Any opinions on SpywareBlaster vs WinPatrol?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john p.
  • Start date Start date
J

john p.

These progs appear to do pretty much the same thing, and both seem to
be well regarded. Are there any benefits to using one over the other,
or is it mostly a matter of GUI preference? I'm assuming it would be
redundant, and possibly cause conflicts, to use both simultaneously.
 
They're not the same. Winpatrol is "agnostic", it lets you know, control,
and manage what happens when you start up. SpywareBlaster keeps track of
things that are thought to be bad (and very likely are) and prevents them
from installing.
 
Exray said:
They're not the same. Winpatrol is "agnostic", it lets you know,
control, and manage what happens when you start up. SpywareBlaster
keeps track of things that are thought to be bad (and very likely
are) and prevents them from installing.
Click to expand...

Well, that is new then... on my system here WinPatrol runs in the
background (like SpywareGuard) and it controls attempts to hijack
browsers, set cookies, activate DLL's etc. just as much as it controls
things that try to start during OS boot time!

Both programs differ in one important aspect though: SB is not
resident: You update it, click on the protection button and you can
close the program... you're done! WinPatrol OTOH will stay in memory
and "Scotty" will be on duty as long as you want him to be: iow it *is*
resident!

HTH
Dick
 
Well, that is new then... on my system here WinPatrol runs in the
background (like SpywareGuard) and it controls attempts to hijack
browsers, set cookies, activate DLL's etc. just as much as it controls
things that try to start during OS boot time!
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but Winpatrol would give you an option to accept such
cookies,activate DLLS etc right? The way spywareblaster works, the
activex control won't even "popup" to give you an option to install it.
Both programs differ in one important aspect though: SB is not
resident: You update it, click on the protection button and you can
close the program... you're done! WinPatrol OTOH will stay in memory
and "Scotty" will be on duty as long as you want him to be: iow it *is*
resident!
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you mean by "runs in the background".
Spywareblaster works by using the functions of the windows system (for
activex), or IE/mozilla (cookies, restricted zone) itself.

Everything it does from automatically blocking certain activex controls ,
blocking cookies, IE restricted sites are actually fairly simple registry
tweaks that you can do yourself.

In that aspect it differs a lot from software like Winpatrol, where no
amount of tweaking will give you the functionality winpatrol gives.

I have nothing against spywareblaster since i use it myself, just trying
to clear up some confusion.
HTH
Dick
Click to expand...



Aaron (my email is not munged!)
 
Aaron said:
seem >> > to be well regarded. Are there any benefits to using one
over the >> > other, or is it mostly a matter of GUI preference? I'm
assuming it >> > would be redundant, and possibly cause conflicts, to
use both >> > simultaneously. --

I could be wrong, but Winpatrol would give you an option to accept
such cookies,activate DLLS etc right? The way spywareblaster works,
the activex control won't even "popup" to give you an option to
install it.
Click to expand...

No, you're not wrong... :)
It all depends on what you mean by "runs in the background".
Spywareblaster works by using the functions of the windows system
(for activex), or IE/mozilla (cookies, restricted zone) itself.
Click to expand...

The definition of "running in the background" is that the actual
program, or a resident part of it, is still active in memory... SB
doesn't do that... it is more an "aim and shoot to kill" tool, SG and
WinPatrol do stay in memory and perform their tasks... BTW: On the
issue of preventing browser hijacks I found SG to respond more quickly
than WinPatrol!
Everything it does from automatically blocking certain activex
controls , blocking cookies, IE restricted sites are actually fairly
simple registry tweaks that you can do yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, but then... the user would have to be an expert in
exactly WHAT is to be kept outside, these tools make it a lot easier
for even the most illiterate person to keep the right things outside!
In that aspect it differs a lot from software like Winpatrol, where
no amount of tweaking will give you the functionality winpatrol gives.
Click to expand...

Yes, right again... but the tool serves the purpose, while at the same
time keeping things plain and simple... too many tweaking options can
cause confusion as well.
I have nothing against spywareblaster since i use it myself, just
trying to clear up some confusion.
Click to expand...

I noticed some of thatmyself, reason to break "lurking" here... Back
into lurking mode again!
Aaron (my email is not munged!)
Click to expand...

Mine is... but people know where to find me <grin>.

Dick
 
It seems to me, unless I am misreading the automatic update page, that
Blaster is no longer freeware. Please advise if I am wrong..
POKO
Click to expand...

It's still free.

from the site:

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

"Why is it Free?
We're all about helping you protect your privacy and security, because
we value ours so much.
We believe strongly that people should have free access to innovative
security and privacy solutions.
Through our offering of freeware products, we try to realize that
belief.

We hope you enjoy our software - we certainly had fun making it"

Ed
 
IamMe said:
It's still free.

from the site:

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

"Why is it Free?
We're all about helping you protect your privacy and security, because
we value ours so much.
We believe strongly that people should have free access to innovative
security and privacy solutions.
Through our offering of freeware products, we try to realize that
belief.

We hope you enjoy our software - we certainly had fun making it"

Ed
Click to expand...

I am sorry to correct you, but Pat is right. JavaCool wrote me just
prior to the release of SB3 that he had to make the automatic update a
"paid version only" simply because the guy can't pay the costs of
maintaining a web site and paying the bandwidth bill out of his own
pocket. The mirrors (amongst which my humble site) do their best, but
the popularity of his software is *that* huge that even they cannot
deal with the problem... I for one wouldn't be surprised if his
programs would turn into shareware... well, if so... the Internet
community asked for it!!!

Oh, and before we get into that again... No, I am not JavaCool... my
site is one of his mirrors, and I myself are a happy user of the
programs SB, IB, and SG.

Perhaps it is time to realize that you can't have a free lunch all the
time folks!!!

Dick hazeleger
Webmaster "The Hare's Lair"
 
Dick said:
I am sorry to correct you, but Pat is right. JavaCool wrote me just
prior to the release of SB3 that he had to make the automatic update a
"paid version only" simply because the guy can't pay the costs of
maintaining a web site and paying the bandwidth bill out of his own
pocket. The mirrors (amongst which my humble site) do their best, but
the popularity of his software is *that* huge that even they cannot
deal with the problem... I for one wouldn't be surprised if his
programs would turn into shareware... well, if so... the Internet
community asked for it!!!
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is time to realize that you can't have a free lunch all the
time folks!!!
Click to expand...

As long as freeware writers want to do it all alone this may be the
result. But there are solutions. If a number of freeware authors went
together, created a web site for their organisation, and sent it to
server admins at big universities and asked for free web space they
would surely get it.

It just takes some cooperation and negotiating with other people to fix
such problems without having to change the license to payware.

Thousands of universities around the world already mirror a lot of
freeware and even shareware sites, so it would be no problem to include
a freeware organisation and their programs too.
It just has to be organized by some people.
 
It seems to me, unless I am misreading the automatic update page, that
Blaster is no longer freeware. Please advise if I am wrong..
POKO
Click to expand...

You're wrong!

The free version is available still you just have to read the page
very carefully as they are pushing the -PRO version very hard.
 
H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger said:
I am sorry to correct you, but Pat is right. JavaCool wrote me just
prior to the release of SB3 that he had to make the automatic update a
"paid version only" simply because the guy can't pay the costs of
maintaining a web site and paying the bandwidth bill out of his own
pocket.
Click to expand...

Only partly right. The "automatic update FEATURE" is now pay only.
The -rest- of the program is indeed free and worth downloading and
using (manually updating is not a particularly big deal to me).
 
It seems to me, unless I am misreading the automatic update page, that
Blaster is no longer freeware. Please advise if I am wrong..
POKO
Click to expand...

The automatic update feature is no longer free, but the program is and it
can be updated manually.
 
Mister said:
Only partly right. The "automatic update FEATURE" is now pay only.
The -rest- of the program is indeed free and worth downloading and
using (manually updating is not a particularly big deal to me).
Click to expand...

Sorry my bad, you are right Mr. Charlie... that is what I meant to say!

Regards
Dick
 
H.M.A. (Dick) Hazeleger said:
Sorry my bad, you are right Mr. Charlie... that is what I meant to say!
Click to expand...
Well, I imagine for some people the auto update feature would be quite
important. For my personal purposes I update everything I have
manually. But perhaps the cost for the auto update would be enough to
drive someone to another freeware.
 
Well, I imagine for some people the auto update feature would be quite
important. For my personal purposes I update everything I have
manually. But perhaps the cost for the auto update would be enough to
drive someone to another freeware.
Click to expand...

Well given that the older versions never had autoupdate, and people were
still happily using it, I don't think your prediction will come true.

In case, there are alternatives to spywareblaster, eg Spybot's immunizer.





Aaron (my email is not munged!)
 
The automatic update feature is no longer free, but the program is and it
can be updated manually.
Click to expand...

Good. Too much is made of automatic updates in my opinion. I like to
control what the computer is doing not the other way around.
 
Back
Top