Microsoft Warns Windows 7 Has Serious Problems

Topic

New Reply

MS will do/say anything to get you to upgrade to win 10. Article by Gordon Kelly at FORBES.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/01/02/microsoft-windows-7-problems/

Windows 7 runs on 55% of all the computers on the planet, but according to news this week that is actually a bad and potentially dangerous thing. Says who? Actually Microsoft.

Speaking to Windows Weekly, Microsoft Marketing chief Chris Capossela explained that users who choose Windows 7 do so “at your own risk, at your own peril” and he revealed Microsoft has concerns about its future software and hardware compatibility, security and more.

“We do worry when people are running an operating system that’s 10 years old that the next printer they buy isn’t going to work well, or they buy a new game, they buy Fallout 4, a very popular game, and it doesn’t work on a bunch of older machines,” Capossela stated. “And so, as we are pushing our ISV [Independent Software Vendor] and hardware partners to build great new stuff that takes advantage of Windows 10 that obviously makes the old stuff really bad and not to mention viruses and security problems.”

He also stressed it is “so incredibly important to try to end the fragmentation of the Windows install base” and to get users to a “safer place”.

There’s only one problem with Capossela’s statements: they are complete rubbish.
Windows 7 is no less secure than Windows 10 (it will be supported until 2020) and no less compatible with new hardware and software. In fact its far greater market share means it is developers’ priority and has greater compatibility with legacy programmes and peripherals. If Fallout 4 won’t run on your Windows 7 computer, it will be upgrading your components not installing Windows 10 which fixes that.

As for fragmentation, the only issue that creates is for Microsoft and its target of getting one billion devices running Windows 10 within 2-3 years of release. And this is where the true motivation for Capossela’s statements become clear

Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

Reply | Quote

Replies

For my three 64-bit computers, my three TrueBlue, 64-bit, Windows 7 Professional is just fine, thanks! 🙂

"Take care of thy backups and thy restores shall take care of thee." Ben Franklin, revisted

Reply | Quote

The authors claim that Capossela’s statements are complete rubbish is complete rubbish. Does Windows 7 support Windows Hello? Does Windows 7 support device encryption in the Home SKU? Does Windows 7 have the same advances in memory management? Does Windows 7 support Universal apps (which are sandboxed)? Does Windows 7 support secure boot? Does Windows 7 support SmartScreen filter in the OS? The answer to each is NO. Each of these is a security advance.

The statement that Windows 7 is supported until 1/14/2020 is somewhat misleading. Windows 7 is out of mainstream support. Security fixes only until support expires. No enhancements. No non-security fixes except for Premier Support customers. No feature or design change requests. No complimentary support incidents. See Microsoft Support Lifecycle for the definitions of various support categories.

As has happened with every new version of Windows as time goes by newer hardware and software will not support older versions of Windows. That will happen more and more frequently as the install base of Windows 7 shrinks.

And YES Microsoft is going to emphasize anything and everything it can to get people to upgrade. And YES, any user can reasonably continue to run a Windows 7 system for quite a long time especially if the user is careful about Internet access and which programs are installed.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Most of what you say is true Joe, but my take on it is that Capossela’s statements are more of a “Scare Tactic” to general user’s to get them to upgrade to W10 and the author is just saying that it isn’t true.
BTW, hope you are staying out of the water there. From what I have seen on the news, that is a mess.

Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

Reply | Quote

Upgrading is all nice and dandy, but that is not an option for some people. I faced that just recently, when I upgraded a perfectly working laptop from XP to Vista and then 7. The computer worked perfectly with XP and even better after putting in a new SSD, replacing the very slow HDD it had originally. The computer runs perfectly on 7 (now), but with 8, which I also tried, not even the upgrade advisor would run.

With the computer running perfectly on 7 and being unable to install 8, why would anyone just dump the laptop to use a new OS? That doesn’t make sense. 7 is now where XP was before, just with security patches being offered and it will keep being there for another 5 years. Maybe for someone like the person who owns the laptop I upgraded, that can be a time to buy a new laptop and use whatever version of Windows will be available then.

Reply | Quote

My advice is to upgrade to Windows 10, and don’t look back. Actually, you shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore. There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while, and I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year. So, why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years? It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

Reply | Quote

My advice is to upgrade to Windows 10, and don’t look back. Actually, you shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore. There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while, and I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year. So, why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years? It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

It makes sense and is perfectly logical for anyone on a fixed income/limited budget who has an older, working and reliable PC/laptop that is not upgradeable from Windows 7 and for whom a new PC/laptop is out of the question.

For those whose hardware is not compatible with Windows 10, free is not free.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

For JoeP517 – http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows7/smartscreen-filter-frequently-asked-questions-ie9

Reply | Quote

For JoeP517 – http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows7/smartscreen-filter-frequently-asked-questions-ie9

Refers to SmartScreen in IE 9-11, rather than in the OS, as Joe mentioned.

Reply | Quote

Refers to SmartScreen in IE 9-11, rather than in the OS, as Joe mentioned.

