Need Good Ad Blocker [Archive] - Wilders Security Forums

HKEY1952

October 17th, 2009, 03:39 AM

-{ Quote: "I just took KIS 2010 off my machine after experiencing significant slowdown. After boycotting Symantec for 15 years, I put on NIS 2010 and I am very pleased with it. The one thing it doesn't have is an ad blocker. I only need the ad blocker - not another AV program. Any recommendations?" }-

Welcome to Wilders Security Forums JMBAV.....

You never mentioned what Browser you are using, if by chance you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer then I strongly suggest Adblock Pro v2.6
For an one time registration fee of $19.95 the product is yours forever. Adblock Pro v2.6 for Microsoft Internet Explorer works impressively well.
There are two filter lists, the programs default list: 'abp-default' and the users customizable list: 'user'

Together both of these filter lists overwhelmingly block more than the majority of ads, popup windows, activex object ads, flash ads, element ads,
rich media ads, banner ads, fly-in ads, and more. The user can also right click any image in any Web Page and add the image to the blocked filter list.
The user can also disable filtering for an selected Domain or for the current Web Page only. The keyword filtering also supports the wildcard character: '*'
All of the filtering is performed right at the Browser, there is no delay in the loading or disfiguring in the display of the target Web Pages.

Both filter lists can be backed up by Exporting the lists, and supports Importing lists from the backup or other lists.
For an complete tutorial, screen shots, and the default filter list, follow the links below:

Adblock Pro v2.6 Home Page:
http://www.adblockpro.com/

Adblock Pro v2.6 User Guide with Screen Shots:
http://www.adblockpro.com/help.html

Adblock Pro v2.6 'abp-default' default filter list:
http://www.adblockpro.com/subscription/abp-default.txt

HKEY1952

Creer

October 17th, 2009, 04:25 AM

-{ Quote: "my personal choice has always been the famous proxomitron with sidki's config set. cant go wrong with it :thumb:" }-
+1 the same here.

Tony

October 17th, 2009, 05:08 AM

-{ Quote: "If Firefox is your browser then Google adblocking userContent.css. I've been using this for adblocking a number of years. Works great." }-

Sounds interesting.
Are there any pre-made userContent.css that you recommend Trespasser?

Currently using Adplock Plus addon for Firefox and it has worked very well for me.

demonon

October 17th, 2009, 05:39 AM

You could use the inprivate browsing option for IE8, Firefox has adblock plus and allot of other browsers will allow you to block ads through a css file.
If you want to block ads everywhere in your system, I recommend privoxy.
It's free too.

denniz

October 17th, 2009, 06:04 AM

-{ Quote: "There was SuperAdBlocker which had an older version of SuperAntiSpyware built in- so not a bad combo a couple years ago. Then came along Vista and a bunch of promised compatibility upgrades that never seemed to happen. After waiting about a year I did not even consider it anymore. " }-

Yeah, really disappointing what Nick did with SuperAdblocker. For more then a year ago he continually promised updates so that SuperAdblocker would become compatible with Vista, with x64 Windows, IE8 and Firefox 3.5x....... but so far SuperAdblocker has become vaporware. >:(

pbw3

October 17th, 2009, 06:32 AM

-{ Quote: "Yeah, really disappointing what Nick did with SuperAdblocker. For more then a year ago he continually promised updates so that SuperAdblocker would become compatible with Vista, with x64 Windows, IE8 and Firefox 3.5x....... but so far SuperAdblocker has become vaporware. >:(" }-
Just for info, Super Adblocker does work on Vista (and has for the last two years - on my machine at least)..
http://www.superadblocker.com/
the SAB web site here also suggests that it works with Firefox, which they also confirmed to me by e-mail some time back.. I only stopped using it when I changed to using Opera..

denniz

October 17th, 2009, 07:59 AM

-{ Quote: "Just for info, Super Adblocker does work on Vista (and has for the last two years - on my machine at least)..
http://www.superadblocker.com/
the SAB web site here also suggests that it works with Firefox, which they also confirmed to me by e-mail some time back.. I only stopped using it when I changed to using Opera.." }-

Regarding Vista, when you have UAC enabled, then pop-ups constantly bug you to give permissions to do things like updating. With real Vista compatible programs UAC shouldn't be a problem. Vista support in SuperAdBlocker is half done.

