![]() I have run into this in several forums where users are just as perplexed as I as to why BD is being so insistent about this supposed "conflict". I have been seeing BD support tell a lot of users recently to remove Spyware Blaster and Spybot if they intend to use BD. I'm VERY HAPPY though with the full version and I told BD that Spyware Blaster has some neat tools that I don't want to give up either. I've used your wonderful proggie from its inception and you even made me a Lite version once for 98SE (remember?). I was aware of most everything you touched on but I needed to hear you say it as I was mystified by Bit Defender support's attitude and wondered if I could possibly be missing something. Javacool, thank you for that detailed reply. Plus it's free and I'm always happy to answer questions. While IE 7 is indeed another step in the right direction (as was IE 6 SP2, which shipped with XP SP2), layered security is extremely important, with the number of vulnerabilities and issues being discovered every week (let alone the number of ways the bad guys are trying to trick users into installing their software). Even with IE 7, SpywareBlaster is still highly recommended. If you happen to get anything else out of BitDefender support, please don't hesitate to post - I'd be very interested to see what they say. But anti-spyware is a different ballgame altogether, and SpywareBlaster is still further unique in it's approach, which is much more of a "passive/proactive protection" and has been carefully tuned and maintained to ensure that conflicts don't happen. In the past, anti-virus companies have suggested against running more than one "active-scanner" anti-virus product at any one time, which is fairly sound advice because of how such products work. There is always the possibility that tech support is merely trying to eliminate "potential" causes for the problems you are experiencing with BitDefender in the hope that they'll hit the cure. So I'm not sure why BitDefender support suggested you uninstall SpywareBlaster (and Spybot). What has been seen in the past, is programs dealing poorly with the Restricted Sites protection, for example - but any user can add sites to the restricted sites zone themselves via Internet Explorer, so any other program that chokes on things like Restricted Sites entries or large hosts files - which SpywareBlaster does not implement - could probably deal with things much more gracefully, to put it nicely. Nothing has to remain running in the background, nor is there any reason anything should be slowed down by SpywareBlaster itself. (To address an issue in the other thread you linked - SpywareBlaster is about the lowest-cost protection you can implement on your system. So there's nothing running that could conflict with BitDefender, nor is there really anything about it's protection methods (ActiveX protection via kill bits, cookie blocking, restricted sites protection, etc.) that should conflict either. There is nothing about how SpywareBlaster functions that should conflict with Bit Defender or, frankly, any other similar program (anti-virus, firewall, etc).Īs I'm sure you're aware (but for the sake of any others who are interested) SpywareBlaster doesn't even have to remain running - it enables protection and then you just have to close it. I have a longer post about this issue here (number 21). ![]() ![]() So, do you have any understanding of what the heck they are so defensive about and why they are telling users that we can't use your application and Patrick's (even when not using TeaTimer)? I am also going over to ask Patrick about his proggie and BD. The reply from BD was a complete silence regarding my request for an explanation and no interest in keeping me as a customer. I also stated that if there really is this conflict that causes internet slowdowns and hangs that I would instead uninstall BD and look for another AV even though I really like BD rather than uninstall my two oldest and most favorite antispyware applications. ![]() ![]() I wrote back and told them that I would like them to please explain the reasoning behind this demand as I couldn't see how the two could possibly conflict. Support just told me that I MUST uninstall your great little proggie if I want to continue to use BD (along with that I must uninstall Spybot also). (Bit Defender also claims a major conflict with Spybot and if one were using TeaTimer I could see a possiblity of conflict since BD now has antispyware scanning but Spyware Blaster I cannot understand). Javacool, could you explain please why Bit Defender has a major conflict with Spyware Blaster? I cannot fathom how that could be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |