Okay, from the top...
"According to one reviewer"... Well, you just had another reviewer
(me) say the opposite so now you're even. Whatcha gonna do?!
Look for another reviewer, of course! The guy I read basically said
it was fine when it ran, but it crashed several times. Sure, he could
have had an oddball system, and frankly I wonder how Microsoft could
have screwed up the Giant product in such a short time.
In any event, I try not to use stuff that crashes (even Opera pisses
me off relatively frequently when it does this - fortunately it
restarts where it left off, which is mollifying somewhat) - especially
betas.
And has not the general consensus been that BOTH Ad-Aware AND Spybot
S&D ought to be used?
That was my point.
Did you read anywhere in my post that I was
advocating the elimination of either of the two products?
No, and my point remains the same regardless.
My post was against the hysterical anti-Microsoft ninnies who attacked the product
without regard for its own intrinsic merits.
And I did not attack it mindlessly - I said at least one reviewer said
it was buggy at this stage, and that while it provides more protection
than Ad-Aware, it still misses some things. Hardly hysterical.
I believe all three products have their place on the PC-user's
desktop.
I agree.
My question to you is: Are you only able to win arguments against
straw men?
I wasn't arguing - I was pointing out what I'd read about it. You're
the one arguing.
And you read the contrary assertion WHERE?
Every time somebody makes a point of saying something got more spyware
than something else. The unstated assumption is always that one can
ditch A because A caught less than B - which is not true (so far).
<GDRFC>