True, but IE is part of the OS although in context.

Reply | Quote

True, but IE is part of the OS although in context.

But SmartScreen on Windows 10 protects against malicious downloads by any application, so it’s one of many ways in which Windows 10 is more secure than Windows 7.

Evolving Microsoft SmartScreen to protect you from drive-by attacks

Reply | Quote

My advice is to upgrade to Windows 10, and don’t look back. Actually, you shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore. There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while, and I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year. So, why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years? It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

djohnson, here are the “reasons” you have given for people to upgrade to Windows 10:

* “You shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore.”
* “There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while.”
* “I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year.”
* “Why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years?”
* “It just does not make any sense at all.”
* “It is not logical.”

It’s hard to take you seriously when you give “reasons” like that. Especially in light of the high-pressure and underhanded tactics that Microsoft is resorting to with Windows 10 upgrades.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

djohnson, here are the “reasons” you have given for people to upgrade to Windows 10:

* “Why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years?”

This one is particularly funny, because all operating systems will be defunct in a few years…

Reply | Quote

This one is particularly funny, because all operating systems will be defunct in a few years…

It’s probably worth noting that one of the things that, in theory, makes Win10 safer than Win7 is that it is newer and has some features that have not yet been exposed to attack. Well, the same was true when Win8 came out and Win7 and Vista and XP, etc, etc.

MS wants as many computers as possible on the same code base that is automatically kept up to date because it makes their life simpler and lowers the cost of supporting 3-4 different OS’s. It would be nice if they would just stand up and say that rather than trying to fib and trick people into upgrading.

I spent about 6 years working on Citrix thin-client systems and I can tell you that it’s a hell of a lot easier to support that than 50 separate workstations. I think that is where MS is headed with Windows and Office – the “workstation” OS will be a stub that can operate from a variety of devices that connect to the cloud where the full OS with all it’s settings lies. I’d bet we will be seeing some early version of that within 3 years.

Reply | Quote

MS wants as many computers as possible on the same code base that is automatically kept up to date because it makes their life simpler and lowers the cost of supporting 3-4 different OS’s.

Although I might be understanding of this concern for most companies, I don’t feel a bit sorry for Microsoft here. They bullied their way into monopoly status on the desktop. And they have billions of dollars of cash to show for it.

They didn’t get there entirely by bullying, however. One very good thing that they did was to continually strive for as much backward compatibility as possible. In other words, they accommodated the customers’ needs. This caused them to get (and keep) a huge number of customers. In fact, I believe that the effort toward backward compatibility / customer accomodation is at the root of their current dilemma.

Surely they have enough money to absorb the cost of supporting all of the varieties of Windows that are out there (from Vista forward). They don’t need to squeeze their user base like they currently are doing.

This time, they are bullying the regular folks, not the “evil corporations”. This may come back to haunt them in a big way.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

It’s probably worth noting that one of the things that, in theory, makes Win10 safer than Win7 is that it is newer and has some features that have not yet been exposed to attack. Well, the same was true when Win8 came out and Win7 and Vista and XP, etc, etc.

Well it is true that a new OS has been exposed less time that an old one,IMHO you are looking at it askew. See my post 25.
:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

My advice is to upgrade to Windows 10, and don’t look back. Actually, you shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore. There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while, and I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year. So, why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years? It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

The only problem with this is that MS have released patches for Win10 that break existing installations. I have NEVER had this occur with any earlier version of the OS, nor have I ever had to re-install Windows on any PC I own to resolve an issue. I like Win10 and have had few issues with it so far, but that is obviously not the case for everyone.

Reply | Quote

My advice is to upgrade to Windows 10, and don’t look back. Actually, you shouldn’t even be on Windows 7 anymore. There has been Windows 8/8.1 for a while, and I have been using Windows 10 for much more than 1 year. So, why use an antiquated OS that is going to be defunct in a few years? It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

I would generally agree, with one huge caveat: If you run Quickbooks, don’t do it for a while. As soon as you start Windows 10, you’ll find out that Quickbooks 2014 and earlier are not compatible and require an upgrade to 2016. Then, as soon as you install that, get registered, and install their R3 update, all hell breaks loose.

There are some serious problems with this update. It trashed two of my own machines, and it took an Intuit recommended tech seven hours to unscramble my main office machine. I had also installed it on a client’s machine, and the mess was so bad I had to reformat his drive, do a clean reinstall of Windows 7 (with all that entails), and then reinstall Quickbooks, and it was still a dirty install. I don’t know what Intuit is doing for product testing, but somebody was asleep at the switch when they released this version.

I’m no rookie with this stuff. I’ve upgraded about 40 machines so far, and this is the only major issue I’ve seen with Windows 10.

Reply | Quote

It just does not make any sense at all. It is not logical.

That’s more of a personal opinion IMHO.
The article doesn’t say that W10 is bad, it just points out how desperate MS is getting and the questionable tactics they are employing.
Personally I have Win10 on a laptop and all the rest of my computers are still Win7. Win10 is ok but I’m not ready to change the other computers for some time yet. Just my logic.

Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

Reply | Quote

I am staying with Windows 7 because it works very well for me and I see no problem (with Windows 7) or advantage (with Windows 10) which makes it worthwhile for me to change.

Microsoft, who I now trust less, has not given me any credible justification for change either.

This is the quote from the article which best reflects my overall view:

As I’ve written before, at its core Windows 10 is a very capable operating system with immense promise but it is also overly controlling and I can respect those Windows 7 and Windows 8 users who choose to stay where they are. And this is the part Microsoft has forgotten: technically it keeps giving users a choice, but by enforcing nagging pop-ups, cutting opt-out options and spreading groundless fear for the average user it appears there is no choice at all…

Reply | Quote

Isn’t that what it does in Win 7 as well ?

EDIT – Must admit that article is impressive – wondered why we had a couple of quick FP updates in December.

Reply | Quote

Isn’t that what it does in Win 7 as well ?

EDIT – Must admit that article is impressive – wondered why we had a couple of quick FP updates in December.

SmartScreen has been enhanced and extended to detect drive by attacks before the web page is parsed or rendered. In prior versions of Windows SmartScreen only protected against social engineering such as phishing and malicious downloads.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Isn’t that what it does in Win 7 as well ?

No, on Windows 7 only Internet Explorer downloads are protected by SmartScreen:

Windows 8 introduced SmartScreen filtering at the desktop level, performing reputation checks by default on any file or application downloaded from the Internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen#SmartScreen_in_Windows_8

Reply | Quote

For the record, running Windows 10 Pro I’ve seen the Malwarebytes popup declaring that a malicious site has been blocked a number of times, but I’ve never (not even once) seen this:

43106-SmartScreenPopup

I’m running Malwarebytes Premium. My (purely anecdotal) conclusion is that one of two possibilities exists; Malwarebytes is faster, or Smart Screen Filter is missing stuff. Upon further consideration, there is a third possibility; Malwarebytes is faster AND Smart Screen Filter is missing stuff.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

The demo … exploit in the address suggests that it’s the test site to check that Smartscreen is functioning (at least for the type of exploit(s) the page contains). MBAM Premium (hpHosts) should block access to the site before anything reaches the program/OS.

An example I just witnessed during initial setup of W7: before adding my usual preventative hosts file (based on hpHosts, as builtin to MBAM Premium), one site logged 20 blocked items in my browser’s Add-on blocker, after the hosts file was active, that was reduced to just 4, the others being blocked before reaching the browser.

Reply | Quote

The demo … exploit in the address suggests that it’s the test site to check that Smartscreen is functioning (at least for the type of exploit(s) the page contains). MBAM Premium (hpHosts) should block access to the site before anything reaches the program/OS.

I use real world testing. For me it’s kinda like restoring an image backup to make certain that the backup is good. When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, I get this:

43110-Malwarebytes-block

and the web page does not load. There is also a popup from the tray with the IP(s) being blocked. Some sites have dynamic ads on both sides of the content being presented, and sometimes those dynamic ads are actually malicious content, attempting to launch an outgoing request from within the browser; Malwarebytes blocks those, as well, but I only see the popup from the tray, as those never get a chance to establish an outgoing connection.

As stated in my earlier post, I’ve never seen the equivalent from Smart Screen Filter when performing one of these tests. So again (anecdotally), either Malwarebytes is faster or Smart Screen Filter is missing these or both.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

I use real world testing. For me it’s kinda like restoring an image backup to make certain that the backup is good. When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, I get this:

43110-Malwarebytes-block

and the web page does not load. There is also a popup from the tray with the IP(s) being blocked. Some sites have dynamic ads on both sides of the content being presented, and sometimes those dynamic ads are actually malicious content, attempting to launch an outgoing request from within the browser; Malwarebytes blocks those, as well, but I only see the popup from the tray, as those never get a chance to establish an outgoing connection.

As stated in my earlier post, I’ve never seen the equivalent from Smart Screen Filter when performing one of these tests. So again (anecdotally), either Malwarebytes is faster or Smart Screen Filter is missing these or both.

This is the outbound block popup I mentioned.

43113-Malwarebytes-block-2

I clicked on a link in facebook, and one of the pages had multiple instances of trying to establish an outbound connection. And again, no sign of any action from Smart Screen Filter.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

I shall be defunct in a few years, so W7 and I are neatly in step.

Reply | Quote

Having been on the developer/coder side of the fence, I interpret Caposella’s remarks differently.

1). I mostly discount his statement about Windows 10 being safer, or Windows 7 less safe. While it could be true the newer OS’s have better security technology, as long as Windows 7 is under Mainstream or Extended support, Microsoft can be assumed to be issuing patches. This will resolve most security exposures;

2). All vendors want their customers running on the latest version of the software. Microsoft has had trouble getting the user base to upgrade, well forever! I mean as a statistical issue for the entire customer base you understand, not every individual customer. The source of concern here is that newer software has more features and often corrects structural weaknesses found in the older stuff. Better architecture = Fewer patches, in general;

3). Microsoft feels some heat from Apple, but only in specific ways. Apple has done a much better job of getting their customer base to run current versions of whatever Apple offers. Microsoft is trying to competitively match what Apple can do in terms of customer adoption of current software;

4). There is also the “fragmentation” issue Caposella mentions. Multiple versions found in the wild, all supported, mean that Microsoft has to have multiple parallel support streams. Support articles have to consider versions. Patches have to be written for multiple versions, with all that implies. MS Support personnel have to be trained to check versions and supply version correct advice and information. It’s all possible and it’s all running right now, but this increases costs and slows the rate of evolution of Windows itself;

5). All the above can lead to increased customer dissatisfaction and loss. Microsoft right now is less concerned about the traditional customer and any notions they have that “it’s my right to run what version I please.” Instead Microsoft is paying more attention to Google, Amazon, SalesForce, and any other cloud vendors. Those vendors can apply upgrades and patches faster and more reliably than Microsoft can. How? They have version consistency. And the version consistency invariably means “the current version”, not “the current version plus 2 major previous versions, plus innumerable sub-versions.”

Reply | Quote

Having been on the developer/coder side of the fence, I interpret Caposella’s remarks differently.

5). All the above can lead to increased customer dissatisfaction and loss. Microsoft right now is less concerned about the traditional customer and any notions they have that “it’s my right to run what version I please.” Instead Microsoft is paying more attention to Google, Amazon, SalesForce, and any other cloud vendors. Those vendors can apply upgrades and patches faster and more reliably than Microsoft can. How? They have version consistency. And the version consistency invariably means “the current version”, not “the current version plus 2 major previous versions, plus innumerable sub-versions.”

Although I certainly agree with most your statements, I think this last one has a big mistake – pointing Google as an example of version consistency. There is nothing, nothing, as fragmented as Android. Plus, older versions (and here we may be mentioning something you bought a year ago), simply are not supported. Google, sorry to say it, is not the example your statement made it look like to be.

Reply | Quote

There is nothing, nothing, as fragmented as Android.

Ah, this I must concede! When I wrote my comment I was thinking about Google Docs, not Android. Android is certainly a problem, but it’s Google’s problem to solve. Google has allowed the carriers to control distribution of new Android versions and the system clearly is not working in that respect.

Reply | Quote

Having been on the developer/coder side of the fence, I interpret Caposella’s remarks differently.

1). I mostly discount his statement about Windows 10 being safer, or Windows 7 less safe. While it could be true the newer OS’s have better security technology, as long as Windows 7 is under Mainstream or Extended support, Microsoft can be assumed to be issuing patches. This will resolve most security exposures;

I have to say I agree with you here. I have another reason or two, W7 is mature tech, most of the major bugs should have been worked out. Yeah I know they are always finding new security bugs but it is a matter of cross section. W10 is new with lots of unexploited bugs YET to be found, W7 has had decade long w/o. W10 forces the majority of users to be second string Beta testers of updates for Enterprise customers, W7 gives one the choice to wait a bit.

BH i am curious as to your reasoning on item #5.

:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

BH i am curious as to your reasoning on item #5.

Sorry, I don’t quite understand your question? I’m not sure if you are asking about the competitive business environment, the merits of version consistency, cloud as a technology delivery system, the legacy customer base versus future customer wins, or what.

Reply | Quote

Sorry, I don’t quite understand your question? I’m not sure if you are asking about the competitive business environment, the merits of version consistency, cloud as a technology delivery system, the legacy customer base versus future customer wins, or what.

Sorry my question was not clear at all.

” Instead Microsoft is paying more attention to Google, Amazon, SalesForce, and any other cloud vendors. Those vendors can apply upgrades and patches faster and more reliably than Microsoft can.

How are these considered a threat to MS?
:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

How are these considered a threat to MS?

The cloud vendors are threats on multiple fronts. The technology of the cloud can be seen as superior to what Microsoft currently deploys with Windows. It’s Software As A Service (SaaS). I’ll not get into the debate here but for some customers it surely is. Microsoft’s response to date can mostly be summarized as Office 365 and Azure.

The business threat is that Microsoft’s growth has slowed dramatically. The other companies I mentioned are all growing faster than Microsoft. There was a time when Microsoft grew fast. Wall Street and others value IT technology companies based upon lots of things but growth rates are a big deal to them. Thus Microsoft shares are getting marked down for losing growth momentum.

Then there’s the revenue issue. Microsoft gets surges of revenue when they issue new versions of Windows (set aside the free Windows 10 upgrade for a moment). They’d like more predictable revenue streams. Thus for a long time, maybe 10 years now, Microsoft has been toying with the idea of annual subscriptions to use Windows. This is a very different revenue model than asking customers to pay a single fee up front and then nothing more for the life of that software. Guess who is doing this already? Cloud vendors.

Reply | Quote

The cloud vendors are threats on multiple fronts. The technology of the cloud can be seen as superior to what Microsoft currently deploys with Windows. It’s Software As A Service (SaaS). I’ll not get into the debate here but for some customers it surely is. Microsoft’s response to date can mostly be summarized as Office 365 and Azure.

