Re: Spy Sweeper - worst programe ever!

From: cquirke (MVP Win9x) (cquirkenews_at_nospam.mvps.org)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:01:09 +0200

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:55:45 +0100, C & C Antiques and Collectables

>I have taken a look around at SpywareBlaster, what I have read all
>sounds encouraging. I did read some negative comment about it
>interfering with downloads though.

It's nice, but clueless about basic update theory. The server is very
slow, to the point of failing via DUN more often than not; takes
longer to pull down 51k than AdAware does to pull 400k.

So far, so acceprtable; the stupidity is that it does "live"
son-over-father database updates. Yep; break the download, and you
end up with no data and Spyware Blaster goes off into la-la-land,
requiring Task Manager to administer a bullet to the head.

I mean, modems never drop phone lines, do they?

The obvious fix is to pull down the data with a different name,
sanity-check it for completeness, and only then rename away the old
database, rename the new one into effect, then delete the old if OK.

>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
   Tech Support: The guys who follow the
   'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: question: do people still need the Monad bits for .Net Beta 2?
    ... I would say pull it, ... > We still see a lot of downloads of the Monad bits for .Net Beta 2 ... The RTM of .Net has been out for a couple of months, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.scripting)
  • Re: Does a git pull have to be so big?
    ... >> downloads - I'm sure they're orders of magnitude bigger than a simple ... >> 256/64 ADSL at home, did a pull yesterday at work iirc, and yet the pull ... you download the entire kernel history all over ... Can I avoid using pack files with Linus' tree? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)