Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


JorgeA

Does Spybot SD Work on Win98 ?

Recommended Posts

JorgeA - Nice to hear from you. I was thinking this thread had gone dead. After a lot of googling and reading tips from others who complained that SSD is slow now on older systems, I didn't find any with the page fault issue.

[...]

It apparently takes a lot of processor cycles to keep refreshing the SSD screen. On a system with an older processor and integrated graphics, it helps to minimize all windows, including the Spybot window. That's a little awkward because you can't keep track of progress without looking. Nothing pops up at the end to tell you it's done. I also limited the number of visible icons to six, and changed the priority setting to "Time Critical (blocks everything else)"

Advanced Mode > Settings (lower left) > Settings again from the list > Follow down the tree to Scan Priority

I'm thinking the "blocks everything else" might help in your situation. I'm assuming your ATI Rage Pro AGP 2X video is integrated on the motherboard, so the minimized window would help there. Be advised with the Scan Priority set that high, restoring the window to check progress is a very sluggish affair.

My conclusion is that SSD is more processor dependent than memory dependent, and therefore there may not be anything that can be done about the load times.

To answer your specific questions, and comment upon your last post:

Even if you have used the same programs for years, it may be that the steadily increasing size of the SSD program and updates is creating memory management issues. A lot of software was written when systems were sold with 32MB. I've put 500MB in some of these systems, and it appears to work, but the manual often says the system is limited to 256mb. It's not just the "12 year old operating system", but also the 12 year old chipset technology.

I'm not objective about Norton Internet Security. I share the common prejudice that the older versions of Norton are resource hogs, and don't play well with other software.

Perhaps someone here can make a judgement on the screenshot where the page fault occurred. Not me. I was really expecting there would be some small monitoring or utility program that came with your printer that would turn out to be the culprit. Computers are complicated and there could be a hardware conflict or fault, but I'm the type to just swap it out and try another, not a real diagnostician.

It won't cost you anything to clean up the desktop, set the Scan Priority to "Time Critical", start SSD and then minimize the window. If it works for you as it did for me, you'll know the results in about an hour. - georg

Hi georg,

Thanks very much for the explanation and suggestion. Nope, the thread didn't die, I had a prior commitment yesterday so there was no opportunity to go online.

I tried your ideas of setting the Spybot scan to the highest priority, and minimizing the window. (I also disabled Norton Internet Security, unplugging the Ethernet cable of course.)

It really does speed things up -- loading SSD took less than 3 minutes, and the scan itself about 1:30. (I did peek a couple of times by maximizing it, then quickly minimized it again as soon as I saw the progress bar.) These are half the times (or less) that each action takes on my PC with the usual settings.

Sadly, though, and despite doing it twice, it still came to the same old crash at the very end of the scan with the invalid page fault in KERNEL32.DLL.

I'm attaching two representative screenshots of the error message from a few months ago -- two, so that you can see all of the info in the Details. Let me know if the image quality isn't up to snuff.

(Eagle-eyed observers will see that both Avast! and Norton show up in the system tray, but I only installed Avast! back in December, whereas the problem we're discussing has been going on since the first half of '08, so that is not an issue. You'll also see a bunch of minimized blank windows, which has to do with the screen saver -- when the monitor goes black and I click on a key to bring it back, a blank thingamajig stays in the taskbar, which disappears as soon as I click on it. But that's not the issue we're focusing on, either.)

I really appreciate your and everybody else's interest in this question!

--JorgeA

SpybotScreenshot2b.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it help to upload a screenshot of the "invalid page fault" details?

Maybe. But it's worth to try. Do post a good, legible screenshot, and let's see what ensues.

Hello dencorso,

Please see my reply to georg with the screenshots attached.

Let me know if the image is (or isn't) clear enough.

Thank you!

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screenshots are quite good. Let's see what turns out. Meanwhile, have you run SFC.EXE already? If not, do it and report, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wsxedcrfv -

You wrote: "7DD95801-9882-11CF-9FA9-00AA006C42C4 ...turns up in a lot of places"

It's on my W98SE system only under the CLSID for "Wave Sound" (not all zeroes)

A google search for that string turned up the report I linked on the "Common Name Toolbar" The report also says "The following Registry Keys were created" and then lists many instances of {00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}

I have only one like that way down the tree below the key for "Indeo video 4.4 Decompression Filter" on W98SE and XP systems

Systems Annihilist suggested "Wouldn't hurt to allow S&D to remove "what it sees"

That's what I would do. You may want to wait a bit for others to weigh in.