The business threat is that Microsoft’s growth has slowed dramatically. The other companies I mentioned are all growing faster than Microsoft. There was a time when Microsoft grew fast. Wall Street and others value IT technology companies based upon lots of things but growth rates are a big deal to them. Thus Microsoft shares are getting marked down for losing growth momentum.

Then there’s the revenue issue. Microsoft gets surges of revenue when they issue new versions of Windows (set aside the free Windows 10 upgrade for a moment). They’d like more predictable revenue streams. Thus for a long time, maybe 10 years now, Microsoft has been toying with the idea of annual subscriptions to use Windows. This is a very different revenue model than asking customers to pay a single fee up front and then nothing more for the life of that software. Guess who is doing this already? Cloud vendors.

Microsoft is currently the 2nd biggest cloud provider and is growing its cloud business at a very rapid pace. On Azure, they are basically OS agnostic. You can run pretty much whatever you want, from Linux, to Oracle databases and all.
They have a great cloud offering, probably the most developer friendly of all and they are investing in it and improving it at a very rapid pace.

Reply | Quote

I have not seen anything published that says Windows 10 will protect against zero-day attacks.

The article linked in post #13 indicates that it can. (But obviously not that it will in every case; nothing can do that.)

As we dug into the data, we discovered the attack was actually leveraging a new 0-day exploit in Adobe Flash player, meaning that SmartScreen intelligence systems were detecting this attack even before it was identified as a new 0-day exploit.

With SmartScreen drive-by protection, these types of threats may be prevented before a user is infected, even if a patch isn’t yet available.

Users will still need to take the same precautions with Windows 10, as they should with Windows 7/8/8.1

Not quite.

Reply | Quote

Users will still need to take the same precautions with Windows 10, as they should with Windows 7/8/8.1

Not quite.

Users always need to take certain common-sense, basic precautions, no matter which OS they have, and no matter which antivirus/antimalware protection they have.

Having said that, I hope that Windows 10 does protect the user more from himself than previous versions of Windows did.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Hi Guys! Is this any good??
https://www.malwarebytes.org/antiexploit/

Good for what? The paid for product? The free product?

Reply | Quote

I’m using the free. I have been a MBAM fan for years, so I down loaded the free version. I can’t see that it ever blocks any thing?

So, you’ve been a fan of MBAM for years yet downloaded the free version of MBAM and are now asking whether it’s any good?

Hmmm.. sorry but, as a paid-up member of MBAM Pro, I’m a bit confused by your question. What is it that you are expecting MBAM free to block?

Reply | Quote

funny FFXI which a 13 year old mmo runs stabel 24h days after days on windows 7.

but on windows 10 it crashes on a daily basis

Reply | Quote

SmartScreen is Microsoft browser-based only, so you would still need protection using a 3rd party browser.

On Windows 7, but not Windows 10.

(See post #28.)

Reply | Quote

SmartScreen is Microsoft browser-based only, so you would still need protection using a 3rd party browser.

On Windows 7, but not Windows 10.[/QUOTE]
Based on my personal, anecdotal experience, I would suggest not relying solely on Smart Screen Filter to protect one’s system from all malware. I too recommend additional protection.

As stated in post #16, #20 and #36, Malwarebytes Premium is doing something (in actual in-the-wild testing) that is either better or just plain faster than Smart Screen Filter; SSF is either missing nasties entirely or not catching them as quickly as Malwarebytes. Either way, I see it as not-good-enough to be standalone defense.

I don’t have a before, as I have installed Malwarebytes as part of my initial setup on my systems for the last several years; it gets installed before I install anything else. And again, this is my personal, purely anecdotal evidence. YMMV

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Based on my personal, anecdotal experience, I would suggest not relying solely on Smart Screen Filter to protect one’s system from all malware.

No one suggested that.

As stated in post #16, #20 and #36, Malwarebytes Premium is doing something (in actual in-the-wild testing) that is either better or just plain faster than Smart Screen Filter;

… or worse; it could be catching false positives.

Was the site identified in #36 truly malicious?

SSF is either missing nasties entirely or not catching them as quickly as Malwarebytes. Either way, I see it as not-good-enough to be standalone defense.

Just on the basis that SSF may not have blocked a few sites which MBAM identified (first)?

I use real world testing. For me it’s kinda like restoring an image backup to make certain that the backup is good. When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, I get this:

43110-Malwarebytes-block

and the web page does not load. There is also a popup from the tray with the IP(s) being blocked. Some sites have dynamic ads on both sides of the content being presented, and sometimes those dynamic ads are actually malicious content, attempting to launch an outgoing request from within the browser; Malwarebytes blocks those, as well, but I only see the popup from the tray, as those never get a chance to establish an outgoing connection.

As stated in my earlier post, I’ve never seen the equivalent from Smart Screen Filter when performing one of these tests. So again (anecdotally), either Malwarebytes is faster or Smart Screen Filter is missing these or both.

