Zonealarm

[Dajan]

Hi

I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default programs
enough

Thanks

 

[Mick Murphy]

Vista own Firewall is very good, and quite sufficient for what you need.

Below are some compatible security Programs you might want to use with Vista.

http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html

Avast Anti-Virus is Vista compatible (32bit and 64bit Versions), FREE,
auto-updating, and a low resources user of your computer.
And, only have 1(one) Anti-Virus installed / running on your computer at any
one time..
Conflicts may occur if you have more than 1(one).

http://www.spybot.info/en/index.html

Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6 is a very good, FREE Anti-Spyware Program.
Download, install, update, and immunize your System with it.
Then SCAN with it.
Update it, and scan your System once a fortnight.

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

SpywareBlaster 4.1 is a non-intrusive, FREE Anti-Spyware Program that runs
in the background (no scanning by you!).
SpywareBlaster prevents the installation of many so-called spyware, adware
and malware programs by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX
controls, and also prevents the installation of any of them via a webpage
Update it once a fortnight, and let it do its work in the background!

http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php

Malwarebytes is as the name says, a Malware Remover!
Download, then update, the FREE version from one of the sites listed below:

Download from Download.com
Download from MajorGeeks.com
Download from GT500.org

--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Dajan" wrote:

> Hi
>
> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default programs
> enough
>
> Thanks
>

 

[Flight]

"Mick Murphy" schreef in bericht
news:A35534B3-7451-4219-942C-8613819B83C3@microsoft.com...
> Vista own Firewall is very good, and quite sufficient for what you need.
>
> Below are some compatible security Programs you might want to use with
> Vista.
>
> http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
>
> Avast Anti-Virus is Vista compatible (32bit and 64bit Versions), FREE,
> auto-updating, and a low resources user of your computer.
> And, only have 1(one) Anti-Virus installed / running on your computer at
> any
> one time..
> Conflicts may occur if you have more than 1(one).
>
> http://www.spybot.info/en/index.html
>
> Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6 is a very good, FREE Anti-Spyware Program.
> Download, install, update, and immunize your System with it.
> Then SCAN with it.
> Update it, and scan your System once a fortnight.
>
> http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
>
> SpywareBlaster 4.1 is a non-intrusive, FREE Anti-Spyware Program that runs
> in the background (no scanning by you!).
> SpywareBlaster prevents the installation of many so-called spyware, adware
> and malware programs by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX
> controls, and also prevents the installation of any of them via a webpage
> Update it once a fortnight, and let it do its work in the background!
>
> http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php
>
> Malwarebytes is as the name says, a Malware Remover!
> Download, then update, the FREE version from one of the sites listed
> below:
>
> Download from Download.com
> Download from MajorGeeks.com
> Download from GT500.org
>
> --
> Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
>
>
> "Dajan" wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default programs
>> enough
>>
>> Thanks
>>
I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe. Try Avira.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
wrote:

>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.

Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
lest everyone think you're an idiot.

I already do, so it won't change my mind.

 

[Flight]

"Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
> wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>
> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>
> I already do, so it won't change my mind.

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know everything
better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything against you. But
now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!

 

[FromTheRafters]

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm

Looks pretty safe to me.

Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.

Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
even though that is actually what you wrote.

I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.

"Flight" wrote in message
news:eWvu3peBJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
> news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>>
>> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
>> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>>
>> I already do, so it won't change my mind.
>
> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!

 

[Flight]

"FromTheRafters" schreef in bericht
news:#UEoqGfBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>
> Looks pretty safe to me.
>
> Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>
> Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
> unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
> even though that is actually what you wrote.

I never said that the others were UNsafe, they are just less accurate in
practice.

>
> I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
> many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>
> "Flight" wrote in message
> news:eWvu3peBJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
>> news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>>>
>>> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
>>> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> I already do, so it won't change my mind.
>>
>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

inline response

"Flight" wrote in message
news:edvybcfBJHA.3396@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "FromTheRafters" schreef in bericht
> news:#UEoqGfBJHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>
>> Looks pretty safe to me.
>>
>> Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>
>> Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>> unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>> even though that is actually what you wrote.
>
> I never said that the others were UNsafe, they are just less accurate in
> practice.

Isn't that what I just said? It is easy to *infer* from your
phrasing (since you put "would't advise Avast" so close to
"not so safe") that you meant more than "less accurate in
practice". I didn't say that you implied it, or said it, only
that you left it easy to infer.

>>
>> I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>> many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>>
>> "Flight" wrote in message
>> news:eWvu3peBJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
>>> news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>>>>
>>>> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
>>>> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I already do, so it won't change my mind.
>>>
>>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Beoweolf]

Anything in the top 10 is a good product, at that level the only differences
are - as listed in your proof - differences in ergonomics, look-n-feel.

Anything in the Top 5, I would use or recommend to anyone, especially if the
top priority is Free/shareware.

