Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
saw it referred to  on this site
http://www.spywarevoid.com /

and this one
http://www.2-spyware.com /

--
Tommy





Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

  tommy mcc wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Using the free version for some time w/o problems. Guerss it does o.k. but
how to tell if something is preventing infection? Ha.

Al

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

tommy mcc wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/120531/spyware_doctor_fails_to_beat_favorites_in_latest_tests.html

--
   -bts
   -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:33:37 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Good link. It leaves little doubt.

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

freda@hotspot.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

dated 2005....

Gaz



Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

Gaz wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, and we went over that ten days ago. Please see the rest of the
thread.

--
   -bts
   -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/120531/spyware_doctor_fails_to_beat_favorite
s_in_latest_tests.html>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can't figure out why they didn't include anti spyware programs like MBAM
and SAS in their comparisons. Why would they limit themselves?

--
Tommy



Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:08:38 -0500, " tommy mcc"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Magazines only review software they've been paid to review.
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil /
http://home.roadrunner.com/~safehex /
http://home.roadrunner.com/~macecil/hackingw7 /

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 Perhaps because that article was from 2005?  



--
Rick Simon               rsimon@cris.com

Include "spam(trap)key" somewhere in the
body of any email to avoid spam filters.

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

On 04/30/2009 01:33 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty sent:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/120531/spyware_doctor_fails_to_beat_favorites_in_latest_tests.html

Hello BTS:

You know that I agree with you much of the time, however...

That link is difficult to date and the article's scope is so narrow as
to be misleading.  It makes you believe that only a handful of apps
exist that deal with spyware.  By lurking our malware newsgroups, we
know that Spybot-S&D is still an excellent freeware choice when compared
to the one year rental charges for the article's favorites.

After all that, no mention is made of MBAM & SAS and SpywareBlaster as a
preventive.  IMO, these are industry leaders.

I occasionally look at PCWorld to see if I can raise my respect for
their articles.  I don't believe any changes are forthcoming.

My $0.02USD and warm regards,

Pete
--
1PW  @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

1PW wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I tried to find a date also, but there is none showing. Pages of this
type should always have a date of publication.

It was the second link that came up at google for:  
review spyware doctor

--
   -bts
   -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?


Quoted text here. Click to load it


 I too have a great deal of respect for BTS's opinions, which is why I was
somewhat surprised here. The date is right under the authors name in the
byline at the top of the article.

Apr 28, 2005 4:00 am


--
Rick Simon               rsimon@cris.com

Include "spam(trap)key" somewhere in the
body of any email to avoid spam filters.

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

Rick wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Upon further review," I now find there is a date shown there, but
*only* if JavaScript is enabled in the browser. I normally have that off
- and if you check the source of the page, there is a clue why. Notice
all that "Websidestory" tracking code, and doubleclick.net links.  :-/
Masking the publish date with JavaScript is .. well .. [looks for polite
derogatory word] ..

There is also a page header element:
<meta name="date" content="2005-04-28" />

If I had seen this, I wouldn't have posted the link.

--
   -bts
   -Please, may I be excused?

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

On 05/01/2009 05:58 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty sent:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sure BTS.  No blood, no foul.

When I too turned on JavaScript, a Grey "Apr 28, 2005 1:00 am" appeared.
 The time difference is interesting...

So BTS and I were perhaps practicing a bit more safe hex at the time.

Thank you Rick.

Pete
--
1PW  @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You don't have to allow javascript to see the date...   Just click the
"print" button ;)

-jen



Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

On 05/02/2009 01:46 PM, jen sent:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hello Jen:

For me, this is even less intuitive than turning on JavaScript.

Perhaps the intent of the author and PCWorld are perfectly honorable.
But, it makes me wonder why it's done.  Surely the keystrokes and time
to have the date and time come from JavaScript code are greater than
just typing it in.

Thank you Jen.

Pete
--
1PW  @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Re: Spyware Doctor, anybody tried it?

"1PW" wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I expect the authored time will be generated automatically by the
software package they use to create web pages. Notice how it's
calculated:

timestamp(1114675200000,'longDateTime')

That's a function in main.js where the first argument is a Unix time
stamp (milliseconds since midnight UTC Jan 1st, 1970), which is used
to create the javascript date object, and the second determines the
display format.

The javascript date routines support localisation so the point of
doing it this way is to display it in your time zone. Otherwise they
would have to add GMT, PST, EST, etc. to be accurate. That explains
the shift in hours that different people see, depending on where in
the world they view it.



Site Timeline