Jump to content

Alan D

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alan D

  1. It's surely a false positive from asquared, and should be fixed soon. See the discussion on the asquared forum here: http://forum.emsisoft.com/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=5670
  2. All seems OK here too, although once more I found that old event 7000 SASDIVSV error in Event Viewer after the install, which has been reported here many times before: "The SASDIFSV service failed to start due to the following error: Cannot create a file when that file already exists." It goes away after a computer restart, but I've never seen an explantion of what it's all about.
  3. It's worth getting used to, truly. That 'bug' in the system tray is one of the most reassuring sights on my computer screen. I've felt like that about it ever since my daughter picked up some bad stuff on her computer sometime last year. Her other security products had failed to detect anything at all, but SuperAntispyware found and deleted the lot, and there was an end to the matter. You only need to see that sort of thing happen once, for that little bug in the system tray to seem like a very, very good friend.
  4. a-squared free also has a process running in the background, despite being only an on-demand scanner. I have both a-squared and SAS installed on my computer, and I've never noticed even the slightest impact on performance as a result of those background processes. I remember Nick explaining some time ago on this forum that if SAS is running from startup, it will defend itself if malware tries to turn it off. If it's prevented from running at startup, it can't do that. That extra bit of security seems worth having, to me.
  5. The update seemed to go smoothly (free edition, XP), and it seems to scan nicely, and the most notable feature is that this is the first time I haven't found a SASDIFSV service error in Event Viewer after the update. This is so unusual that I'm almost inclined to worry about it!
  6. I'm struggling a bit to get used to it, myself. Something seems quite hard on the eyes - the bits of red against the blue are very harsh - maybe it's partly that. It's as if something is scattering the eye around the screen so that it's harder to find what I'm looking for.
  7. I got the popup this afternoon and updated - no obvious problems, and it does a quick scan fine. This time I switched Defender off in the hope that I might avoid the 'error 7000' that lodges itself in Event Viewer every time I update to a new version of SAS. But no, there it was again: Service Control Manager, error 7000: "The SASDIFSV service failed to start due to the following error: Cannot create a file when that file already exists." I reboot, and there's no further recurrence of the error, so I assume that all is well. But does anyone know why this happens every time a new version is installed? (I find the Microsoft Help and Support entry for this error totally mystifying.)
  8. I'm shocked! I can understand that advice when it comes to installing new software - but never considered doing it while downloading it. And disabling the firewall seems to be just asking for trouble, as Robin says. It would scare me off, for sure.
  9. Could I just raise a question here? Why would any mere download of a file require the turning off of my antivirus, antispyware, and (most particularly) firewall? I've never encountered such a request myself - and if I did, there is no way I would comply with it! Doesn't it seem suspicious?
  10. That's a relief! Thanks for your help, and thanks (yet again) for so persistently making a great program even better.
  11. Ah! Many thanks for this. So basically, since Event viewer isn't generating error messages, and SAS scans and updates like silk (as far as I can tell) - I can conclude that I don't have a problem?
  12. Hmmm. Then it looks like I have a problem. (Although there are no more errors in Event Viewer either at startup or any other time and scans appear to run with no problems). When I use Task Manager I see SUPERAntispyware.exe as a running process, but that's all. If I check services (using either msconfig, or services.msc), there's nothing there relating to Superantispyware. No sign of SASDIFSV anywhere. I should add that this is the free version. Should I uninstall and try again? (If so, is it enough to use ADD/REMOVE programs, or should I use the special uninstaller?) LATER: I thought this all seemed familiar - it's happened to me before (and to others) - see here: https://forums.superantispyware.com/view ... iled+start I assumed, back then, that because the event viewer errors disappeared after a computer restart, that the problem was resolved. It didn't occur to me, back then, to check whether the SASDIFSV service was visibly running. So this is an old, old problem recurring (and quite a common one too, to judge from Google). I'm not clear about this: what exactly should be visible under running processes and services (apart from SUPERAntispyware.exe), when SAS free is operating normally, with default settings?
  13. Update seemed smooth as silk here too, though afterwards I noticed that Event Viewer reported two instances of error 7000: "the SASDIFSV service failed to start" because "Cannot create a file when that file already exists". (The two errors occurred just before, and just after, Windows Defender asked permission for the driver change.) There have been no further instances of that error, but then, I don't seem to have an SASDIFSV service running. Should I have?
  14. Excellent. It's so much fun watching it scan at the new double speed, that it's tempting to do it twice .....
  15. That's really helpful to know. Many thanks.
  16. In another thread (about offline scanning), there's a mention that the use of DDA eliminates the advantage of scanning from SAFE mode. Is this generally true, or just in the context of that particular discussion? If generally true, then that would be a very significant piece of information for users to know, and yet another feather in the cap of the new version.
  17. Hoorah, and well done! Now you can enjoy those incredibly fast scans that we've all been so impressed by!
  18. I can't imagine any (sane) software producer would be willing to guarantee that ...
  19. I got it this morning too - many thanks, folks, for the fast response to the uninstall issue.
  20. That's great - thanks for the quick and clear answer (and to Robin, too).
  21. Gosh, this is really hard to follow, even though I've read the whole thread through several times. Could I ask you to clarify three things please, Nick? 1. I had 3.9 and accepted the invitation to upgrade to 4.0 that popped up in the system tray last week. In other words, I did not uninstall 3.9 using add/remove programs beforehand. The version number is now 4.0.1154, but I'm not clear whether those of us who did this will still have the 'old' uninstaller that you mention, or whether we will have the new one. 2. Does this mean that if we tried to uninstall Superantispyware now, we would encounter the problem described in this thread? 3. If so, is the correct thing to do to wait for 4.1, which will sort us out?
  22. Ran my first complete scan yesterday. 22 minutes! In the previous version a Quick scan took 22 minutes! Unbelievable, this. I've said thank you already, but I'll say it again.
  23. Got the popup this morning - set a restore point, clicked on the link - let the program do its own thing; and less than a minute later was updating and scanning with the new version. Quick Scan now takes half the time it did before. Really impressive - I mean, everything is impressive - the scanning speed, of course , but also the sheer painless process of transition from one version to the other. Thanks very much indeed to everyone involved.
  24. There was a discussion about this some weeks ago, in which the point was made that it's more secure to have SAS already loaded in memory, ahead of any malware, than to have to start it up from zero in order to do a scan. If that's the case, disabling the startup would imply some loss of security (albeit perhaps small). Is that correct, Nick?
×
×
  • Create New...