Regarding browser-support, here's a quote from there website: http://www.superadblocker.com/supportfaqdisplay.html?faq=12
-{ Quote: "Super Ad Blocker is not compatible with Firefox 3.x or Internet Explorer 8 at this time. " }-

Rivalen

October 17th, 2009, 08:08 AM

Try it.

acr1965

October 17th, 2009, 10:03 AM

-{ Quote: "Regarding Vista, when you have UAC enabled, then pop-ups constantly bug you to give permissions to do things like updating. With real Vista compatible programs UAC shouldn't be a problem. Vista support in SuperAdBlocker is half done.

Regarding browser-support, here's a quote from there website: http://www.superadblocker.com/supportfaqdisplay.html?faq=12" }-

I stopped using it when it would not start with windows in Vista without the UAC warnings. That was probably over a year ago though.

YeOldeStonecat

October 17th, 2009, 10:07 AM

I do it at the firewall/gateway...let it be done in hardware so all the computers on the network can benefit.
A few linux distros have this feature, such as Untangle (as well as antivirus protection, spyware protection, content filtering, IDS, etc)

pbw3

October 17th, 2009, 10:13 AM

-{ Quote: "Regarding browser-support, here's a quote from there website: http://www.superadblocker.com/supportfaqdisplay.html?faq=12
-{ Quote: "Super Ad Blocker is not compatible with Firefox 3.x or Internet Explorer 8 at this time." }-
" }-
Apols, didn't spot that...

-{ Quote: "Regarding Vista, when you have UAC enabled, then pop-ups constantly bug you to give permissions to do things like updating. With real Vista compatible programs UAC shouldn't be a problem. Vista support in SuperAdBlocker is half done." }-
OK, yes I had forgotten about those UAC checks..:)

Trespasser

October 17th, 2009, 10:45 AM

-{ Quote: "Sounds interesting.
Are there any pre-made userContent.css that you recommend Trespasser?

Currently using Adplock Plus addon for Firefox and it has worked very well for me." }-

Hello, Tony
No, I can't recommend an adblocking userContent.css. The one I'm using is two to three years old and I forgot just where I got it. Just Google it and they'll show up. It blocks ads, images, etc.. You can edit the css file (use WordPad not notepad) to add what addresses you wish but don't be too concerned...Since I've been using an adblocking userContent.css file I've added just two addresses...and it's only about 12 kilobytes in size. Like I said, works great.

Tony

October 17th, 2009, 12:59 PM

Ok will do.
Thanks :)

acuariano

October 17th, 2009, 02:53 PM

-{ Quote: "I do it at the firewall/gateway...let it be done in hardware so all the computers on the network can benefit.
A few linux distros have this feature, such as Untangle (as well as antivirus protection, spyware protection, content filtering, IDS, etc)" }-
goota be nice,i heard it can be done with lynksys and some other routers.
i have westell versalink 327w provided by verizon but i think adblocker adblocker in hardware-firewall is not supported..
-btw i use privoxy and it works well.

YeOldeStonecat

October 18th, 2009, 04:44 PM

-{ Quote: "goota be nice,i heard it can be done with lynksys and some other routers.
i have westell versalink 327w provided by verizon but i think adblocker adblocker in hardware-firewall is not supported..
-btw i use privoxy and it works well." }-

Yeah I used to use Privoxy when my router was running IPCop, the add-on called Copfilter includes privoxy, as well as some UTM features like Clam AV scanning done at the router.

acuariano

October 18th, 2009, 07:41 PM

i wish verizon or westell could add that adblocker feature.

Defcon

October 20th, 2009, 01:51 AM

How come nobody has mentioned AdMuncher yet? IMO its one of the best and works with IE, firefox many other apps.

JRViejo

October 20th, 2009, 02:07 AM

Defcon, look at Post #7 by Osaban in this thread. There's already an ongoing discussion of AdMuncher (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=256046).

DOSawaits

October 20th, 2009, 02:08 AM

I would recommend Proxomitron. Much more powerful and easier to use as you would expect at first. And as mentioned, using the Sidki filters, you don't need any other adblockers and stuff.

Nebulus

October 20th, 2009, 04:03 AM

I use Proxomitron with good results.

acuariano

October 20th, 2009, 06:52 AM

i tried proxomitron with sidki's configuration,but sometimes in some sites you have to disable filter or let it pass..for me is little bit complicated.
i had problem usin justintv for example.

dw2108

October 21st, 2009, 06:28 PM

Try to see how well this does the job for link scanning, blocking and checking.

