«

Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=

huck asked in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
> destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
>
>
>

May a handful of homophobic democrats perform unnatural acts in your beer.


--

Your mother was a loathsome punk who made babies on a small island in the
Outer Hebrides.

- John Holmes -

huck wrote:
> Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
> destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
>
>
You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall
FireFox and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you
don't need any of them. Good Luck in what ever you decide.

--
Old Gringo George
Magic Weaver Of Life
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>

"huck" <> wrote in newsgrae.69119$lz2.49741
@fed1read07:

> Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot
search and
> destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
>
>

Neither one is worth running. Sure Spybot ruled a year ago - today it
is a waste of diskspace. Sure it's freeware - but in this case you
get what you pay for.
The only two programs I would recommend using is SpySweeper from
webroot.com and CounterSpy from sunbelt software. Both have free
trials. Run them against your current programs and you'll see they
detect far more than your current apps. The proof is in the pudding
as my Mum always said.

Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch for
Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
"patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.

If your really looking for a better browser - try Maxthon - it uses
the IE engine but has more security built in - you still need to
patch it occasionally as well - as with any software.

I have all three browsers on both my home and work pc's - and I
prefer Maxthon over the other two. All I am really trying to say is
don't think just because you have Firefox and use it - and don't ever
update it - that you are safe. Be careful in what kind of sites you
visit and run regular virus and spyware scans.


--

Sultan

"Old Gringo" <oldgringo-invalid-@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tjsae.1361$ ...
> You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
> frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall FireFox
> and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you don't need
> any of them.

Not so, George. Firefox isn't perfect, and there are many other ways to
end up with spyware and adware on your system than just via your browser.

Regards,
Ian.

Sultan wrote:

<snip>
> Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
> browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
> vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch for
> Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
> "patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.
<snip>

Entire download, 4.7MB. Now, how big are security patches from MS?
For more reading: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6488

There is no reason not to have both installed, but try to stay
away from having multiple *resident* scanners, such as BHOs,
which SpyBot S&D has -- I'm not sure about Spyware Doctor.

In <Pgrae.69119$lz2.49741@fed1read07>,
huck took 4 lines to utter:

>Can i have the 2 of them on my pc =Spyware Doctor and Spybot search and
>destroy/ thank for any help/ right now i am useing Spyware Doctor=
>

--
Basic computer maintenance
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html

Rôgêr <> wrote in news:EsadnTMdsP2H8_ffRVn-
:

> Sultan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Another poster recommended Firefox as a safer alternative when
>> browsing - that is both true and false. Firefox has security
>> vulnerablities as well - 8 found just last week. Sadly no patch
for
>> Firefox - you have to download the whole new build and install to
>> "patch" - a huge waste of bandwidth.
> <snip>
>
> Entire download, 4.7MB. Now, how big are security patches from MS?
> For more reading: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=
6488
>

Not 4.7 MB for any IE patch. For more reading:
http://www.informationweek.com/story...tml?articleID=
160900911

--

Sultan

Ionizer wrote:
> "Old Gringo" <oldgringo-invalid-@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tjsae.1361$ ...
>
>>You can have as many as you like. Keep them up to date and run them
>>frequently depending on your surfing habits, or you can in stall FireFox
>>and make it your default browser learn how to use it and you don't need
>>any of them.
>
>
> Not so, George. Firefox isn't perfect, and there are many other ways to
> end up with spyware and adware on your system than just via your browser.
>
> Regards,
> Ian.
>
>
No one said it was perfect and don't give me this not so **** as I
don't want to hear it. Get the **** off my ass and stay off.

--
Old Gringo George
Magic Weaver Of Life
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>

Rôgêr <> wrote in news:EsadnTMdsP2H8_ffRVn-
:

> http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6488

Hey Roger - thanks cause one of the feedback posters makes even
better points:
#8 Re: Let's not be idiots
by niner

Saturday April 23rd, 2005 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

It's exactly this attitude that is the problem with Firefox' security
and the problem with it's marketing.

For those of you that know nothing except for the pretty marketing
speech: even Mozilla had security bugs that were known for _years_
and were not fixed. There's no magic here. Firefox is not more secure
"by nature". Security bugs get only fixed if there's some developer
interested in the problem and knows how to fix it. Security problems
don't get fixed by just saying that Firefox is secure or all by
themselves.

Mozilla.org (now the Mozilla foundation) had their bad times, too.
Security was not and is not always the absolute top priority in
development. Thankfully, the situation got better, but it has never
been perfect and it may change anytime. If you really want a secure
browser and want, that it stays so, you'll have to become one of
those white hats you talk about and get the bugs fixed by yourself.
And oh, of course you'll have to build your own Firefox with these
security patches applied. Because as we've seen with Firefox 1.03,
Mozilla Foundation can not put out the releases as quickly because of
compatibility concerns, handling of the distribution system, etc.
which increases your vulnerable time.



--

Sultan