Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Does Spybot SD Work on Win98 ?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#1
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Hello,

I've been using Spybot Search & Destroy on my Windows 98 Dell Dimension V400c tower since about 2003. But for approximately the last two years (I think since version 1.5 or so was released), my PC has been unable to finish a Spybot manual scan. It goes through the entire list, and then it comes to a halt at the exact end of the scan with an "illegal operation" error that points to an "Invalid Page Fault."

I've been wondering if there are any other Windows 98 diehards on this forum who have experienced this issue. I can still use Spybot for its resident functions, but the on-call scans take forever, and never actually finish.

For what it's worth, I use Windows 98 First Edition and my PC has 384MB of RAM, which I believe is the most that the model's specs allow. It ran on just 96MB for a decade, and as a test I topped it up, but that didn't seem to make any difference to Spybot's performance.

I have posted this issue on the Safer Networking forum a number of times, and communicated privately with the good folks on the Spybot team, but nobody seems to have a good answer as to what might be going on. I've tried everything that's been suggested, including defragging the hard drive, deleting the temporary files, adjusting the swap file size, erasing the IE temporary Internet files, but nothing has worked.

As of now the conclusion appears to be simply that the problem is due to "a 12-year-old operating system." Might that be true, or is there something else I could try to get Spybot to work fully? Do you use it, and how well does it work on your system?

Thanks in advance for any useful suggestions, and for your patience if I have violated any forum rules or policies. This is my first post here, please treat me gently. :D

--JorgeA


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,946 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Spybot S&D still works flawlessly in my system. It's Win 98SE with 98SE2ME.

#3
CharlesF

CharlesF

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Joined 13-July 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi JorgeA,

Last Spybot is running fine here on Windows 98 SE (but takes more than 1h30 to achieve a complete scan).

You could try a complete uninstall and then a clean new install.
Here are instructions: How to uninstall
and I have uploaded you a reg file to sweep the registry.

HTH

Attached Files



#4
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Spybot S&D still works flawlessly in my system. It's Win 98SE with 98SE2ME.


Thanks dencorso, this gives me hope that I might get to fix this.

Is it possible that Spybot runs on your system because you have so much memory (1GB) on it, and that there's no way that it'll run properly anymore on just 384MB? I wonder if it's a question of having enough RAM to keep up with the growing database size. (Spybot runs great on my Vista machine.)

--JorgeA

#5
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Hi JorgeA,

Last Spybot is running fine here on Windows 98 SE (but takes more than 1h30 to achieve a complete scan).

You could try a complete uninstall and then a clean new install.
Here are instructions: How to uninstall
and I have uploaded you a reg file to sweep the registry.

HTH


Hi Charles,

Thanks a bunch for the instructions and the cleanup file, I'll try them.

I remember that Spybot kept taking longer and longer to complete the scan, even before it stopped finishing them. Toward the end it was taking like 5-6 hours!! Now the scan is down to "just" 2 hours or so, but of course it's not actually finishing the job.

Hopefully the cleanup and re-install will help. Thanks again.

--JorgeA

#6
CharlesF

CharlesF

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Joined 13-July 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

I wonder if it's a question of having enough RAM to keep up with the growing database size.

My Windows 98SE computer is running with Pentium III 500 MHz and 384 MB of RAM too. ;)


Hopefully the cleanup and re-install will help. Thanks again.

You're welcome. :)

Charles.

#7
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I wonder if it's a question of having enough RAM to keep up with the growing database size.

My Windows 98SE computer is running with Pentium III 500 MHz and 384 MB of RAM too. ;)


Hopefully the cleanup and re-install will help. Thanks again.

You're welcome. :)

Charles.


Hi Charles,

I'm sorry to report that, after uninstalling Spybot as per the instructions, running the utility you uploaded, and downloading and re-installing Spybot -- it still did the same thing: it ran the scan, reached the last file after 3 hours 15 minutes... and then crashed with the same Invalid Page Fault error as before. :wacko:

I rebooted the PC to verify the info on the CPU. It's an Intel Celeron running at 400 MHz. (System Properties under Control Panel calls it a Pentium II but that's not the case.) The data provided by Norton SystemWorks says it's a Family 6 Model 6, which fits.

Could the difference in our processors be the deciding factor in whether Spybot will run or not? I doubt that it could be the OS -- that it would still run O.K. on 98SE but not on FE as I have.

Anyhow, thanks for trying. Are we out of ammo?

--JorgeA

#8
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,946 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

If you use TeaTimer, try disabling it for the duration of the scan. It's a longshot, but worth trying.

#9
patclash

patclash

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 41 posts
  • Joined 11-December 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
In your case , you can try to manualy set the swap file, that work well on a little machine :)

look at this : http://forums.spybot...ead.php?t=54635

#10
georg

georg

    georg

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined 24-February 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
JorgeA wrote: "my PC has 384MB of RAM, which I believe is the most that the model's specs allow. It ran on just 96MB for a decade, and as a test I topped it up, but that didn't seem to make any difference to Spybot's performance."

