I have used KM for a few years now...currently using the latest version. Suddenly, KM is taking a much longer time to start up...it's even slower than Firefox! The only change I have made is I switched AV programs, from Nod32 to Avira. I tried shutting down Avira to see if that was the problem, but KM started just as slowly. Any ideas?

Forgot to mention that I'm using Win XP home.

My guess is that it's because of Avira.
I don't know Avira but it's possible that even shutting the scanner down the software is still running at active as a service.
Try to put the K-M folder on Avira's exclusion list.
In case this won't help I would ask in the Avira user forum for help. Maybe someone will provide you with a better advice.

Overwrite K-Meleon to update it from very old versions can have this problem due to old prefs and settings not used in newer version.
Try with a clean installation in other folder and after port your old profile to the new K-Meleon installation.

K-Meleon in Spanish



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2009 07:34PM by desga2.

Quote
desga2
Overwrite K-Meleon to update it from very old versions can have this problem due to old prefs and settings not used in newer version.
Try with a clean installation in other folder and after port your old profile to the new K-Meleon installation.

Already tried this and the problem is still there.

Check loaded apps & services with Process Explorer, prior to starting K-Meleon. Kill them one by one untill KM starts normally, or at least faster -- that's probably the culprit. Not 100% sure, but a good start... Like Yogi said, Avira is probably the reason.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2009 11:38AM by foobarly.

running 2 antiviruses side by side? = fucked system
make sure to completely uninstall nod before installing another antivirus.
still having problems? obviously avira is the cause since no problems occurred before installing it..

they are all pointless=false sense of security
new virus not yet added in their definitions?=bye bye windows

let the antiviruses and viruses have their wars somewhere else other than your computer... reclaim back your system

Quote
disrupted
they are all pointless=false sense of security
new virus not yet added in their definitions?=bye bye windows

Very funny. A seat belt and an airbag won't help you if you're falling from a bridge into the canyon, so why all these silly people install them on the every car? Maybe because they can save your life in other situations? How do you think?

Also software permissions can be easily set using only built-in Windows features as Software Restrictions Policies http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457006.aspx
without any third-party software to be installed (trust no exe, hehe).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2009 03:44PM by AirSpirit.

Quote
AirSpirit
Very funny. A seat belt and an airbag won't help you if you're falling from a bridge into the canyon, so why all these silly people install them on the every car? Maybe because they can save your life in other situations? How do you think?

that's a very misleading and bad analogy.. if you wanna do it with cars, an antivirus is telling you this: drink and drive, drive irresonsibly and no matter what happens we will protect you. you will always be safe... which is never the case, an antivirus has nothing to do with airbags or seatbelts, it's exactly like a useless offroader.. soccermums and other wankers drive them only on the tarmac because they get a bigger satisfaction thinking they are safer driving higher vehicles or because they are more sturdy..when in fact they have poor stability and handling and if it rolls over the sheer weight will crush the occupants inside. all the time putting a toll on your resources(wallet-fuel consumption) needlessly. an anitvirus is useless without updating its defintions almost daily..what;s the point, i might aswell clear all programs and leave my os for the antivirus which has to grow every day to give me a false sense of security i don't really need.

Quote
AirSpirit
Also software permissions can be easily set using only built-in Windows features as Software Restrictions Policies http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457006.aspx
without any third-party software to be installed (trust no exe, hehe).

no..it's not exactly like software permissions, although the concept is similar
from beyondlogic's site:
However the biggest disadvantage to this scheme is the administrator has no control over drives which do not have a NTFS file system or compatible network file system. Drives such as a 1.44MB 3.5" Floppy, CDROM, DVD, Zip Drive or even some network drives do not have adequate security descriptors and thus cannot be secured. Removing or disabling these drives is one option but doing so greatly effects the productivity that should be gained from a PC Workstation.

Trust-no-exe is a executable file filter. It attaches to the operating system and filters all executable files, be it .exe .com .dll .drv .sys .dpl etc from all drives and all network shares against a list of files or paths, you, the administrator provide as trusted applications. If a prohibited executable (one not in the allow list or one explicitly defined in the deny list) is loaded, a popup box informs the user with an intelligent message that can be customised to your site.

permissions policies have little control over external devices or even local hd which aren't ntfs.. permissions have no control over bat, dll, ocx etc.. they only control binary exe. so yes.. the kind of restrictions offered by trust-no-exe surpasses the polices and are way more effective.. there's no comparison.

i'm not here to debate anti antivirus vs antivirus.. each his own, no need to belittle me or my ideas.. what was i thinking? i was thinking i've been using windows os since win95 without an antivirus and without viruses. that's over 10 years of windows computing without catching a single virus.. excuse me, but i started computing on apple machines so the antivirus concept is a bit strange to me. i'm not smarter than your average joe(the plumber?) so if i can do it without an antivirus surely anybody can and jtiger can.. and it's not really that shocking since the word is getting around now, more and more individuals and institutions are letting go of their antiviruses and opting for better alternatives. i'm not telling you not to use an antivirus, i'm telling the person who has problems with it, i'm offering him/her an alternative path.. an enlightenment if you will in better possibilities, i only wanted to help jtiger get more productivity from their machine... if you have something else to offer, please go ahead and say it but your sarcasm is not needed.

i don't get it.. why every time i say "no to antivirus", someone has to jump in and bite my head.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6431853.stm
http://blog.azib.net/2007/06/anti-antivirus-someone.html

Quote
disrupted
permissions policies have little control over external devices or even local hd which aren't ntfs.. permissions have no control over bat, dll, ocx etc.. they only control binary exe. so yes.. the kind of restrictions offered by trust-no-exe surpasses the polices and are way more effective.. there's no comparison.

You just didn't read about it thoroughly. You confuse NTFS filesystem access permissions with Software Restrictions Policies. While the first really can deal only with NTFS volumes (and it's used for file access permissions in the first place), the second one is a powerful tool for setting permissions to run any executable under Windows (i.e. storage type-independent). If you're Windows user, run gpedit.msc Computer Conf - Windows Settings - Security Settings - Software Restrictions Policies. There is an object named "Designated File Types", where you can watch filetypes for restrictions to be apply. It's quite big list, also you can add your own extension. Read more about it and available options and settings and experiment. When you set up option "Disallowed" to be used by default, Windows will automatically add permissions to program files and windows folders (without it your system won't have permissions to run itself ). If also Windows is installed on NTFS drive and you're working under restricted account where windows and programfiles folders are available as read-only, you'll be unable to run any disallowed software:
1. Executables allowed to run only from windows and programfiles folders (SRP)
2. You can't add any executable (any file actually) into these folders because of read-only permissions (NTFS filesystem permissions)
So, using this tools together, we get very secure Windows where viruses have a little chance (they can only use vulnerabilities which MS finds and patches). Try it you'll like it, you don't need any third-party drivers hooking various things that may slow down your system or lead to problems with it.