http://s020.radikal.ru/i710/1310/58/6460089d2a94.jpg
http://i031.radikal.ru/1310/d4/ecd121410c70.jpg
Best answer by Rakanisheu Retired
View originalBest answer by Rakanisheu Retired
View originalIt doesn't have any influence on the performance.@ wrote:
Its a shame that this bug wasnt fixed for about 6 months. What are you doing folks? What i was paying for?
Did you read an official statements mentioned before?@ wrote:
It doesn't have any influence on the performance? So what about games? When explorer.exe uses 300mb ram i've got random frame drops in Battlefield 3 and other games. But sometimes explorer.exe works fine and uses ~30mb ram and games are smooth as butter.
Every system is, in fact, totally unique...that's why a Remote Session is the best usual solution in these type of situations.@ wrote:
We know the Webroot statement. You dont need to copy that on every page. But as you can see, there are people that claiming there is some influence on performance. I think every system is a little bit different, we had others programs installed, im using laptop, somebody use it on the desktop etc. I payed for a LIGHTWEIGHT program, i dont care about a security that much. If you dont know what are you doing on the web, even program with 100% protection doesnt help you. So, as I mentioned before, its a shame that this wasnt fixed for 6 months. Still waiting for some info.
Webroot is well aware of the problem, and they are working on it. I would suggest you file a Trouble Ticket if you have not done so. The more data Webroot as from affected users, the easier it will become for them to fix the problem for you.@ wrote:
We know the Webroot statement. You dont need to copy that on every page. But as you can see, there are people that claiming there is some influence on performance. I think every system is a little bit different, we had others programs installed, im using laptop, somebody use it on the desktop etc. I payed for a LIGHTWEIGHT program, i dont care about a security that much. If you dont know what are you doing on the web, even program with 100% protection doesnt help you. So, as I mentioned before, its a shame that this wasnt fixed for 6 months. Still waiting for some info.
If you read the entire thread, even just the last 6 replies, you would note that this bug does not affect all users. Thus, PCMag missed nothing and nothing was hidden.@ wrote:
So let me make sure that I understand this situation correctly. .In order to have this fixed I already (2nd day as a webroot member) have to have a person go in my pc remotely?so no general fix through firmware update?
Every site like pcmag etc did they miss this info? I hope that it was not done on purpose to hide the foot print under explorer.exe .. I just find it weird that every single reviewer didn't mention this..maybe they haven't noticed??I am not accusing webroot, but this definitely needs to be fixed. .we need a time frame,we need an explanation. .This is totally against what is advertised..ohh webroot uses 3mb of ram blah blah blah..obviously it doesn't. .actually uses more at this point than my norton 360 2014
Was explorer.exe even designed by Microsoft to idle at 290-300 mb?What other system instability can that cost? Do we know?maybe maybe not. ..
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.