When is LavaSoft going.........

[Ron Lopshire]

infidel wrote:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:ZbyXg.8484$Ed5.1404@trnddc03...
>
>>From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
>>
>>| Is SuperAntiSpyWare safe?
>>
>>Yes, and an excellent alternative.
>
> Thanks Dave,
> I've run it and it seems OK, but slow.

Slow? What does that mean? 20 minutes, 20 hours, 3 days, what? Slow
compared to what other AS app? I keep seeing complaints about slow
scanning WRT various security apps, but that in and of itself means
_nothing_. Some scanning apps have lengthy scan times because their
scans are _thorough_. And then there are those apps that by default do
a half-assed scan, and then generate a ton of FPs with every other
definitions update. I won't mention any names.

As a test of _slow_ scanning, try this. Download, install and scan
your system/HD with each of these AS apps, and compare scan times for
commensurate settings. IMHO, comparing scan times between a half-assed
scan and a thorough scan does not make much sense.

a2 (a-squared free)
(http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/free/)
Ewido (AVG) Security Suite
(http://www.ewido.net/en/download/)
SUPERAntiSpyware
(http://www.superantispyware.com/)

For example, a2 now has three scan modes (plus Custom) --- Quick Scan,
Smart Scan and Deep Scan. I can almost guarantee that a2 in Deep Scan
mode (this used to be the default) will take a significant amount of
time. With the new a2 release (new GUI), marketing has paid attention
to people who keep *****ing about lengthy scan times, and now the
Smart Scan is default. Now a2 scans a hell of a lot faster. So what?

Again, slow? Compared to what? Compare the guy sitting in the
dentist's chair to the guy sitting on Angelina Jolie's lap. Which
lasts longer? Perspective is always important. [g]

Ron

[infidel]

"Ron Lopshire" <notron@ovbl.org> wrote in message
news:egobmk018tl@enews4.newsguy.com...
> infidel wrote:
>
> > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> > news:ZbyXg.8484$Ed5.1404@trnddc03...
> >
> >>From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
> >>
> >>| Is SuperAntiSpyWare safe?
> >>
> >>Yes, and an excellent alternative.
> >
> > Thanks Dave,
> > I've run it and it seems OK, but slow.
>
> Slow? What does that mean? 20 minutes, 20 hours, 3 days, what? Slow
> compared to what other AS app? I keep seeing complaints about slow
> scanning WRT various security apps, but that in and of itself means
> _nothing_. Some scanning apps have lengthy scan times because their
> scans are _thorough_. And then there are those apps that by default do
> a half-assed scan, and then generate a ton of FPs with every other
> definitions update. I won't mention any names.
>
> As a test of _slow_ scanning, try this. Download, install and scan
> your system/HD with each of these AS apps, and compare scan times for
> commensurate settings. IMHO, comparing scan times between a half-assed
> scan and a thorough scan does not make much sense.
>
> a2 (a-squared free)
> (http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/free/)
> Ewido (AVG) Security Suite
> (http://www.ewido.net/en/download/)
> SUPERAntiSpyware
> (http://www.superantispyware.com/)
>
> For example, a2 now has three scan modes (plus Custom) --- Quick Scan,
> Smart Scan and Deep Scan. I can almost guarantee that a2 in Deep Scan
> mode (this used to be the default) will take a significant amount of
> time. With the new a2 release (new GUI), marketing has paid attention
> to people who keep *****ing about lengthy scan times, and now the
> Smart Scan is default. Now a2 scans a hell of a lot faster. So what?
>
> Again, slow? Compared to what? Compare the guy sitting in the
> dentist's chair to the guy sitting on Angelina Jolie's lap. Which
> lasts longer? Perspective is always important. [g]
>
> Ron

Sweet heart, I have a 333Mhz P2 Celeron box with only 128 Mbytes of RAM.
I know when things are slow!
Now you could purchase me a new box.
:-)
r

[infidel]

"infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
news:_VSXg.46559$rP1.44818@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Ron Lopshire" <notron@ovbl.org> wrote in message
> news:egobmk018tl@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > infidel wrote:
> >
> > > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> > > news:ZbyXg.8484$Ed5.1404@trnddc03...
> > >
> > >>From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
> > >>
> > >>| Is SuperAntiSpyWare safe?
> > >>
> > >>Yes, and an excellent alternative.
> > >
> > > Thanks Dave,
> > > I've run it and it seems OK, but slow.
> >
> > Slow? What does that mean? 20 minutes, 20 hours, 3 days, what? Slow
> > compared to what other AS app? I keep seeing complaints about slow
> > scanning WRT various security apps, but that in and of itself means
> > _nothing_. Some scanning apps have lengthy scan times because their
> > scans are _thorough_. And then there are those apps that by default do
> > a half-assed scan, and then generate a ton of FPs with every other
> > definitions update. I won't mention any names.
> >
> > As a test of _slow_ scanning, try this. Download, install and scan
> > your system/HD with each of these AS apps, and compare scan times for
> > commensurate settings. IMHO, comparing scan times between a half-assed
> > scan and a thorough scan does not make much sense.
> >
> > a2 (a-squared free)
> > (http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/free/)
> > Ewido (AVG) Security Suite
> > (http://www.ewido.net/en/download/)
> > SUPERAntiSpyware
> > (http://www.superantispyware.com/)
> >
> > For example, a2 now has three scan modes (plus Custom) --- Quick Scan,
> > Smart Scan and Deep Scan. I can almost guarantee that a2 in Deep Scan
> > mode (this used to be the default) will take a significant amount of
> > time. With the new a2 release (new GUI), marketing has paid attention
> > to people who keep *****ing about lengthy scan times, and now the
> > Smart Scan is default. Now a2 scans a hell of a lot faster. So what?
> >
> > Again, slow? Compared to what? Compare the guy sitting in the
> > dentist's chair to the guy sitting on Angelina Jolie's lap. Which
> > lasts longer? Perspective is always important. [g]
> >
> > Ron
>
> Sweet heart, I have a 333Mhz P2 Celeron box with only 128 Mbytes of RAM.
> I know when things are slow!
> Now you could purchase me a new box.
> :-)

And naturally running 98SE.
r.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>


|
| And naturally running 98SE.
| r.
|

Not much else you could run on that.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

[infidel]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
newsqTXg.35$qv6.1@trnddc06...
> From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
>
>
> |
> | And naturally running 98SE.
> | r.
> |
>
> Not much else you could run on that.
>
Correct!
:-D
r

[Ron Lopshire]

infidel wrote:

> "Ron Lopshire" <notron@ovbl.org> wrote in message
> news:egobmk018tl@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>infidel wrote:
>>
>>>"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>>>news:ZbyXg.8484$Ed5.1404@trnddc03...
>>>
>>>>From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
>>>>
>>>>| Is SuperAntiSpyWare safe?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and an excellent alternative.
>>>
>>>Thanks Dave,
>>>I've run it and it seems OK, but slow.
>>
>>Again, slow? Compared to what? Compare the guy sitting in the
>>dentist's chair to the guy sitting on Angelina Jolie's lap. Which
>>lasts longer? Perspective is always important. [g]
>
> Sweet heart, I have a 333Mhz P2 Celeron box with only 128 Mbytes of RAM.
> I know when things are slow!
> Now you could purchase me a new box.

Perhaps I misread the intent of your post. Not that SAS is slow
compared to Spybot S&D or Ad-Aware, but that _all_ AS scanners are
slow on your system.

Purchase a new box? I have a 3 GHz P4 (32-bit, no DEP) w/ 512 MB RAM.
I wouldn't even consider using this box for Vista --- minimum 64-bit
architecture, hardware-enforced DEP, and 2 GB RAM. I don't care what
MS says. BTDT, as you are finding out. Your OS is eating up all of
your resources.

Again, you want slow? I used a 66 MHz 486 w/ 40 MB RAM for 8 years.
But then again, with Win3.1, I never needed no stinkin' AS scanners. [g]

Ron

[infidel]

"infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com> wrote in message
news:ZYXXg.46705$rP1.13578@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> newsqTXg.35$qv6.1@trnddc06...
> > From: "infidel" <infi@nonesuch.com>
> >
> >
> > |
> > | And naturally running 98SE.
> > | r.
> > |
> >
> > Not much else you could run on that.
> >
> Correct!
> :-D
All my software except Ad-Aware SE still run OK.
I've used defs.zip to manually update defs.ref before.
The problem is that the LavaSoft site seems to be down permanently.
The Major Geeks site claims to have the lastest update; It doesn't!
It's *not* MG's fault.
It's LavaSoft !!!
r