Be sure that "Create backups of fixed spyware problems for easy recovery" is checked under Main settings in SS&D so you have the option to undo any changes to the registry.

Advanced mode > Settings (lower left) >Settings again from the list > go down the tree

Even safer to also backup the registry with Microsoft's ERU or other method of your choice on removable media before you pull the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to clarify my earlier comments, I booted up my very old 98SE computer, and ran Spybot.

First, update all, that is 100%, of Spybot definitions, before running the Spybot main program (use the separate "Update Spybot ..." start menu item to do the download). Each time you load the Spybot main program, Spybot loads all active file set definitions into memory, which process can be quite time-consuming on an older computer. Downloading definitions in Spybot is thus provided for in a separate program.

The downloaded definition files do not correspond one-for-one to the file set definitions used by Spybot for scanning. Thus, first download all the definitions. Then use the file set settings menu to deselect those file sets you opt not to scan for. Then exit Spybot, and restart. (The first time I opened Spybot , it took Spybot over 15 minutes to load. I then deselected the following file sets: Cookies, Heavy Duty, HijackersC, Pups SC, and all the Trojan file sets. I then restarted Spybot, to clear and reduce Spybot memory usage. Spybot, this second time, took half the time, apx 7 minutes, to reload. I then ran the Spybot scan, with normal priority, which scan completed in less than 45 minutes).

Note, the Spybot limited scan on my old computer included 73,403 items or definitions. I ran a complete Spybot scan, on my newer computer, a few minutes later. This complete scan included 1,284,425 Spybot items or definitions.

I took several steps, a few years ago, to avoid page faults and improve memory management on my 98SE computers. In the System.ini file I added the following line to the [386Enh] section:

MaxPhysPage=40000

For my old 98SE computer with 128MB of RAM and 16MB PCI video, I added the following line to the [vcache] section of System.ini:

MaxFileCache=96000

For my other 98SE computer with 768MB of RAM and 64MB AGP video (and AGP Aperture Size of 16MB), I added the following line to the [vcache] section of System.ini:

MaxFileCache=457216

For both 98SE computers, I also edited the system BIOS's to disable all Video and BIOS shadow ram (no longer needed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JorgeA - Thank you for your report. I did download the pdf.

I'll wait along with you to see the comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and at the majorgeeks site it is still listed as "Win All"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... rilef may be onto something.

- Get the latest S&D

- Perform Complete Update

- Advanced Mode

- Deselect everything but one-at-a-time

- Scan and Repeat

That way all scans are done but individually thus reducing the memory footprint. Granted the scan time (including manual effort) will increase but the chance of failure will decrease.

I might note that using CCleaner will decrease (possibly eliminate) the need to scan the Temp Internet Folders. Be aware that CCleaner does not by default "delete" the User Temp Folder Contents; you have to specify it in the Optional Extra Folders. Also, if anything "bad" is "locked" (e.g. "running"/"in memory", whatever). CCleaner won't be able to delete it; those are the "nasty hard-to-get-rid-of". Running in Safe Mode sometimes (only) helps.

(dunno about the memory issue re AGP...)

(and FWIW, the last Norton AV to be able to run with low memory was "v2002", or was it "v2003"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... rilef may be onto something.

- Get the latest S&D

- Perform Complete Update

- Advanced Mode

- Deselect everything but one-at-a-time

- Scan and Repeat

That way all scans are done but individually thus reducing the memory footprint. Granted the scan time (including manual effort) will increase but the chance of failure will decrease.

I might note that using CCleaner will decrease (possibly eliminate) the need to scan the Temp Internet Folders. Be aware that CCleaner does not by default "delete" the User Temp Folder Contents; you have to specify it in the Optional Extra Folders. Also, if anything "bad" is "locked" (e.g. "running"/"in memory", whatever). CCleaner won't be able to delete it; those are the "nasty hard-to-get-rid-of". Running in Safe Mode sometimes (only) helps.

(dunno about the memory issue re AGP...)

(and FWIW, the last Norton AV to be able to run with low memory was "v2002", or was it "v2003"?)

submix8c,

Well, how bizarre. I tried rilef's idea -- deselected all the Trojans and the Heavy Duty, leaving just 116,560 files in the scan database. And this time, instead of crashing with an invalid page fault, my computer simply froze, also at the tail end of the scan (116560/116560). Tried this three times, and the same thing happened each time, having to physically turn off the PC.

It's a busy time here, so I wasn't able to follow rilef's suggestion exactly -- didn't download the latest updates, although I'm fuzzy as to how that could come into play, especially since it's up to date as of last week. I would also need guidance as to the registry setting ajdustments on my particular system, wouldn't dare going in there blind. Maybe over the weekend.