Could you give me your known malicious sites that you use in testing, so that I can test them with Smart Screen Filter alone?

Bruce

Reply | Quote

Hi Guys! Is this any good??

I’m using the free. I have been a MBAM fan for years, so I down loaded the free version. I can’t see that it ever blocks any thing?

PCMag.com gave it 4 out of 5 stars rating (and an Editor rating of “Excellent”) but also commented “Difficult to demonstrate its effectiveness.” The reviews on CNET’s Download.com (where it got a 3 out of 5 star rating) make interesting reading. Many were undecided, with one reviewer claiming it interfered with Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, amongst others.

The latest version lists a lot of new features and shows an even longer list of fixes.

43125-_antiexploit
Click to enlarge

As a result, I guess it’s safe to say the product is still maturing and the jury’s still out whether it’s any good.

Reply | Quote

As a result, I guess it’s safe to say the product is still maturing and the jury’s still out whether it’s any good.

As some of those ‘reviews’ date back more than two years, I’d say that it’s now well on the way to becoming a mature product.

Reply | Quote

As some of those ‘reviews’ date back more than two years, I’d say that it’s now well on the way to becoming a mature product.

I ignored the reviews from 2013 as they were about a Beta version. The number of fixes in the latest version and a couple of the ‘new features’ still suggest a work in progress. It’s not like LibreOffice or even Microsoft Edge are new products. 🙂

Reply | Quote

As always, doing a disk image before any major change to a system is prudent.

Right on my friend. When will users learn to create a image before making major chances to their PC. I consider up grading to W10 as a major change and you can bet your life, I made two images of W7 before I upgraded with the MCT(Media Creation Tool) I have no problems with W10.[/QUOTE]
A more pertinent question might be:
When will Microsoft stop trashing peoples’ systems with ‘upgrades’ they neither asked for nor authorised?
Like many others, I have two perfectly functional Win 7 systems that were trashed by Win 10 upgrades that I neither asked for nor authorised. Not only that, I am hundreds of dollars out of pocket for excess download fees I was charged for the associated downloads that I never asked for.

Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Reply | Quote

Based on my personal, anecdotal experience, I would suggest not relying solely on Smart Screen Filter to protect one’s system from all malware.

No one suggested that.[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe I said that anyone did suggest that; I am suggesting that no one should rely solely on Smart Screen Filter alone to protect from all malware.

As stated in post #16, #20 and #36, Malwarebytes Premium is doing something (in actual in-the-wild testing) that is either better or just plain faster than Smart Screen Filter;

… or worse; it could be catching false positives.

Was the site identified in #36 truly malicious?[/QUOTE]
I don’t care whether it is false positive, or truly malicious, since on the one hand, it was a page trying to load that I had not requested, and on the other it was an outbound request made from the page I was viewing, not a request that I myself had made. I had not clicked on any links from within the page I was viewing at the time. That outbound request was imbedded in the page and did not need a “click” by me to be launched. That’s “malware” enough for me; I don’t want it. All of those can be blocked from now on, as far as I’m concerned.

SSF is either missing nasties entirely or not catching them as quickly as Malwarebytes. Either way, I see it as not-good-enough to be standalone defense.

Just on the basis that SSF may not have blocked a few sites which MBAM identified (first)?[/QUOTE]
Indeed. YMMV

I use real world testing. For me it’s kinda like restoring an image backup to make certain that the backup is good. When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, I get this:
43110-Malwarebytes-block
and the web page does not load. There is also a popup from the tray with the IP(s) being blocked. Some sites have dynamic ads on both sides of the content being presented, and sometimes those dynamic ads are actually malicious content, attempting to launch an outgoing request from within the browser; Malwarebytes blocks those, as well, but I only see the popup from the tray, as those never get a chance to establish an outgoing connection.

As stated in my earlier post, I’ve never seen the equivalent from Smart Screen Filter when performing one of these tests. So again (anecdotally), either Malwarebytes is faster or Smart Screen Filter is missing these or both.

Could you give me your known malicious sites that you use in testing, so that I can test them with Smart Screen Filter alone?[/QUOTE]
I’m quite sure that you are capable of independent testing. I’ll not be posting known nefarious links here, or anywhere else.

I’m offering advice based on my own experiences, with the additional caveat that it is anecdotal. Everyone is free to consider it as they will.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

I don’t care whether it is false positive, or truly malicious,

Not much of a basis for wondering why SmartScreen filter didn’t display an alert then.

I’m quite sure that you are capable of independent testing. I’ll not be posting known nefarious links here, or anywhere else.

Probably. But from your, “I use real world testing. … When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, …” I assumed you had a list of bad sites for comparison purposes. How do you know sites or content are bad except what MBAM tells you?

Reply | Quote

I don’t care whether it is false positive, or truly malicious,

Not much of a basis for wondering why SmartScreen filter didn’t display an alert then.[/QUOTE]
I’m not wondering “Why?” — I’m observing that it didn’t, and advising additional protection from malware.

