Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)
On this NG different filtering programs are recommended i.e.
spywareblaster, iespyad, AVG etc.
These are slowing down my internet speed (using DUN).
My questions is:
Are they really necessary to work as filter or it is better to scan system
after internet session. As Spywareblaster(filter) do the same job as
Adaware
and Spybot (scanner).
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)
Farhan wrote:
> On this NG different filtering programs are recommended i.e.
> spywareblaster, iespyad, AVG etc.
> These are slowing down my internet speed (using DUN).
>
> My questions is:
>
> Are they really necessary to work as filter or it is better to scan system
> after internet session. As Spywareblaster(filter) do the same job as
> Adaware
> and Spybot (scanner).
>
> Farhan
I run them offline, but bear in mind that I'm using a firewall and
Firefox. Generally S&D covers spyware while AdAware covers adware.
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/se [...] fault.aspx In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [...] ichol.mspx Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Farhan" <kami@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news2G1$fpKFHA.1284@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> On this NG different filtering programs are recommended i.e.
> spywareblaster, iespyad, AVG etc.
> These are slowing down my internet speed (using DUN).
>
> My questions is:
>
> Are they really necessary to work as filter or it is better to scan system
> after internet session. As Spywareblaster(filter) do the same job as
> Adaware
> and Spybot (scanner).
>
> Farhan
>
>
>
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)
*All* Ie-spyad does is put a long list of known bad sites into Restricted
Zone - imo a very good thing the only potential downside of which might be
browser lag if also using a large HOSTS file.
Spywareblaster does more but still does not perform any sort of scanning
function. They are both Immunizers, if you like, which, I suppose, is why
when you hit Spybot S&D's Immunize button you'll see - if you have
SpywareBlaster installed - *You have JavaCools SpywareBlaster installed.
SpywareBlaster will give you much more control on ActiveX protection. Click
here to run it*
Another way to look at it, although it's stretching it a bit, is they're
both 3rd-party patches for the relatively unsecure Internet Explorer (and to
a rather lesser degree, Mozilla).
Shane
"Jack E Martinelli" <jemartin_DELETE@NO_SPAM_gis.net> wrote in message
news:%232P2nsvKFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Here is the best site I know for tracking bad choices in antiparasite
> software:
>
> http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm >
> --
> Jim Eshelman, MS-MVP Windows/Security
> Windows Support Center: http://aumha.org/ > AumHa Forums: http://aumha.net/ > Jan 2005
> ------
>
> --
> Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
> Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm >
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/se [...] fault.aspx > In Memorium: Alex Nichol
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [...] ichol.mspx > Your cooperation is very appreciated.
> ------
> "Farhan" <kami@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news2G1$fpKFHA.1284@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > On this NG different filtering programs are recommended i.e.
> > spywareblaster, iespyad, AVG etc.
> > These are slowing down my internet speed (using DUN).
> >
> > My questions is:
> >
> > Are they really necessary to work as filter or it is better to scan
system
> > after internet session. As Spywareblaster(filter) do the same job as
> > Adaware
> > and Spybot (scanner).
> >
> > Farhan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.