Vista - Antispyware

Vista 64 + AdAware = no
They are not compatible. I have tried. Maybe 32 bit is, but not 64 bit.

Hi, Thank you all for the worthwhile responses. I am 101% satisfied that I
will find what I need!
"RyanHell078" <RyanHell078.33h4jz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:RyanHell078.33h4jz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:29:41 -0000, "Zygy" <zygy@xxxxxx> wrote:
Why don't you simply stop installing spyware?
AdAware is a proven piece of crap.
That's only a problem if you actually believe it adds value to install
it.
Well, no anti-products can work reliably. Using not inherently broken
software in combination with your brain works, though.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:30:24 -0800, "Victek" <Victek@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Erhhmm, no you don't. Simply because that's impossible.
Yeah, right. Load your machine with tons of anti-crap. What makes you
believe this has anything to do with security?

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:50:39 +0100, "Charlie42"
<Charlie42@xxxxxx> wrote:
The problem is that the idea of scanning for spyware is broken already
by design.
Huh? What does "well covered" mean?
Yes. The amount of crap available is overwhelming.
What led you to believe that online scanners have anything to do with
security? Commercials?

"Straight Talk" <b__nice@xxxxxx> wrote:
And by that I believe you mean an infection may evade detection or disable a
scanner, correct? True, but still a lot of spy and adwares are found and
dealt with by scanners...

Although a previously infected computer can never be 100% trusted again
(unless you wipe and reinstall), the anti spywares on the market *are* able
to help you identify problems you otherwise might never have found. That is
the primary reason for using them. That some culprits might pass under the
radar, doesn't change that fact.

And a bulldozer wipe and reinstall is a bit over the top when all you need
to get rid of is some minor to mid annoyance, like a pop up advertiser,
toolbar or harmless cookie.
That the OP follows the general advice to run more than one anti spyware. My
point is I don't think "Zygy" needs to install further programs.
I think I made myself clear in my post. Though I believe they can have some
value in identifying problems, they should first and foremost be considered
as advertising tools. False positives should hardly come as a surprise,
exercise sound judgement if you use them.

Charlie42

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:44:59 +0100, "Charlie42"
<Charlie42@xxxxxx> wrote:
Correct. Since the idea is broken by design, you can decide to play
along and catch the small fish and let the big ones go unattended. I
prefer to avoid it entirely.
But why "deal with the problem" in such unreliable way when it's not
that hard to avoid it completely?
True. But the challenge for layman is to confirm a system to be clean.
Heck, even a lot of "experts" fail that challenge.
But "well covered" indicates also that ad- and spyware is somehow
inevitable and that you therefore need to cover "as much as possible".
That's a fallacy.

"Straight Talk" <b__nice@xxxxxx> wrote:
Thereby leaving fish that could have been caught to run the pond? We
disagree.
Hard? Perhaps not to computer wizes, but they are a scarce resource. Most
home and small business users simply do not have the motivation to learn how
to avoid troubles that can be prevented by knowledge, a hw firewall and hips
protection, or something along those lines. Not to mention their kids...

Way to often I come across multiple infected computers, where the operator
just couldn't be bothered with downloading Tuesday patches, and didn't have
an understanding of what things like "reliable source" and "signature
subscription renewal" meant.

And I can't really scold anyone for it either, the average user is exactly
that: A user. Computers are an aid, his or her training and work is in a
different field. They want to use their computer for production or leisure,
not dig into the esoterics of security and tweaks.

I think it is unwise to advice against using security software, for the
simple reason you would then be factoring out the human in front of the
keyboard. Most of us need, and are quite happy with, software that will do
the policing for us.
Agreed. Like I said, there's no such thing as 100% here. When there's
suspicion of a compromize, malicious attack, rootkit aso., most network
admins know they're in for a late night shift rebuilding the system.
In my opinion, ad and spyware *is* inevitable for a common surfer. It seems
to hard to tell which downloads are safe, and which aren't. For kids and
participants in social and P2P networks in particular. Hence a need for
policing software.

Charlie42

It may have the words, but it doesn't have the legal Microsoft symbol showing it is truly Vista compatable. I am a Beta tester for LavaSoft and ran precluders to AdAware 2007 and I am shocked by how buggy and unreliable it is. I am currently keeping AdAware SE despite LavaSoft's efforts to get you to change as they constantly badger you to do in their forums. I have also added other AntiSpyware programs to make sure all my coverages are current and my scans and removals accurate.

i have run adaware 2007 on both xp and vista and it sucks
Adaware SE was very stable, easy to use, very straight foward
What i do not understand is if you have a product that works well and it is
just not vista ready, just fix that part but do not change the entire
program.

robin
"SteveC619" <SteveC619.33isz1@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:SteveC619.33isz1@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...