I’m quite sure that you are capable of independent testing. I’ll not be posting known nefarious links here, or anywhere else.

Probably. But from your, “I use real world testing. … When I click on a known malicious site, or a site I know to have malicious content, …” I assumed you had a list of bad sites for comparison purposes. How do you know sites or content are bad except what MBAM tells you?[/QUOTE]
By “running naked” online, getting slammed, noting the url(s), restoring a drive image, then trying it again with AV/AM protection. It’s easy to try for yourself; just have a current drive image handy. I haven’t done it in quite a while, as I’ve found that Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender do a pretty good job of keeping my system clean without being resource hogs.

As stated in post #16, #20 and #36, Malwarebytes Premium is doing something (in actual in-the-wild testing) that is either better or just plain faster than Smart Screen Filter; SSF is either missing nasties entirely or not catching them as quickly as Malwarebytes. Either way, I see it as not-good-enough to be standalone defense.

YMMV

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

By “running naked” online, getting slammed, noting the url(s), restoring a drive image, then trying it again with AV/AM protection. It’s easy to try for yourself; just have a current drive image handy. I haven’t done it in quite a while, as I’ve found that Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender do a pretty good job of keeping my system clean without being resource hogs.

Then I don’t see how you can claim to be clicking on known malicious sites when MBAM Premium displays an alert but Windows 10 SmartScreen filter doesn’t.

Reply | Quote

[bbearren]

By “running naked” online, getting slammed, noting the url(s), restoring a drive image, then trying it again with AV/AM protection. It’s easy to try for yourself; just have a current drive image handy. I haven’t done it in quite a while, as I’ve found that Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender do a pretty good job of keeping my system clean without being resource hogs.

Then I don’t see how you can claim to be clicking on known malicious sites when MBAM Premium displays an alert but Windows 10 SmartScreen filter doesn’t.[/QUOTE]
I fully understand that you “don’t see how”, and I’ve reached the conclusion that you most likely have not done the legwork that would lead to an understanding of what I’m talking about.

I don’t have to click on a bookmark to get here. I can simply type windowssecrets.com/forums in the address bar of my browser and get to The Lounge. From there I can click on any one of many links to get to various parts of the web site, including this very thread. Similarly, I can type in a url that I know from past experience offers a large menu of links, most of which have a buffet of malware that will immediately start trying to load. Windowssecrets.com/forums is not at all difficult to remember. Neither are the urls of the web sites to which I refer in my testing.

“Running naked” online, getting slammed, noting the url(s), restoring a drive image, then trying the same url(s) again with AV/AM protection is a good day’s worth of work, and you’re jumping right back with critiques of my posts, so I can only deduce from that reaction that you haven’t spent the time necessary to evaluate in practice what I’ve been saying. That you “don’t see how” is a particularly strong indication of that deduction. But that doesn’t really matter.

I do see how, because I’ve gone through the steps I’ve outlined. I’ve put in the time. I’ve offered my advice here on this matter for anyone who might read this thread. You can take it or leave it at your own discretion, as can anyone else.

I’m finished.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

• This reply was modified 5 years, 7 months ago by bbearren.

Reply | Quote

Similarly, I can type in a url that I know from past experience offers a large menu of links, most of which have a buffet of malware that will immediately start trying to load. Windowssecrets.com/forums is not at all difficult to remember. Neither are the urls of the web sites to which I refer in my testing.

So you do have a list of bad sites, but it’s secret. OK. Guess I can’t do a comparison test of SmartScreen then.

Reply | Quote

I’m very sorry @bobdog but I just can’t feel sorry for someone like you getting yourself in that kind a mess. You have no excuse and you can cry all you want do, but all that could have been easily avoided. No tears from me my friend!!
Thanks for your reply. It will help others @bobdog!

I always say, treat others as you want to be treated yourself. What you said here is neither nice, nor necessary. If I were to behave like you, I could even consider you have violated Lounge rule #9: http://windowssecrets.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules_vision#flames

Please have the rule in mind when you reply to other members. Be courteous. Thank you.

Reply | Quote

Wicar/Eicar, like the earlier SmartScreen test page, are not suitable for live testing, they are specifically non-malware designed to trigger malware alerts, they do nothing to test against real-world malware and whether your AV/browser/System protects against them or not bears zero relationship to whether they would protect against real-world malware.

Reply | Quote

I just don’t see the sense in dismissing the usefulness of SmartScreen filtering in Windows 10 on the strength of what could easily be false positives from MBAM (judging by the only one revealed). It was said to be “missing nasties”, but with no definition of nasty.

Reply | Quote

I just don’t see the sense in dismissing the usefulness of SmartScreen filtering in Windows 10 on the strength of what could easily be false positives from MBAM (judging by the only one revealed). It was said to be “missing nasties”, but with no definition of nasty.

I don’t think BBarren was dismissing the usefulness of SmartScreen filtering. He just said it isn’t sufficient by itself. No filter catches everything and Smart Screen doesn’t apply is you use another browser other than IE or Edge. I have used both MBAM and Smart Screen and have seen each trigger on different things.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

and Smart Screen doesn’t apply if you use another browser other than IE or Edge.