Different uses/users have unique priorities. One size does not fit all. Over
the years, I have found there is no such thing as "best".


"Flight" wrote in message
news:eWvu3peBJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
> news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>>
>> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
>> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>>
>> I already do, so it won't change my mind.
>
> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!

 

[Paul Montgomery]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:

>http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>
>Looks pretty safe to me.
>
>Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>
>Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>even though that is actually what you wrote.
>
>I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.

I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).

I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).

I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.

I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.

So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.


>
>"Flight" wrote in message
>news:eWvu3peBJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> "Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
>> news:ekh2b4lus9at1636md3nqosi6ku5tbrpli@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:22 +0200, "Flight"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe.
>>>
>>> Come up with something credible to back up that ridiculous statement
>>> lest everyone think you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> I already do, so it won't change my mind.
>>
>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Dajan wrote:
> Hi
>
> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default
> programs enough
>
> Thanks


Vista's built-in firewall is perfectly adequate for most people.
While it's not quite up to the ease-of-use standards of Kerio or
ZoneAlarm, it has been noticeably improved over WinXP's version.

There are two interfaces for Vistas built-in firewall:

1) A simplified one accessed through the Control Panel that is the only
one most people see. To further supplement this view, Sphinx's Vista
Firewall Control http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/) is a piece of freeware
that makes the Vista Firewall much more easily manageable to the average
user.

2) And the more advanced "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security
(WF.msc), accessed via the Start Menu's Administrative Tools folder, for
the experienced user who wants more granular control.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Flight wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!


Who is "Gizmo," and why should anyone take anything posted on the site
as credible?

I, for one, certainly wouldn't trust anything found there. They
actually recommend snake-oil products such as memory optimizers and
registry cleaners. Whoever runs that sirte is a very dangerous and
irresponsible person.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Paul Montgomery]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:24:18 -0600, Bruce Chambers
wrote:

>Flight wrote:
>>
>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>
> Who is "Gizmo," and why should anyone take anything posted on the site
>as credible?
>
> I, for one, certainly wouldn't trust anything found there. They
>actually recommend snake-oil products such as memory optimizers and
>registry cleaners. Whoever runs that sirte is a very dangerous and
>irresponsible person.

"Flight" also looks to MythBusters for technology info.

"Gizmo"/MythBusters... hey. It don't git no bettah...

 

[Mick Murphy]

"I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe. Try Avira"

I think that is a very dangerous statement by you.
I hope that you are prepared to back it up.
Companies don't appreciate statements like the above.

"Avira": install to get NAG screens!
--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Flight" wrote:

>
>
> "Mick Murphy" schreef in bericht
> news:A35534B3-7451-4219-942C-8613819B83C3@microsoft.com...
> > Vista own Firewall is very good, and quite sufficient for what you need.
> >
> > Below are some compatible security Programs you might want to use with
> > Vista.
> >
> > http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
> >
> > Avast Anti-Virus is Vista compatible (32bit and 64bit Versions), FREE,
> > auto-updating, and a low resources user of your computer.
> > And, only have 1(one) Anti-Virus installed / running on your computer at
> > any
> > one time..
> > Conflicts may occur if you have more than 1(one).
> >
> > http://www.spybot.info/en/index.html
> >
> > Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6 is a very good, FREE Anti-Spyware Program.
> > Download, install, update, and immunize your System with it.
> > Then SCAN with it.
> > Update it, and scan your System once a fortnight.
> >
> > http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
> >
> > SpywareBlaster 4.1 is a non-intrusive, FREE Anti-Spyware Program that runs
> > in the background (no scanning by you!).
> > SpywareBlaster prevents the installation of many so-called spyware, adware
> > and malware programs by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX
> > controls, and also prevents the installation of any of them via a webpage
> > Update it once a fortnight, and let it do its work in the background!
> >
> > http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php
> >
> > Malwarebytes is as the name says, a Malware Remover!
> > Download, then update, the FREE version from one of the sites listed
> > below:
> >
> > Download from Download.com
> > Download from MajorGeeks.com
> > Download from GT500.org
> >
> > --
> > Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia
> >
> >
> > "Dajan" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default programs
> >> enough
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> I wouldn't advise Avast. It is not so safe. Try Avira.
>
>

 

[Dajan]

Thanks for all the posts, I am using and always have, AVG Free, I just was
not sure about the need for zonealarm

Dave


"Dajan" wrote in message
news:530A427A-39B1-4A8A-B742-BF649F3B9016@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista or is the default programs
> enough
>
> Thanks

 

[Kayman]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:17:46 +0100, Dajan wrote:

> Hi
> I used zonealarm in XP do I need it with vista...

No, you don't!
Use this:
http://zonealarm.donhoover.net/uninstall.html

> ...or is the default programs enough

You are not going to find anything better than the Vista FW and Vista in
itself due to the advanced features the FW and Vista are using.