Try removing the original 96MB and try with only your newer RAM installed.

#11
CharlesF

CharlesF

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Joined 13-July 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

In your case , you can try to manualy set the swap file, that work well on a little machine :)

look at this : http://forums.spybot...ead.php?t=54635

Woow, it's terrific! :thumbup
I assume that a so small fixed swap file cannot be used for all applications, specially if you open several at the same time.

What would be the good compromise for my Pentium III 500Mhz with 384 MB of RAM running Windows 98SE?

#12
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

If you use TeaTimer, try disabling it for the duration of the scan. It's a longshot, but worth trying.


Hi dencorso,

Unfortunately, I've tried that before and it didn't help, but thank you anyway. Every one of my attempts at fixing the problem has been defeated by the computer. SO FAR. (I'm not giving up yet.)


--JorgeA

#13
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

In your case , you can try to manualy set the swap file, that work well on a little machine :)

look at this : http://forums.spybot...ead.php?t=54635


Hi patclash,

Very interesting thread you pointed me to, thanks! A couple months ago I tried manually setting the swap file at high settings, but now I'll try setting it real low for both minimum and maximum, and then see what happens.

--JorgeA

#14
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

JorgeA wrote: "my PC has 384MB of RAM, which I believe is the most that the model's specs allow. It ran on just 96MB for a decade, and as a test I topped it up, but that didn't seem to make any difference to Spybot's performance."

Try removing the original 96MB and try with only your newer RAM installed.


Hi georg,

Thanks for the idea. The PC came with two 48MB RAM modules installed. Back in January I took them out and put in three new 128MB modules, hoping that that would do the trick, but it didn't seem to make any difference to Spybot.

--JorgeA

#15
cyberformer

cyberformer

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Joined 16-September 05
I've got Search and Destroy installed on two 98se computers, one is a 133 with only 64 mb,
and the other is 667 with 191 mb.
It takes about half an hour for the first I mentioned to open up, and a very long time to scan.
The second faster PC opens the prog in about 10 to fifteen minuets, and takes the usual hour and one half to almost two-- to scan.
Once the scan is completed in both, the only way I can shut the prog down, is using the Ctrl + Alt + Delete keys.

But the thing is, that at first I was impatient--and did not think it was working at all (in both computers) and would use Ctrl + Alt + Delete to shut Search and Destroy down: in both cases was told that the program was not responding.
The point being, that one day I decided to just wait, no matter how long, to see if the prog was or was not really responding --and sure enough, to my surprise---the prog was indeed responding---so slowly, that Windows must have thought it was not!
So now, I find something else to do, whilst I wait the usual 20 to half an hour for Search and Destroy to open up---which it eventually does indeed do.

Edited by cyberformer, 12 April 2010 - 01:37 PM.


#16
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,331 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
IMHO, it's a fallacy in S&D in that it loads all of the definitions into memory before the scan. If you install without the updates, it loads up more-or-less ok but as soon as the defs are updated, you get bit. Found this out with a PC I was refurbishing with 128mb. Had to use it in Safe Mode to minimize memory usage. I had made a post on the forum as to the as-stated "minimum memory requirements" in the specs, but never got a response. It would be nice if it was redesigned to use on-the-fly file-access for the defs. Lots of anti-vir (etc. eg Symantec) load up the memory and/or the registry (same difference re: memory).

Slow but does complete in Safe Mode.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#17
georg

georg

    georg

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined 24-February 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
With a fresh install of SpybotS&D 1.6
and the latest definitions (April 7th)
on a 366 Celeron with 128MB RAM
1.5 GB free on a 3GB hard drive
Windows 98 First Edition 4.10.1998

Nothing running but Spybot, Explorer, Systray
Swapfile managed by Windows

Time to open: 6 min
Time to scan: 3 hr, 5 min
Scan ended normally with a green checkmark

#18
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

IMHO, it's a fallacy in S&D in that it loads all of the definitions into memory before the scan. If you install without the updates, it loads up more-or-less ok but as soon as the defs are updated, you get bit. Found this out with a PC I was refurbishing with 128mb. Had to use it in Safe Mode to minimize memory usage. I had made a post on the forum as to the as-stated "minimum memory requirements" in the specs, but never got a response. It would be nice if it was redesigned to use on-the-fly file-access for the defs. Lots of anti-vir (etc. eg Symantec) load up the memory and/or the registry (same difference re: memory).

Slow but does complete in Safe Mode.


submix8c,

My Win98 PC won't finish a Spybot scan even in Safe Mode. Keep getting that same Invalid Page Fault.

I agree with you, though, that the program could be designed better.