BTW, I can report that my PC, despite all its problems, has been running Norton Internet Security 2003 since that year, with no (apparent) problems. That includes the years 2003-2009, when the computer had just 96MB of RAM.

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screenshots are quite good. Let's see what turns out. Meanwhile, have you run SFC.EXE already? If not, do it and report, please.

Hello dencorso,

I ran SFC.exe as you asked. I don't recall ever doing that before, so I'm not sure what to look for, but the program didn't ask to replace any files. (Do I have it right that it will ask to do that, if it finds a corrupted file?)

A few files had a "No" result for the CRC Match, but they didn't seem to cause SFC.exe to burp. They were:

EXPLORER.EXE

SYSTRAY.EXE

USER.EXE

BATMETER.DLL

POWRPROF.DLL

USER32.DLL

mapi32.DLL

DISKTSD.VXD

IOS.VXD

Any thoughts?

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JorgeA,

I would recommend to try "heap extender" http://www.msfn.org/board/heap-extender-t136171.html smart piece of soft by Tihiy developed one year ago unfortunately not completed yet

Hello supem,

Thanks for the link.

I read the whole thread, and as you point out it looks like the software isn't quite ready for prime time yet. I've got enough stuff to deal with already! :wacko:

Plus, as a newbie here it looks like I have to get up to speed on Win98 innovations at MSFN. Don't know what RP9 (Revolutions Pack?) is, will have to check it out.

Tell you one thing -- I wish I'd discovered this forum years ago!! Probably would have saved me a ton of time and frustration.

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked my memory usage during another Spybot scan. Memory usage was an acceptable 45% to 48%, apx 62 Mb, of which apx 53 Mb was attributable to Spybot. (Memory was obtained by right-clicking the My Computer icon, and selecting Properties and then the Performance tab. Spybot memory usage was computed by taking memory usage at startup (apx 93% free or 7% usage), and deducting this amount from memory usage when Spybot was running). My suspicion is that, while memory usage (and number of file set items scanned) may dramatically affect the speed of the scan, memory usage is not the cause of the computer crashes and freezes being discussed.

I next visited the Spybot user forum website (A very active and informative forum, it appears). No recent memory issues were noted. But there were several posts relating to the fact that Spybot is very CPU intensive. Of particular note was criticism of two real-time Spybot processes (SDHelper and TeaTimer) as resource hogs. I have not installed either of these Spybot features on my computer, so I can't comment on the criticism. But users with Spybot-related crash and freeze problems should consider disabling or uninstalling these Spybot features, if they haven't already done so. Then run a Spybot scan again to see if this fixes the problems.

Spybot has a number of settings that may increase CPU usage, especially at the end of scans when computer crashes and freezes seem to be occurring (see Advanced Mode, Settings menu). I have deselected all items from the settings menu, except for "Save all settings" and "Display confirmation dialogs before doing critical changes". I don't have Spybot produce bug reports, log reports, or other reports; or create backups and restore points; or run at startup and other automated procedures. Instead, I find that Spybot finds at most a handful of suspected spyware items (usually none), and these few items can be best disposed of manually. Users with Spybot-related crash and freeze problems should consider deselecting these settings menu items. Then run a Spybot scan again to see if this fixes the problems.

Spybot has a number of useful tools (see Advanced Mode, Tools menu) to identify unwanted programs and potential other problems. I find the ActiveX, BHO's, and System Startup tools particularly helpful. Consider disabling the items, on these various tool menus, that you don't think you need (such as, start menu items that "automatically check for software updates" (that run on Windows 98?)}. You can go back and re-enable these items, at any time, if these items are later found to be needed. Or better yet, consider running Spybot under Windows 98 in safe mode. If Spybot problems are fixed by running Windows in safe mode, Spybot problems may be caused by these Windows startup items, or other problems with the Windows installation itself. To start Windows 98SE in safe mode, I hold down my keyboard's "Ctrl" key during system startup, and select safe mode from the menu.

