Performance degradation

[Mark]

This product caused significant performance degradation.
My PC is running an AMD 1800 XP with 1G of ram. It is
faster than most new PCs running newer advanced processors
of either Intel or AMD. This software caused a severe and
marked slow down in system performance. It has been
uninstalled.
I would not recommend this for advanced users who use
supplementary methods of spy ware removal and who are
attentive to the behavior of spy ware and methods of
infiltration.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Mark - the vast majority of users of Microsoft Antispyware are not seeing
this performance issue. However, a few are--and clearly you were among
them. Please test again when a further beta release is available--this
performance issue is an important one to get fixed, and it'd be nice to know
if a future build has fixed this issue for you.

 

[Mark]

I suspect that there are many computers suffering this
problem. It wasn't until a made the correlation between
the beta program and the performance issue that I acted on
it. I would suggest to everyone to pay special attention
to the performance. If it seems slower than what has been
previously noted on that particular machine, disable or
uninstall the beta program and retest for performance. My
machine had a significant increase in performance.
I would say the performance degradation was similar to some
poor anti virus / bloat-ware software that is known to have
an impact on system resources and performance.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I concur--this is an issue that Microsoft needs to be aware of--so I hope
users will post this kind of problem. The beta is spec'd to run on the
standard hardware spec for Windows 2000 and XP, as I recall, and I've had no
trouble running on what I view as marginal hardware in offices-PII-300's. So
I really don't think everyone is seeing this issue--but knowing how many
folks are is important.

 

[Clive Cowan \(CCR\)]

Hi Bill,

We ahve installed the Beat on three machines, including
my own 1GHz AMD Athlon Vaio notebook which is far and
away the least powerful of the machines. We have not
noticed any performace reduction in general, except for
the anticipated slowdown in the responsiveness of other
allpications when AntiSpyware is physically running a
scheduled scan, and that is no different to other similar
products. First impressions of AntiSpyware are more than
veru encouraging, and once it is out of Beta and into
Release, we shall be rolling it out to all our clients as
appropriate!

Kind Regards,


Clive

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Thanks, Clive. I know that the vast majority of users don't see a
significant performance impact, but there are definitely some who do. We
probably can't do triage and discover too much about the roots of this in
these groups, but at least we can collect some stats.

 

[Mark]

In the spirit of further development, I offer this; my
systems that I noted the performance issues are both
Windows 2000 pro. One is running an AMD 1.2 with 512 ram.
The other as previously mentioned is the AMD XP-1800 with
1g of ram. Both computers are configured virtually
identical. I am running NOD32 by Eset for my Anti Virus.
No firewall is used other than the Actiontec R1524SU DSL
modem. (Actiontec does not recommend a software based
firewall be used in conjunction with the modem which has
its own firewall)

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Thanks! As I mentioned, I've got Microsoft Antispyware running on
PII-300's, and haven't either heard from those users, nor seen a problem in
practice when I work on those machines.

So--it isn't a pure horsepower issue. I don't know whether it is a software
conflict, or something like the issue of the errors.log file growing
uncontrolled--and eating resources as it does.