--JorgeA

#19
rilef

rilef

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Spybot loads its definitions into memory prior to scanning. Most of the definition lists are trojans, which may duplicate your anti-virus software scans and thus can be safely eliminated. Eliminate these and other non-spyware lists from the Spybot SD scan, and Spybot should have substantially less memory requirement and thus run just fine. (To do this, open Spybot, select "Settings", then select "File Sets", then uncheck the boxes relating to trojans and "Possibly UnPopular Software" and other lower priority lists, if needed).

Note, by cutting back the file sets in this way, I have successfully run Spybot on a Pentium II era computer, and in reasonable time.

#20
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,222 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

With a fresh install of SpybotS&D 1.6
and the latest definitions (April 7th)
on a 366 Celeron with 128MB RAM
1.5 GB free on a 3GB hard drive
Windows 98 First Edition 4.10.1998

Nothing running but Spybot, Explorer, Systray
Swapfile managed by Windows

Time to open: 6 min
Time to scan: 3 hr, 5 min
Scan ended normally with a green checkmark


georg,

Spybot behaves much the same on my computer -- about 7-8 minutes to load, then between 2 and 3 hours to scan. (3:15 the last time, but some times it's taken 8 hours)

The main difference is that the program actually finishes the process on yours, while on mine it crashes at the very end.

--JorgeA

#21
Guest_wsxedcrfv_*

Guest_wsxedcrfv_*
  • Guests
  • Joined --
I haven't run spybot SD on my system for a while, so I updated it with current definitions and then ran it. It took 31 minutes to run (CPU = P4 2.6 ghz, 64 GB hard drive that's 95% full).

One thing it found that has me puzzled: It identified this registry entry:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}

It's associating that entry with some malware known as "CommonName", and some web searches also link that CLSID with CommonName / ToolbarCNBabe. Is it normal to have a CLSID with all zero's like that?

In the registry tree under that CLSID I have this:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000}\Implemented Categories\{7DD95801-9882-11CF-9FA9-00AA006C42C4}

The item 7DD95801-9882-11CF-9FA9-00AA006C42C4 actually appears twice. No keys or key-values associated with either of them. When I search the registry for 7DD95801-9882-11CF-9FA9-00AA006C42C4, I find it turns up in a lot of places, but I don't see any DLL's or other files associated with it.

#22
georg

georg

    georg

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined 24-February 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
JorgeA -

I don't believe SSD is the problem, nor Win 98, nor your system configuration.

If the memory modules are good, then my understanding of page fault is that another process is stealing that memory location, so that when SSD goes back to it, the data it expects to find is no longer there. If that is true, the problem lies not with SSD, but with another running process that does not play well with SSD.

Look at Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > System Information

Expand Hardware Resources and look at what is loaded into memory.

Then expand Software Environment and look at 16 & 32 bit modules, Running Tasks and Startup Programs.

You can also try the SSD tool. On the main screen be sure Mode (upper left) is Advanced, then expand Tools (lower left), be sure Process List is checked, then choose it from the list at the left.

Look carefully at anything that is not by Microsoft or Safer Networking Ltd.

Good luck, georg

#23
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,331 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
@wsxedcrfv - Probably some "hang-over" entries left from another scanner which deleted "something" using their own brand of "known malware database". Many vendors delete what they recognize but sometimes not all is "listed". Wouldn't hurt to allow S&D to remove "what it sees".

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#24
Prozactive

Prozactive

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Joined 28-October 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Good advice from georg, et al. I recommend you also rule out memory and other hardware issues as a possible cause of your problems by running various diagnostic tools like Memtest86, Windows Memory Diagnostic, etc. Spybot runs fine on my Win98 systems although quite slowly as others have mentioned. On my slowest system (mobile Celeron 700mHz, 192MB RAM), it usually takes about 5-7 mins to load and around 1.5 hrs to scan my 6GB Win98 partition. I've never encountered any page fault or other errors, although after the last definitions update Spybot locked up after initial loading and eventually stopped responding in Task Manager for some reason (on all of my systems). It subsequently worked fine after reloading again.

Edited by Prozactive, 13 April 2010 - 10:37 AM.


#25
georg

georg

    georg

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 67 posts
  • Joined 24-February 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
wsxedcrfv -

The following link gives a pretty good report on this toolbar/malware:

http://www.threatexp...ea7b80fa9dcdcd0

SSD isn't the only one that thinks it's a threat. You can google some of these also.

The following threats are known to be associated with the file "cnbabe.dll":

Adware.CommonName [PC Tools]
Adware-CommonName [McAfee]
not-a-virus:AdWare.Win32.CommonName.c [Kaspersky Lab]
not-a-virus:AdWare.Win32.CommonName.f [Kaspersky Lab]
Adware.CommonName [Symantec]
BrowserModifier:Win32/CommonName [Microsoft]
Adware.CommonName.R [PC Tools]
Adware-CommonName.dll [McAfee]
Mal/Generic-A [Sophos]
not-a-virus:AdWare.Win32.CommonName.k [Kaspersky Lab] 1
Troj/Babeie-A [Sophos]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users