Adsweep from adsweep.org,
Opera 8.54 or higher from arc.opera.com,
Proxomitron JD5000 or MizzMona rules and lists from www.proxomitron.info,
PeerGuardian 2 or PeerBlock from Snapfiles with the iBlock lists from iblocklist.com/lists.php, (MANY TO LOOK AT!)
DrWeb Opera link checker,
FanBoy's Url blocker, ad and element blocker from fanboy.co.nz/adblock.
Proxomitron works best with Opera 8.54 or earlier. In fact, GRC can't even test the browser with Proxomitron.

Dave

acuariano

October 21st, 2009, 06:52 PM

where do i get this info? Proxomitron JD5000 or MizzMona rules -link?
this is only the same with different interface. gui?

masqueofhastur

October 22nd, 2009, 01:37 AM

I'm a big fan of NoScript in FireFox. It uses a whitelist instead of a blacklist, and I can't recall a single popup, popunder or floating ad since using it. It handles Flash too, so my Flashblock add-on became redundant, and it made AdBlock Pro redundant too. Pages still serve google ads, unless I'm using Stylish, but those are relativley unobtrusive and use little bandwidth so I'm not too concerned about them.

dw2108

October 22nd, 2009, 07:28 AM

-{ Quote: "where do i get this info? Proxomitron JD5000 or MizzMona rules -link?
this is only the same with different interface. gui?" }-

mizzmona.com/proxomitron

AND!

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=66222

Dave

acuariano

October 22nd, 2009, 08:25 AM

thanks dw2108.,,i'll take a look.

acuariano

October 22nd, 2009, 01:19 PM

-{ Quote: "thanks dw2108.,,i'll take a look." }-
well i found the same problems using mizzmona.com/proxomitron

filws..also on the second link...most references websites are dead now..
i go back to privoxy.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 5th, 2009, 08:41 PM

SUPERAdBlocker 5.0 Pre-Release w/IE8, Firefox 3.x and Windows 7 support:
http://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3642

ePost

November 5th, 2009, 09:13 PM

Support for 64-bit or not?

funkydude

November 5th, 2009, 09:15 PM

I've always used the MVPS HOSTS file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) as my ad blocker. No resource usage and no worrying about compatibility. Perfect little thing. :thumb:

SUPERAntiSpy

November 5th, 2009, 09:37 PM

-{ Quote: "Support for 64-bit or not?" }-

In 32-bit mode yes, but not native 64-bit yet.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 5th, 2009, 09:38 PM

-{ Quote: "I've always used the MVPS HOSTS file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) as my ad blocker. No resource usage and no worrying about compatibility. Perfect little thing. :thumb:" }-

That works great for most banners, but does nothing for pop-ups, nor dynamic and interstitial ads :)

ePost

November 5th, 2009, 09:38 PM

-{ Quote: "In 32-bit mode yes, but not native 64-bit yet." }-
Thank you very much, SUPERAntiSpy. 8) And thank you for writing "yet" - I regard that as a promise! ;D

funkydude

November 5th, 2009, 10:42 PM

-{ Quote: "That works great for most banners, but does nothing for pop-ups, nor dynamic and interstitial ads :)" }-

For the past year of using firefox, I've never seen this thing called popups you speak of, let's stop living in the dark ages shall we.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 5th, 2009, 10:52 PM

-{ Quote: "For the past year of using firefox, I've never seen this thing called popups you speak of, let's stop living in the dark ages shall we." }-

I guess our hundreds of thousands of SUPERAdBlocker users do need the product as the built in ad blocking and host files don't block all the ads, but it sounds for you and the sites you surf it works, so that's great!

funkydude

November 5th, 2009, 11:03 PM

-{ Quote: "I guess our hundreds of thousands of SUPERAdBlocker users do need the product as the built in ad blocking and host files don't block all the ads, but it sounds for you and the sites you surf it works, so that's great!" }-

Not sure what you're trying to prove here, that because thousands of users use the product it's required? Well millions of people use Firefox, so you could just as well say none of them feel the need for it either.

I should add that I bounce frequently between many browsers, and have never had issues with popups, looking over DNS logs for the past year, let's just say it's quite a large list of sites ;) . The only time I've seen troubles is usually window shaping on malicious websites, I hardly think running your processor power on a popup blocker is justified because most people don't go around hunting malicious websites, and especially considering this functionality is built into many browsers.

Well, that's my opinion, I'm not trying to bash your hard work. :)

SUPERAntiSpy

November 5th, 2009, 11:09 PM

-{ Quote: "Not sure what you're trying to prove here, that because thousands of users use the product it's required? Well millions of people use Firefox, so you could just as well say none of them feel the need for it either.

