OneCare: after 8 hours it scanned only 2% of my HD  (!?)

OneCare: after 8 hours it scanned only 2% of my HD (!?)

Secure Home | Search | About
 Anti-Virus Software    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
OneCare: after 8 hours it scanned only 2% of my HD (!?) Luca Villa 07-21-2007
Posted by Luca Villa on July 21, 2007, 9:24 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I'm in Windows Vista and I installed OneCare yesterday for the first
time.
After 8 hours that Microsoft OneCare is checking my HD for viruses I
looked at the status and it says 2%. It's still checking files and
folders under the folder C:$WINDOWS.~Q.
It seems working because I see the names of what it's currently
scanning that fastly change and the HD led and noise activity at
80/100%.
I've 300GB of data and I always found reasonable 12/24 hours for a
complete HD virus scan.
Is it normal that OneCare is so slow? how can I troubleshoot this
problem? what is C:$WINDOWS.~Q for?

Luca


Posted by Clark on July 21, 2007, 4:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> I'm in Windows Vista and I installed OneCare yesterday for the first
> time.
> After 8 hours that Microsoft OneCare is checking my HD for viruses I
> looked at the status and it says 2%. It's still checking files and
> folders under the folder C:$WINDOWS.~Q.
> It seems working because I see the names of what it's currently
> scanning that fastly change and the HD led and noise activity at
> 80/100%.
> I've 300GB of data and I always found reasonable 12/24 hours for a
> complete HD virus scan.
> Is it normal that OneCare is so slow? how can I troubleshoot this
> problem? what is C:$WINDOWS.~Q for?
>
> Luca
>

One care has been rated very low.
http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2007/03/antivirus_tests_rate_onecare_l.html

I don't know the details but I would find another product.
Just Google antivirus ratings


Clark



Posted by Luca Villa on July 21, 2007, 6:21 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> One care has been rated very low.
>
http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2007/03/antivirus_tests_rate_onecare_l.html
>
> I don't know the details but I would find another product.
> Just Google antivirus ratings

Many thanks Clark for your link. I found the lecture interesting.
However, reading the comments in that first page you linked, I
understand that the OneCare lack is mostly in recognizing old viruses
that are no more "in the wild". When it comes to virus in the wild and
speed it doesn't seem that OneCare is bad. It's a pity that that so
analytic comparative test doesn't take in consideration the speed of
the antiviruses. It can be that for recognizing a big number of even
old viruses the top products are slower...

Luca


Posted by Phil Weldon on July 21, 2007, 5:55 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
'Luca Villa' wrote:
| I'm in Windows Vista and I installed OneCare yesterday for the first
| time.
| After 8 hours that Microsoft OneCare is checking my HD for viruses I
| looked at the status and it says 2%. It's still checking files and
| folders under the folder C:$WINDOWS.~Q.
| It seems working because I see the names of what it's currently
| scanning that fastly change and the HD led and noise activity at
| 80/100%.
| I've 300GB of data and I always found reasonable 12/24 hours for a
| complete HD virus scan.
| Is it normal that OneCare is so slow? how can I troubleshoot this
| problem? what is C:$WINDOWS.~Q for?
_____

Do any other programs seem to take an unusually long time? Certainly even a
system with 300 GBytes stored should be scanned in a few hours. What are
the specifications for your system? CPU/installed memory/hard drive
capacity/operating system? Microsoft antimalware solutions are not worth
spending ANY time on - they just are not ready for use and have one of the
lowest detection rates. What you should consider is if the extremely long
scan time may indicate other problems with your system (for example, a
failing hard drive or hard drive controller can GREATLY slow down hard drive
operations because many repeat reads may be performed in order to get valid
data.

Phil Weldon

| I'm in Windows Vista and I installed OneCare yesterday for the first
| time.
| After 8 hours that Microsoft OneCare is checking my HD for viruses I
| looked at the status and it says 2%. It's still checking files and
| folders under the folder C:$WINDOWS.~Q.
| It seems working because I see the names of what it's currently
| scanning that fastly change and the HD led and noise activity at
| 80/100%.
| I've 300GB of data and I always found reasonable 12/24 hours for a
| complete HD virus scan.
| Is it normal that OneCare is so slow? how can I troubleshoot this
| problem? what is C:$WINDOWS.~Q for?
|
| Luca
|



Posted by Clark on July 21, 2007, 9:12 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> 'Luca Villa' wrote:
> | I'm in Windows Vista and I installed OneCare yesterday for the first
> | time.
> | After 8 hours that Microsoft OneCare is checking my HD for viruses I
> | looked at the status and it says 2%. It's still checking files and
> | folders under the folder C:$WINDOWS.~Q.
> | It seems working because I see the names of what it's currently
> | scanning that fastly change and the HD led and noise activity at
> | 80/100%.
> | I've 300GB of data and I always found reasonable 12/24 hours for a
> | complete HD virus scan.
> | Is it normal that OneCare is so slow? how can I troubleshoot this
> | problem? what is C:$WINDOWS.~Q for?
> _____
>
> Do any other programs seem to take an unusually long time? Certainly even
> a
> system with 300 GBytes stored should be scanned in a few hours. What are
> the specifications for your system? CPU/installed memory/hard drive
> capacity/operating system? Microsoft antimalware solutions are not worth
> spending ANY time on - they just are not ready for use and have one of the
> lowest detection rates. What you should consider is if the extremely long
> scan time may indicate other problems with your system (for example, a
> failing hard drive or hard drive controller can GREATLY slow down hard
> drive
> operations because many repeat reads may be performed in order to get
> valid
> data.
>
> Phil Weldon
>


Phil has a really good point:
Quote:
(What you should consider is if the extremely long
scan time may indicate other problems with your system (for example, a
failing hard drive or hard drive controller can GREATLY slow down hard drive
operations because many repeat reads may be performed in order to get valid
data.). and CPU/installed memory.

If your system is only running 512mb RAM for instance you need to upgrade
(yes even on a new system)
Dell is notorious for instance, sending out units with XP and 128 megs of
RAM which runs way slower than say XP with 256 or 512mb RAM.
not to mention ATA 100 with a spindle speed of 5400 rpm on the hard drive.

Clark








Similar ThreadsPosted
# of Files Scanned August 17, 2005, 8:36 pm
AVG8 still scanninig after 8 hours!! July 5, 2008, 6:52 pm
Re: AVG8 still scanninig after 8 hours!! July 8, 2008, 3:50 am
Re: AVG8 still scanninig after 8 hours!! July 8, 2008, 5:07 am
Symantec AV Corporate takes 7 hours to back up 174000 files?? June 22, 2006, 1:56 pm
MS OneCare...any opinions? August 12, 2006, 10:38 pm
OneCare being phased out November 18, 2008, 5:29 pm
MS Live OneCare and other installations October 13, 2006, 9:30 pm
Windows Live OneCare February 21, 2007, 12:46 am
Re: another view of MS Live OneCare? June 5, 2007, 9:40 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy