Malwarebytes no longer supported in Vista?

[wither 3]

I had a major slowdown on my system and one of my last resorts was to do a check with Malwarebytes. I have an older version and when I launched it, it said it couldn't connect to the source. I went to Malwarebytes and downloaded the latest version. At the end of the installation, the box for checking for updates was checked. When done, it found the latest update but wouldn't install it because the OS wasn't supported. I'm guessing the old version couldn't get to the source because their system checks the OS when trying to get updates. Looks like I'll be looking for another malware checker (I use Norton Security for anti-virus).

Has anyone else seen this?

Whoops, looks like I posted in the wrong subject area of the forum.

 

[Vistaar]

That is old news. Apparently you never read my thread: Vista No Longer Supported by Some Security Software.

 

[wither 3]

I actually posted in your thread but forgot about it. I saw it after I posted this, thus my Whoops.

 

[Vistaar]

Small wonder you have over 2300 posts. I wonder if you are familiar with forum rule no. 2?

 

[wither 3]

I didn't make any useless posts or intentionally post in multiple locations. I made a mistake by posting in this part of the forum. I recognized that.

I posted in your other thread because what was posted there (via link) about the legacy version is either now outdated or it applied to paid users. It's useful to other people who may experience the same problem and read the thread.

 

[Jody Thornton]

I'll actually admit, that my attention went to the Malwarebytes post vs the Secuirty thread. So Wither 3's approach of making a separate more specific thread actually worked better for me (in terms of drawing me to the news).

It's rules like that that drive me bonkers. For example, reviving threads are always a no-no on DM Forums. To me, that seems wasteful, because you have to make a whole new thread and take up more server space. Why not revive a thread and shine new light and opinions on it? Like this thread on TapeHeads reveals Old thread resurrection - Tapeheads Tape, Audio and Music Forums

Just seems so much more enlightened.

 

[wither 3]

Thanks for your comment. Another person responded in the same manner yesterday.

I agree the thread title stands out more but, if I hadn't forgotten about Vistaar' thread, I might have posted in it. In a sense, that would have been similar to your comment about reviving a thread. I could have also searched the forum on Malwarebytes before I posted. There's good points on either side regarding what I did.

Now, I might have to post a new thread on what's slowing my system down but I need to do a little more testing.

 

[Vistaar]

If your assertion is that Malwarebytes 3.5.1 no longer receives definition updates, then you are incorrect - and you are becoming increasingly famous thanks to Jody Thornton: Last versions of software for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. It has nevertheless been true for almost a year that current versions of Malwarebytes do not support Vista. I would appreciate it if you deleted both of your posts from Vista No Longer Supported by Some Security Software because the first was off topic and your latest post is just plain wrong.

 

[wither 3]

What was wrong about it? I download the "legacy" version that they said was still viable for Vista. When I tried to install it it said that it wasn't applicable to my OS.

 

[ilikefree]

You can still use older program versions and tell it to just update the definition files and not update the program files.

 

[wither 3]

Hi ilikefree- How do you do that?

I have v1.75 installed. When I run it, it automatically goes to updates and updates to 3.7.1 which won't work. I went to the .exe file and ran it. As before, it went to the updates without a chance to say no. I said Cancel. Then I ran it again and it said I had downloaded the latest installation file and asked if I wanted to install it. I said no and the normal screen came up. Of course, this is a convoluted method of running it.

I went into the settings and the only option similar to what you said is to warn of updates after x number of days. I'm running a quick scan right now but, of course, I don't have the latest definitions. I'll take another look when the scan is finished.

 

[ilikefree]

I use an old version

 

[wither 3]

Phew! I'm doing a defrag of my hard drive and it's amazing how slow it makes everything.

Thanks for your response. I'm using v1.75 and the interface doesn't look anything like that and it doesn't have all those options. I'll round up a copy of 2.2.1 somewhere and give it a try.