I should add that I bounce frequently between many browsers, and have never had issues with popups, looking over DNS logs for the past year, let's just say it's quite a large list of sites ;) . The only time I've seen troubles is usually window shaping on malicious websites, I hardly think running your processor power on an ad blocker is justified because most people don't go around hunting malicious websites, and especially considering this functionality is built into many browsers.

Well, that's my opinion, I'm not trying to bash your hard work. :)" }-

Not trying to "prove" anything, you are stating something as fact, and I am simply indicating there are users that use our software to block ads, banner, and other forms of advertising not blocked by the built in pop-up blocking aspects of IE and Firefox.

Our software is not needed by you, and that's ok - don't turn the thread about a finding a good ad blocker into a "no one needs an ad blocker" because you don't need one - 99% of basic users don't know how, nor want to learn how to use a "host file" or the other scripts for Firefox, etc. They also use our cookie management features, which you don't need either. :)

We create our software for those that need it, not those that don't :)

funkydude

November 5th, 2009, 11:19 PM

I don't recall saying I never needed an ad blocker, I said.

-{ Quote: "I hardly think running your processor power on a popup blocker is justified" }-

Like previously stated, I run the hosts file as my ad blocker.

Also, I described my experience as fact, because well, it is fact.

-{ Quote: "99% of basic users don't know how" }-

I agree, hence why I am bringing the hosts file in this thread, to tell people...

-{ Quote: "They also use our cookie management features, which you don't need either." }-

Yes indeed another useless feature in my opinion since Firefox gives you much power over cookies, which I guess also runs in real time?

-{ Quote: "We create our software for those that need it, not those that don't" }-

Good to know, just like I state my opinion about the need for such software, so people know, and hear all angles. :)

Edit: I think I see where you may have misunderstood, I edited my post and changed a reference from ad blocker to popup blocker, because my post isn't about debating the need of an ad blocker considering I use one myself, it's about debating the need of a popup blocker.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 12:06 AM

-{ Quote: "I don't recall saying I never needed an ad blocker, I said.

Like previously stated, I run the hosts file as my ad blocker.

Also, I described my experience as fact, because well, it is fact.

I agree, hence why I am bringing the hosts file in this thread, to tell people...

Yes indeed another useless feature in my opinion since Firefox gives you much power over cookies, which I guess also runs in real time?

Good to know, just like I state my opinion about the need for such software, so people know, and hear all angles. :)

Edit: I think I see where you may have misunderstood, I edited my post and changed a reference from ad blocker to popup blocker, because my post isn't about debating the need of an ad blocker considering I use one myself, it's about debating the need of a popup blocker." }-

Hence the name and function of our software SUPERAdBlocker :)

acr1965

November 6th, 2009, 12:24 AM

-{ Quote: "SUPERAdBlocker 5.0 Pre-Release w/IE8, Firefox 3.x and Windows 7 support:
http://forums.superantispyware.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3642" }-

I see "enhanced support for Vista" listed. Is this the same as the advertised "Enhanced Windows Vista Support" in 4.6 which has been present the last year and a half or so?

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 01:36 AM

-{ Quote: "I see "enhanced support for Vista" listed. Is this the same as the advertised "Enhanced Windows Vista Support" in 4.6 which has been present the last year and a half or so?" }-

Nope, this is new technology, but thanks for asking!

JRViejo

November 6th, 2009, 01:49 AM

Removed two Off-Topic posts. Let's be civil with each other, otherwise this thread will close. Thanks!

JR

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 01:51 AM

-{ Quote: "Removed two Off-Topic posts. Let's be civil with each other, otherwise this thread will close. Thanks!

JR" }-

Thank you!

HKEY1952

November 6th, 2009, 02:41 AM

Seriously, SuperAdBlocker worked very well for me, as time went on, SuperAdBlocker became less and less compatible because of the rapid maturity of newer technology.

I look forward to the new release of SuperAdBlocker v5.0 and know it will perform as well if not better than its predecessor.

Quite an few requests were to have an standalone version of SuperAdBlocker without its counterpart SuperAntiSpyware, will an standalone version be available?

HKEY1952

acr1965

November 6th, 2009, 09:38 AM

-{ Quote: "Nope, this is new technology, but thanks for asking!" }-

That's good because the previous enhanced Vista support was pretty ridiculous. Especially since this current upgrade was promised like two years ago.

Also, will SAB have the $9.99 false "one day only" ad like SAS has?