If you suspect problems with the Windows installation itself, first consider repairing and compressing the Windows Registry (Other options are potentially somewhat scary and time-intensive). Prior to repairing the Windows Registry, I first run CCleaner, Scandisk, and Defrag, to clean my hard drives and the Registry. Next, I do a full backup of my "Drive C:", which backup includes the Windows Registry. Next I restart Windows, holding down my keyboard's "Ctrl" key during system startup, and selecting control prompt from the menu. I enter "SCANREG /?" to view registry options. I enter "SCANREG /FIX" to repair and compress the Windows Registry. Do not run the other registry options (not applicable to these problems and potentially harmful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked my memory usage during another Spybot scan. Memory usage was an acceptable 45% to 48%, apx 62 Mb, of which apx 53 Mb was attributable to Spybot. (Memory was obtained by right-clicking the My Computer icon, and selecting Properties and then the Performance tab. Spybot memory usage was computed by taking memory usage at startup (apx 93% free or 7% usage), and deducting this amount from memory usage when Spybot was running). My suspicion is that, while memory usage (and number of file set items scanned) may dramatically affect the speed of the scan, memory usage is not the cause of the computer crashes and freezes being discussed.

I next visited the Spybot user forum website (A very active and informative forum, it appears). No recent memory issues were noted. But there were several posts relating to the fact that Spybot is very CPU intensive. Of particular note was criticism of two real-time Spybot processes (SDHelper and TeaTimer) as resource hogs. I have not installed either of these Spybot features on my computer, so I can't comment on the criticism. But users with Spybot-related crash and freeze problems should consider disabling or uninstalling these Spybot features, if they haven't already done so. Then run a Spybot scan again to see if this fixes the problems.

Spybot has a number of settings that may increase CPU usage, especially at the end of scans when computer crashes and freezes seem to be occurring (see Advanced Mode, Settings menu). I have deselected all items from the settings menu, except for "Save all settings" and "Display confirmation dialogs before doing critical changes". I don't have Spybot produce bug reports, log reports, or other reports; or create backups and restore points; or run at startup and other automated procedures. Instead, I find that Spybot finds at most a handful of suspected spyware items (usually none), and these few items can be best disposed of manually. Users with Spybot-related crash and freeze problems should consider deselecting these settings menu items. Then run a Spybot scan again to see if this fixes the problems.

Spybot has a number of useful tools (see Advanced Mode, Tools menu) to identify unwanted programs and potential other problems. I find the ActiveX, BHO's, and System Startup tools particularly helpful. Consider disabling the items, on these various tool menus, that you don't think you need (such as, start menu items that "automatically check for software updates" (that run on Windows 98?)}. You can go back and re-enable these items, at any time, if these items are later found to be needed. Or better yet, consider running Spybot under Windows 98 in safe mode. If Spybot problems are fixed by running Windows in safe mode, Spybot problems may be caused by these Windows startup items, or other problems with the Windows installation itself. To start Windows 98SE in safe mode, I hold down my keyboard's "Ctrl" key during system startup, and select safe mode from the menu.

If you suspect problems with the Windows installation itself, first consider repairing and compressing the Windows Registry (Other options are potentially somewhat scary and time-intensive). Prior to repairing the Windows Registry, I first run CCleaner, Scandisk, and Defrag, to clean my hard drives and the Registry. Next, I do a full backup of my "Drive C:", which backup includes the Windows Registry. Next I restart Windows, holding down my keyboard's "Ctrl" key during system startup, and selecting control prompt from the menu. I enter "SCANREG /?" to view registry options. I enter "SCANREG /FIX" to repair and compress the Windows Registry. Do not run the other registry options (not applicable to these problems and potentially harmful).

Hello rilef,

Thanks very much for the extensive roundup. I'll try each of your suggestions in turn and report back.

Right now I am running a Spybot scan with SDHelper and TeaTimer disabled, everything else left untouched. CPU usage after disabling them and closing Spybot, and before reloading it, was 44% (56% free); after reloading Spybot it was 51% (49% free). (Total RAM is 384MB.)

Hopefully it won't come to this, but I'm starting to think that ultimately I may have to do a clean install of Windows 98, just of get rid of the accumulated crud on that system. <shudder>

The Safer Networking forum for Spybot is indeed an excellent one, but after several rounds of trying to solve my issue there (some of it via e-mail) we seemed to come to a dead end. That's how I ended up here. :D

Thanks again!

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rilef,

I've tried most of the choices you suggested, doing a Spybot scan after each one: Disabled SDHelper and TeaTimer -- new scan. I deselected all the items from the Settings menu, except for the two you mentioned -- new scan. I didn't have a lot of items ticked under Tools, but I went ahead and unticked them -- new scan. I downloaded and ran CCleaner, as had been proposed earlier in this thread -- new scan.

All of these attempts have been defeated by the same blasted problem and error message.

Next I'll run a scan in Safe Mode, and if that doesn't work I may have to look into your idea to compress the registry. (I'm assuming that CCleaner repaired it adequately? It did remove a bunch of dead entries.)

Thanks very much for pitching in.

--JorgeA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...