It does on Windows 10, which is why it was mentioned in this thread.

Reply | Quote

This discussion morphed (interestingly) from its start !
There are other ways of doing all this – I happen to use Avira (free) with the add-on to screen websites, and MBAM to clean up anything that creeps through – its been 3 years since MBAM had anything to do, and then that was via a Flash drive.
Finally CCleaner sweeps up anything that might lurk in temporary files.
My point is that I don’t have to go to W10 to get properly protected and am still uncomfortable with MS stoking fears about W7 in order to satisfy their commercial objectives. Making profits is fine but it should not be to the detriment of customers.

Reply | Quote

This discussion morphed (interestingly) from its start !
There are other ways of doing all this – I happen to use Avira (free) with the add-on to screen websites, and MBAM to clean up anything that creeps through – its been 3 years since MBAM had anything to do, and then that was via a Flash drive.
Finally CCleaner sweeps up anything that might lurk in temporary files.
My point is that I don’t have to go to W10 to get properly protected and am still uncomfortable with MS stoking fears about W7 in order to satisfy their commercial objectives. Making profits is fine but it should not be to the detriment of customers.

I don’t think it is a matter of making profits. You can upgrade to Windows 10 for free, so Microsoft makes nothing from such upgrade.
What I think Microsoft wants is to have enough Windows 10 install numbers to make the platform attractive to developers, to a point where it can compete with iOS and Android, in terms of developer appeal and overall device market share.

Reply | Quote

I understand that a wider user-base is good for all users.

I also understand that MS are already making big $$ from the W10 model – in due time the whole thing will be a rental scheme and MS will have a steady revenue stream rather than vast surges when a new version of Windows is released.

I’m sort of happy with all that, with the exception that it will allow MS to root around in my affairs to an extent that I am seriously uncomfortable with given their behaviour of late.

Reply | Quote

I understand that a wider user-base is good for all users.

I also understand that MS are already making big $$ from the W10 model – in due time the whole thing will be a rental scheme and MS will have a steady revenue stream rather than vast surges when a new version of Windows is released.

I’m sort of happy with all that, with the exception that it will allow MS to root around in my affairs to an extent that I am seriously uncomfortable with given their behaviour of late.

Microsoft can do whatever they want to with Windows. It’s their product. But they cross the line when they attempt to force Windows 10 on unsuspecting people.

Probably the key reason I stick with Windows is because I make my living off of supporting Windows and related hardware and software, and I therefore want to stay thoroughly familiar with it.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

I get so up set when people fail to protect their PC’s and do not create a back up image of their OS before making major changes.

Don’t forget that not every computer user has the technical knowledge or interest to deal with image back-ups, and not every computer user either has their hard drive partitioned or has the OS installed on a separate hard drive so as to enable them to make a simple image back-up of their OS. I fit into both categories myself.

Reply | Quote

Hi Tandor! I’m not going to preach to you about how important a back up image can be. I know not everyone will take the time or put forth the effort to learn how to back up their OS. That’s the reality of the computer world, but I’ll probably never stop suggesting PC users to make back up images!

Fair enough, but there’s quite a difference between suggesting people do it and getting upset when they “fail to protect their PCs”. Time is not always an available resource, and most computer users aren’t remotely technically minded especially in countries like the UK where most users buy their computers ready-assembled as compared with the US where it seems that most users build their computers themselves. That’s certainly the impression I’ve got from sundry forums over the years, and assuming it to be true it reflects an interesting cultural difference! Here in the UK I certainly don’t know anyone among my family and friends who has ever done image back-ups or would know how to, and whenever I’ve looked at a video guide on how to do it I’ve fallen at the first hurdle in terms of understanding what it was on about – and I frequent this kind of site which most users don’t do! Both my machines have single hard drives without partitioning so presumably I’d have to back-up the entire drive which isn’t practical. I’m certainly not going to start formatting and partitioning at this stage. These days in the UK many computers are supplied with two hard drives but that’s a relatively recent change for “off the shelf” machines and is by no means universal.

Reply | Quote

Time is not always an available resource, and most computer users aren’t remotely technically minded especially in countries like the UK where most users buy their computers ready-assembled as compared with the US where it seems that most users build their computers themselves.

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that most US PC users build their computers themselves.

These days in the UK many computers are supplied with two hard drives but that’s a relatively recent change for “off the shelf” machines and is by no means universal.

I’ve not found any info to back up your statement that many computers in the UK are supplied with two hard drives these days.

In my opinion this thread has wandered off-topic.

Reply | Quote

Interesting. I wasn’t aware that most US PC users build their computers themselves.

.

Just keeping the topic off topic..
I know people who build their own, however I worked w/ a lot of techies. Be assured, most Americans buy prebuilt computers. Dell etal have nothing to worry about. 😉

:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

The topic at hand is Windows 7 and its security and migration to Windows 10. Let’s keep the discussion on topic, please.

Reply | Quote