1 2 Previous Next 15 Replies Latest reply on Jul 22, 2017 3:42 PM by Peacekeeper

    Scanning questions.

    mrshvd3

      I have Personal Firewall Plus for MSN. Had a major update earlier today to the following: Personal Firewall Plus Version: 16.0.1; Security Center Version: 16.1; VirusScan Version: 20.1; Personal Firewall Version: 17.1. The download and installation went just fine; I restarted my computer, just for good measure.

       

      I decided to do a full scan later. Started the full scan. It stayed at 1% completed for almost 20 minutes (the wheel was turning, the number of files scanned moved along slowly, but smoothly). Unfortunately, I had to be away from the computer for a while, so I cancelled the remainder of the scan. Never got above 1% completed. Said "No issues detected", so all well there.

       

      A bit later, I re-opened the McAfee and, time being an issue, decided to do a Quick Scan instead. Started that; after a couple seconds, NaN came up. When I went back to the "home" screen, the red bar came up and said that my computer is at risk. No other info.

       

      I restarted my computer. McAfee came in just fine; opened it and the green bar is there with "Your computer is secure".

       

      I haven't tried doing another scan yet, full or quick; wanted to see if anybody else has reported this problem.

       

      One other thing -- the full scan staying at 1% for so long......was that normal? I never had that problem with the previous version.

       

      If you need any other info, please tell me. I'm not the most computer savvy person on God's green earth, so don't be afraid to dumb down -- I won't be offended.

       

      Thank you.

        • 1. Re: Scanning questions.
          Peacekeeper

          Was that the first full scan you did after the update if so best to retry and leave it be and see what happens We mods have reported it does appear to sit at 1% or another value for a while then jump to 30000 files or so. Remember this full scan is not the same as the old one it scans only files that can carry payloads so scans far less files than the old one. A second full scan after 1st one completes should be less time though we mods have passed on that the time taken is still we feel longer than it should be.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Scanning questions.
            mrshvd3

            Hi, Peacekeeper -- It was the first attempt after the update; since I didn't let it complete, that may be why the second attempt went the same way -- 1% for a long time.  I didn't think about whether it might require a longer wait and whether it might jump ahead later.  One thing I did know to check was the CPU Usage, which was normal, which is good.  So, you may very well be right.

             

            Anything on why the Quick Scan was weird, though?  Restarting the computer put the McAfee back to the green bar and "Your computer is secure", so that was a relief.

             

            I won't get to try scanning again until later today (I do manual only, no automatic), but I promise that I will report back to you and let you know how it goes.

             

            Your answer, by the way, was easy for me to understand.  I appreciate that.

            2 of 2 people found this helpful
            • 3. Re: Scanning questions.
              mrshvd3

              UPDATE:

               

              Hi, Peacekeeper -- I did another full scan just now all the way through.  Your explanation was right on the money.  The "% completed" stayed at 1% until about 40 minutes in, then jumped to 44% and moved on up steadily from there to the end.  The "items" number (files scanned) never jumped, just continued on at a slow, steady pace all the way through.  The scan completed at just under an hour and a half (1 hr., 28 min.).  Much longer than usual.

               

              (By the way, when I wrote that I do manual scanning only, no automatic, I was referring to scheduled scans.)

               

              So, that situation is answered.  Anything on the Quick Scan question?  I seldom use it, but do like to know why program features don't operate as they should.

               

              You are my angel of the day!  Thank you again for the information I needed.

               

              Gratefully, mrshvd3.

              • 4. Re: Scanning questions.
                Peacekeeper

                No re quick scan you would need to retry it to see if that happens regularly, BTW scheduled scan is a quick scan now. Do another full scan within a couple days and post the time taken it should be shorter if not I need to report this. This as McAfee remembers files scanned and only rescans them if they are changed.

                1 of 1 people found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Scanning questions.
                  mrshvd3

                  I will do another full scan in the next few days and let you know either way, whether it's shorter or not.  Thanks again very much.

                  • 6. Re: Scanning questions.
                    mrshvd3

                    QUICK SCAN UPDATE:

                     

                    Hi, Peacekeeper -- I haven't done another full scan yet; as promised, I'll get back to you with an update on that when I do it next.

                     

                    But I did want to let you know that the (manually started and run) Quick Scan works just fine.  Apparently, it needed a completed full scan done first.  Once I had that out of the way, QS could be started, run and completed with no problem.

                     

                    Will be back to you on the next full scan results soon.  Have a good weekend.

                     

                    mrshvd3.

                    • 7. Re: Scanning questions.
                      mrshvd3

                      FULL SCAN UPDATE:

                       

                      Hi, Peacekeeper -- Okay, I did another full scan today.  Not what I expected.  I completed it; it ran smoothly, CPU Usage numbers low and good.  It stayed at 1% until 44 minutes in, then jumped to 21% (yesterday's jump was to 44%).  Went the rest of the way through; the total scan was completed in 1 hr., 40 min. (yesterday was 1 hr., 28 min.).  The number of items was almost the same both days -- 62,500 yesterday, 62,469 today.  I hope this helps.  Have a good weekend.

                       

                      mrshvd3.

                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                      • 8. Re: Scanning questions.
                        Peacekeeper

                        OK will pass this on when I can... Ok done so

                        1 of 1 people found this helpful
                        • 9. Re: Scanning questions.
                          Tracy Romine

                          Thanks for the feedback.  Here's my best effort at explaining what's happening.  At its heart, our new technology is more designed for on-access scanning - with heavier reliance on Cloud look-ups.  Instead of storing an enormous library of virus signatures on the PC, we point McAfee to a much more effective library of signatures and behavioral traits in the Cloud - to help us more effectively stop the bad stuff.  While McAfee is now using less system resources, there appears to be a bit more lag time for On Demand scans - as Cloud calls are awaited for every file.  The new technology in McAfee is designed to check every file upon execution.  In effect, you could never run an On Demand scan again, and still be just as safe! Under normal circumstances using your PC with our new technology, you'll never notice a hefty scheduled scan slowing down your PC.  But if you choose to trigger a full system On Demand Scan, it may take a bit more time.  We're working on optimizing this, and also considering some other measures - including allowing McAfee to take up more system resources during On Demand Scans, than we normally allow.  We're here to keep you safe...while being sensitive to the performance of your PC. 

                           

                          I really appreciate the feedback. 

                          3 of 3 people found this helpful
                          1 2 Previous Next