Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kd5

  • Rank
  1. Don't see why there should be a difference in performance between the free and paid versions. Wouldn't performance be one of the deciding factors in most people's decision to purchase (if that was to be their inclination)? I would think you'd want more people to purchase, therefore you'd give them as many reasons to as possible. -kd5-
  2. This is SUPERAntiSpyware Free Edition. -kd5-
  3. Set the virtual memory to 512/1536 and SAS still wanted more. -kd5-
  4. Thank you for the information. Why should SUPERAntiSpyware take 1½ minutes to load and 5+ minutes to update on a laptop with a 500mhz PIIIE, 256mb RAM, running Win2kPro, demanding all of the physical memory, all of the virtual memory (ususally happens during the "Processing CORE Definitions' cycle of the update process), and then want more resources? -kd5-
  5. I've looked for this information and can't find it. I get that it is compatible with Windows 2000 Professional, but what processor and memory are recommended? I'm working on a laptop (which I realize is OLD) with Windows 2000 Professional, a 500mhz PIIIE, 256mb of RAM, 30gb HDD. SUPERAntiSpyware takes 1½ minutes to come up on this laptop, then when updating definitions (which takes upwards of 5+ minutes), this laptop inevitably pops up a message warning that the virtual memory has been consumed and recommends increasing it. Virtual memory has been set to min 384, max 768, which means that SAS consumed (approx.) 170mb of physical memory, plus 768mb of virtual memory, and wanted MORE. What gives? Why is SAS such a memory hog these days? I may have to abandon SAS on older computers. -kd5-
  6. I've just submitted this as a FP via the SUPERAntiSpyware application. Newly installed XP + Adobe Reader , plus 3 different computers that I know are clean suggests this is a FP. -kd5-
  7. I see SAS has taken to detecting Security Center has been disabled (and reporting that as an infection), joining MalwareByte's AntiMalware and others in the same detection/infection label, and requiring that these entries be ignored in the cases where Security Center has legitimately been disabled (because alot of us think the Security Center is extraneous and unnecessary). Is there any particular reason for that new behaviour? Thanks, -kd5-
  • Create New...