Managing the Windows Vista Firewall
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc510323.aspx

Tap into the Vista firewall's advanced configuration features
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6098592.html

Configure Vista Firewall to support outbound packet filtering
http://searchwindowssecurity.techtarget.co...1247138,00.html

Vista Firewall Control.
http://sphinx-soft.com/Vista/
The free version may be all you need, check the comparisons under
the "Download and Buy" link.

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Paul Montgomery" wrote in message
news:m693b45tfhgcvvcc0qv91jc3eindb8o7l9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>
>>Looks pretty safe to me.
>>
>>Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>
>>Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>>unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>>even though that is actually what you wrote.
>>
>>I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>>many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>
> I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
> customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
> been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).
>
> I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
> because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
> because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
> off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).
>
> I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
> about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
> because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.
>
> I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
> get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.
>
> So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
> of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.

You sorta hit the nail on the head there - they all suck one way
or another and you have to find which one sucks the least at
what you want it to do.

I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.

 

[Paul Montgomery]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:54:51 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:

>
>"Paul Montgomery" wrote in message
>news:m693b45tfhgcvvcc0qv91jc3eindb8o7l9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>>
>>>Looks pretty safe to me.
>>>
>>>Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>>
>>>Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>>>unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>>>even though that is actually what you wrote.
>>>
>>>I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>>>many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>>
>> I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
>> customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
>> been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).
>>
>> I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
>> because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
>> because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
>> off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).
>>
>> I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
>> about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
>> because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.
>>
>> I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
>> get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.
>>
>> So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
>> of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.
>
>You sorta hit the nail on the head there - they all suck one way
>or another and you have to find which one sucks the least at
>what you want it to do.
>
>I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
>I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
>the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.

Just Googled "disable AntiVir's nag screen".

First hit:

http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm

 

[Flight]

"FromTheRafters" schreef in bericht
news:eno3RWlBJHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Paul Montgomery" wrote in message
> news:m693b45tfhgcvvcc0qv91jc3eindb8o7l9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:59:44 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/R...D2008m3b_US.htm
>>>
>>>Looks pretty safe to me.
>>>
>>>Nice to see the ones I had chosen at the top of the list.
>>>
>>>Just because it appears as second best, doesn't mean it is
>>>unsafe - and it is easy to infer 'unsafe' from "not so safe"
>>>even though that is actually what you wrote.
>>>
>>>I advise either one about equally - both are adequate for
>>>many users' needs and have proven to work with Vista.
>>
>> I just spent the past week looking at McAfee (it's free for Comcast
>> customers), AVG 8 (I've used AVG in the past), Avira and Avast (I've
>> been using Avast since AVG 7.5 passed on).
>>
>> I rejected McAfee because it produced false positives a couple times,
>> because it is something of a resource hog compared to the others, and
>> because it placed a warning icon in my tray to remind me that I'd shut
>> off email scanning (it uses a proxy for email).
>>
>> I rejected AVG because it constantly popped up false-positive messages
>> about a couple files on my system. Plus I've lost confidence in AVG
>> because of recent reports of problems with several Windows updates.
>>
>> I rejected Avira because of the very irritating nag screen trying to
>> get me to go with the pro version. Otherwise, it seemed OK.
>>
>> So I'm sticking with Avast. - even though it's impossible to stop all
>> of its operations (if needed) without uninstalling it.
>
> You sorta hit the nail on the head there - they all suck one way
> or another and you have to find which one sucks the least at
> what you want it to do.
>
> I understand there is a way to disable AntiVir's nag screen, but
> I haven't tried it because I haven't installed AntiVir yet. Both
> the program and the anti-nag wait in the wings.
>
"We" want everything for nothing and complain if someone tries to get
something back for all the work. Ever looked what it really costs? If
someone rejects a very good working program only because that "nag screen"
then go on, I won't help you any more.

 

[Flight]

"Paul Montgomery" schreef in bericht
news:5ee3b45e5ht6mhjhtgqek7j7bk55vbsi6m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:24:18 -0600, Bruce Chambers
> wrote:
>
>>Flight wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-...us-software.htm
>>> Read this, you blundering idiot! You seem to think that you know
>>> everything better and no one must have the arrogance to say anything
>>> against you. But now it shows that you know nothing at all, potatohead!
>>
>> Who is "Gizmo," and why should anyone take anything posted on the site
>>as credible?
>>
>> I, for one, certainly wouldn't trust anything found there. They
>>actually recommend snake-oil products such as memory optimizers and
>>registry cleaners. Whoever runs that sirte is a very dangerous and
>>irresponsible person.
>
> "Flight" also looks to MythBusters for technology info.
>
> "Gizmo"/MythBusters... hey. It don't git no bettah...

They just showed for everyone watching it, that fingerprints can be so
easily cheated. Nothing else, blundering idiot!