 

[wither 3]

I got 2.2.1 installed and made the setting you described. When I clicked on update, it said it couldn't access the server. However, when I ran a scan, it said it checked for updates and then continued (it's running right now).

Thanks for your help.

 

[Barman58]

As a lot of members have always used the Unanswered threads option on the forum menu this means that they will see a new thread before they trawl through an old thread to look at new comments.

If there is something that is highly relevant in the new question to an existing but old thread then you can simply quote the old thread or individual post in te thread.

Members will not be penalised for adding a post to an old thread where it is relevant, [Rule 2 applies to bumping and other unneeded posts], but a New thread is more likely to get a quicker response.

There is also the case where a thread meanders on and off topic, it is then not a simple thing to find a reference to a possible issue for another member, whereas a new post for the off topic comment, [Suitably referenced], makes this a simpler task

for any member unaware of the procedure to quote a specific post in a thread in another thread right click on the #nn number at the top right of the post and Copy Link Address and paste the link into the new post - You can add a text title by using the Insert Link on the toolbar if needed

 

[wither 3]

Update, the scan finished and found nothing but PUPs.

 

[Vistaar]

I use an old version View attachment 30579

That was a good version for Vista: It did not contain the useless Ransomware Protection of Malwarebytes 3.x, and you could install Anti-Exploit separately if desired. I'm surprised that wither 3 could see your screenshot; must have fixed that browser issue.

 

[wither 3]

I didn't get it fixed. It showed up in the e-mail notification but I still can't see it here. Didn't have that problem before and I don't have it in the Win 7 forum. I can see it if I click on the "View attachment 30579" in the quote in your post.

 

[Vistaar]

...the interface doesn't look anything like that and it doesn't have all those options. I'll round up a copy of 2.2.1 somewhere and give it a try.

Must be that 2016 version of Opera you are so fond of. I can see screenshots perfectly with Firefox. The one in this thread is a JPEG just like the ones in one of my threads that you said you could not see.

 

[lmacri]

What was wrong about it?[ I download the "legacy" version that they said was still viable for Vista. When I tried to install it it said that it wasn't applicable to my OS.

Hi wither 3:

Your system specs say you have an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 so I assume your CPU supports the SSE2 instruction set and meets other system requirements listed at Malwarebytes for Windows - Antivirus Replacement for PCs for running MB v3.5.1. I don't know if this glitch has been fixed yet in the latest Malwarebytes Support Tool v.1.3.2 (which now comes bundled with the old MB-Clean utility), but if you use this support tool to perform a clean reinstall and allow it to automatically reinstall Malwarebytes I believe it downloads the latest installer for Win 7 SP1 and higher (currently v3.7.1).

I have no problem running Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1 (the recommended Win XP and Vista compatible version downloaded from Malwarebytes 3 - Frequently Asked Questions) on my Vista SP2 machine that is patched to end of extended support on 11-Apr-2017. I have a lifetime (perpetual) license for Malwarebytes Premium but don't have my Premium license activated at the moment because I discovered a few minor conflicts with my Norton Security antivirus and Malwarebytes' real-time Web Protection and Self-Protection modules.



You recently posted <here> in Visturalator's thread you've installed all the Windows Server 2008 security updates released as of December 2018 on your Vista SP2 machine. Have you considered that some of the newer Win Server 2008 .sys drivers and .dll libraries you've applied to your Vista SP2 OS since April 2017 (or perhaps Windows registry changes you've made to activate TLS 1.1 and 1.2 protocols for secure https connections in your IE9 browser) are now causing problems with certain third-party software like MB v3.5.1?

I also see you recently started a thread titled Boot Up Uses the Registry From a Different Drive on a Dual Boot System about issues on a "dual boot system using two hard drives, both with Vista SP2 and up to date.". Is this the same Vista computer that warned that the MB v3.5.1 wasn't applicable to your OS, and does "up to date" mean that Win Server 2008 updates have been installed on this computer?
----------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security Deluxe v22.15.1.8 * Malwarebytes Free v3.5.1.2522-1.0.365