we needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but also
finds and removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard balance,
but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
in message My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for
a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved
as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[Bill Sanderson]

In a way I agree with you: The primary energy needs to be devoted to the
more basic things--1) firewall, 2) patching, 3) antivirus, 4) spyware.

And let's try to simplify every one of these, and have 4 be the simplest, so
that we can let the users concentrate on the more important ones.

--

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot of
users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines,
with relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times in
the 1-3 minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection
carefully--but it seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since
we actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we
are removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all
compressed files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were
faster. It was a balance we needed to make, one which gives us high
performance, but also finds and removes malware (and not a valid
program). It is a hard balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
"Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are
networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are
involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in:
cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[Guest]

Thanks! I may have known that, once upon a time, but did not remember it.
I appreciate your advice.
---
ST

One other comment that might be useful: AutoUpdate--the native automatic
update mode of Windows Defender uses the BITS service. This service is
specifically designed, as I understand it to minimize bandwidth impact.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/bits/bits/bits_start_page.asp

--

Thanks (to each of you) for your comments. I appreciate your input.
It's good to know that the additional scan time being used is due to
beneficial improvements. I confess, I had not considered that.

..surely you've considered implementing WSUS..

Sounds like good advice... and long overdue at more than 1 site I can
think
of (ours, I mean!).
---
ST

I should point out that the issue of "server bandwidth" is one reason
signature updates can be deployed via WSUS.

If you are concerned about that issue, surely you've considered
implementing
WSUS?

--

in
message My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved
as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
--
The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks

 

[plun]

Hi

Well something more.......

Maybe it´s time for all users to completely remove all
temporarily junk with CCleaner.

And also remove every bit/byte within Software downloading folder.

This is a mess and I´m nearly sure about that a lots of problems
is messed up PCs, "chaotic" PCs tries to run WD with severe bugs.

Within Swedish forums there is only a few remarks about problems
but nearly everyone uses CCleaner and keep their PCs junk free.

I have only seen one remark about update problems.



regards
plun

In a way I agree with you: The primary energy needs to be devoted to the
more basic things--1) firewall, 2) patching, 3) antivirus, 4) spyware.

And let's try to simplify every one of these, and have 4 be the simplest, so
that we can let the users concentrate on the more important ones.

--

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot of
users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines,
with relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times in
the 1-3 minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection
carefully--but it seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed
files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was
a balance we needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but
also finds and removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard
balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
"Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved
as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Most posters here also say that Windows Update is working perfectly--but the
idea of blowing away SoftwareDistribution probably has merit.

--

Hi

Well something more.......

Maybe it´s time for all users to completely remove all
temporarily junk with CCleaner.

And also remove every bit/byte within Software downloading folder.

This is a mess and I´m nearly sure about that a lots of problems
is messed up PCs, "chaotic" PCs tries to run WD with severe bugs.

Within Swedish forums there is only a few remarks about problems
but nearly everyone uses CCleaner and keep their PCs junk free.

I have only seen one remark about update problems.



regards
plun

In a way I agree with you: The primary energy needs to be devoted to the
more basic things--1) firewall, 2) patching, 3) antivirus, 4) spyware.

And let's try to simplify every one of these, and have 4 be the simplest,
so that we can let the users concentrate on the more important ones.

--

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot of
users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines,
with relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times
in the 1-3 minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection
carefully--but it seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since
we actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we
are removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all
compressed files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were
faster. It was a balance we needed to make, one which gives us high
performance, but also finds and removes malware (and not a valid
program). It is a hard balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to
this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
"Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for
download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are
networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are
sometimes very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way
too large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates
often result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to
resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install
on each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are
involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand
the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in
particular that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network
activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to
"normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro,
two run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in:
cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[plun]

Hi

Yes, it solves mostly all problems with Widowsupdate......

No need for faultcodes and log files

Trapped within a software junkyard.....

regards
plun

Most posters here also say that Windows Update is working perfectly--but the
idea of blowing away SoftwareDistribution probably has merit.

--

Hi

Well something more.......

Maybe it´s time for all users to completely remove all
temporarily junk with CCleaner.

And also remove every bit/byte within Software downloading folder.

This is a mess and I´m nearly sure about that a lots of problems
is messed up PCs, "chaotic" PCs tries to run WD with severe bugs.

Within Swedish forums there is only a few remarks about problems
but nearly everyone uses CCleaner and keep their PCs junk free.

I have only seen one remark about update problems.



regards
plun

In a way I agree with you: The primary energy needs to be devoted to the
more basic things--1) firewall, 2) patching, 3) antivirus, 4) spyware.

And let's try to simplify every one of these, and have 4 be the simplest,
so that we can let the users concentrate on the more important ones.

--

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot of
users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines,
with relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times
in the 1-3 minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection
carefully--but it seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since
we actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we
are removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all
compressed files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were
faster. It was a balance we needed to make, one which gives us high
performance, but also finds and removes malware (and not a valid
program). It is a hard balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to
this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
"Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for
download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are
networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are
sometimes very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install
on each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are
involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand
the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in
particular that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network
activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in:
cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan

 

[Guest]

Mr. Dodson,

I found the Tracks Eraser functionality of Giant to be very helpful,
including the cookies eraser portion. It was a "one-stop" clean up function,
where the user could dictate what was cleansed.

Will it be brought back to WD in the future?

Dr. George

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since we
actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we are
removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all compressed files,
unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were faster. It was a balance
we needed to make, one which gives us high performance, but also finds and
removes malware (and not a valid program). It is a hard balance, but one I
think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are networked
and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So there
is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes twice
the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15 minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal". This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two run
XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
--
ST

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in: cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my simplified
take on this.
--
The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Whilst i unstalled WD and still stuck with 2 entries in the application
addition/removal control panel due deeply hidden inaccessible datastorage,
see Removing WinDefender post, i'm wondering about the whole shape of the
signature updates.....same as some other antispyware, WD downloads each time
the complete sig-file. Something could be learned from antiviral applications
like Avast...it only downloads the additions/changes and ads them to the sig
file on disk......usually no more than a 3kb file.....IBM used to do this PTF
method 20 years ago...only substitude the bits, not the whole frigging thing.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I would be surprised if incremental updates were not a part of the plan, but
really don't know much about what is going on under the hood.
--

 

[Steve Dodson [MSFT]]

Plun,

What would you propose for the quick scan interval? I think we chose once a
day because we want users to always be protected if a new threat comes out.
If the scan is intrusive, maybe we can do something to help.

--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

Hi Bill

Well, I would say that a Quick scan takes about 5-10 minutes.

A lot of users probably change this to a full scan beacuse of spyware
paranoia

I can not see any reason to make all of these scans and the highest
priority has antivirus/trojans scans.

So one full scan after new defs arrived should be enough...........

Otherwise the RTP is out of order.........

But I wanted this clarified from Mr Dodson if the RTP functionality
have some holes ???

It seems also be totally clear form this mess with updates that a lot of
users have missed Windows update and to keep their PC dated.... ;(

Maybe it´s better to put energy to Windowsupdate, antivirus/trojans then
to make WD working and make a daily scan

regards
plun

So how do you feel about the speed of a quickscan? On office machines,
with relatively low startup loads--not much "in the tray" I see times in
the 1-3 minute range--haven't really checked a broad selection
carefully--but it seems fast enough that I don't see it as an obstacle.

--

Hi Steve

-Can you please explain why default scan period is 1/day ?

- Don´t you trusth RTP functionality within Windows Defender ?

- Is it holes that can make malware passing through and only
be detected with a scan ?

- Is it beacuse of users "feel safe" with a daily scan ?

Users leaves their PCs switched on 24/7 beacuse of meaningless
scans, it must be clarified that a PC is switched off after work and
no need for a daily/nightly scan.

And antivirus/trojan scans are much more important than a WD scan
with also beacuse of several more definition updates.

Of course it might be a good idea to scan after new WD defs......

IMHO

regards
plun

As far as the scan time goes, we would expect it to take longer since
we actually scan more, and have protections in place to make sure we
are removing the correct file. Beta 1 was not able to scan all
compressed files, unicode files, etc. Therefore the scan times were
faster. It was a balance we needed to make, one which gives us high
performance, but also finds and removes malware (and not a valid
program). It is a hard balance, but one I think we have done well.
--
-steve

Steve Dodson [MSFT]
Windows Defender Beta Lead
MCSE, CISSP
http://blogs.technet.com/stevedod
--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm

Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.
"Steve" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
My biggest disappointment in not having a separate source for download
of
update signature file is in cases where multiple machines are
networked and
share a relatively slow internet connection. The updates are sometimes
very
large and take so long that "normal" internet usage is not available
for a
considerable period of time while updates are being downloaded.
Same complaint for [non-MS] anti-virus software - updates are way too
large
and take too long on slow connection. Multiple parallel updates often
result
in FTP server timeout, and the update is not "smart" enough to resume
at
point of loss.
If a manual download was available, we could get 1 and then install on
each
machine. That would save the server some bandwidth, too.

As for "not being exposed"... in a scenario where children are
involved as
users, they sometimes exchange files via CD-ROM, or USB devices. So
there is
still the potential of being exposed that way. But I do understand the
comment.

All this aside, after a great deal of experimenting and observing, I
think
Defender is not as good as previous "Giant AntiSpyware", in particular
that
Defender is much slower to scan the machines (we have 6 - it takes
twice the
time on each of them), and we now see random periods of 100% CPU
utilization
by a process identified as "MsMpEng.exe", which last from 3 to 15
minutes,
during which the machines are virtually unusable. Can not open/close
existing
windows, windows do not get repainted, no internet or network activity
is
possible. When the task releases CPU, everything returns to "normal".
This
has been observed on all 6 computers, 3 of which run Win2000 pro, two
run XP
pro and 1 runs XP home. I find this behavior extremely annoying and
frustrating.
-- ST



:

i fear not.....read that manual updates are not possible as in:
cannot
download manually. I dont think it fits in the concept....if not
connected to
the internet, you're not exposed, so why use WinDefender is my
simplified
take on this.
-- The Dutch Italian

Coelum Non Animum Mutant Qui Trans Mare Currunt




:

Hi,

Is there any possibility to keep ap to date a computer having
Windows
defender (beta2) that is not connected to the internet?

Thanks
-- Razvan