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 10:18 AM

-{ Quote: "Seriously, SuperAdBlocker worked very well for me, as time went on, SuperAdBlocker became less and less compatible because of the rapid maturity of newer technology.

I look forward to the new release of SuperAdBlocker v5.0 and know it will perform as well if not better than its predecessor.

Quite an few requests were to have an standalone version of SuperAdBlocker without its counterpart SuperAntiSpyware, will an standalone version be available?

HKEY1952" }-

This version IS THE STANDALONE version :)

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 10:20 AM

-{ Quote: "That's good because the previous enhanced Vista support was pretty ridiculous. Especially since this current upgrade was promised like two years ago.

Also, will SAB have the $9.99 false "one day only" ad like SAS has?" }-

MODERATORS : Can you pull his posts as all he does is hurl insults and bash our products and company and the the threads turn off topic. THANK YOU!

cqpreson

November 6th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Does SUPERAntiSpyware always name its updater with a pile of random numbers?

SUPERAntiSpy

November 6th, 2009, 11:02 AM

-{ Quote: "Does SUPERAntiSpyware always name its updater with a pile of random numbers?" }-

The updater is called SSUPDATE.EXE.

HKEY1952

November 6th, 2009, 05:09 PM

-{ Quote: "
Does SUPERAntiSpyware always name its updater with a pile of random numbers?
" }-

Those random numbers are called 'version numbers' and represent the current 'software version'.

The 'software version' represents the current 'compiled' version of the 'source code' to 'executable code'.

The 'source code' is an human-readable collection of statements or declarations that specify the actions to be performed by an computer and
are written in what is called 'programming language'. Examples of 'programming language' are: Visual Basic, Visual C++, Java, and Pearl.

The 'executable code' is what causes an computer to perform indicated tasks according to encoded instructions.

When the 'source code' is converted into 'executable code' the software program is 'compiled'
The 'source code' is converted into 'executable code' by the use of another software program called an 'compiler'

The 'compiler' transforms 'source code' (the source language that is human-readable) into another computer language (the target language) the 'executable code'.
the 'executable code' is in binary form (ones and zeros, "basically") known as 'object code' or 'machine code'.

Now for the Version Numbers.

Note that the following is only an example an may not hold true for every developer.

SUPERAntiSpyware.exe v4.29.1004 is an compiled software program (the 'source code' was converted to 'executable code' with the 'compiler')

Software versioning is very wide and sometimes complex because not every developer follows the same 'versioning scheme'
Regardless of the 'versioning scheme' chosen or used by the developer, it all boils down to "basically" three levels of 'versioning' to represent the 'version number'

01) - the "major level" = v4
02) - the "minor level" = .29.
03) - the "patch level" = .1004

Now, by standard, any changes made to the 'source code' will increment the 'version number' upwards by one in the "respective level".

For example: The developer may change something in the 'source code' that is very minor or outside of the main executable in an .dat file perhaps, or in the Help File maybe.
This minor change to the 'source code' would in turn increment the "patch level" upwards by one: from .1004 to .1005 If three changes were made then from: .1004 to .1007
Think of the "patch level" as making very minor changes throughout the 'source code' that does not involve the main executable or have any impact on the performance or architecture of the software.

Now some developers may not reflect these minor changes and "patch level" changes to the public because they have no direct impact on the performance of the software and simply wait
until the software program is 'recompiled' and assign an completely different 'version number' to the "patch level" during recompilation such as .1100 even though only one change
may have been made to the 'source code'. Again, the developer is free to break the rules in 'version numbering'

As another example, perhaps the developer received notifications of an 'bug' or some other minor problem with the software that was not directly involved with the main executable but did
however have some what of an influence on the architecture of the 'source code'. Perhaps involving the cosmetics in the main interface of the software program or an reconstruct of an .dll
or .dat file. This change to the 'source code' is still considered minor because the changes do not involve the main executable of the software.

In this case the "minor level" of the 'version number' would be incremented upwards by one for every change made to the 'source code': from .29. to .30. for example involving only one change.
Think of the "minor level" as making minor changes throughout the 'source code' that does not involve the main executable but does have an impact on the performance and architecture of the software.

Any changes made to the 'source code' that involve the main executable, or have an large impact on the overall architecture or performance of the software are reflected in the
"major level" of the 'version number'. Regardless of the amount of the changes made to the 'source code' the 'version number' of the "major level" will be incremented upwards by one.
For example: from v4 to v5 and in our example: from v4.30.1100 to v5.00.0000. or whatever 'versioning scheme' the developer chooses.
Think of the "major level" as making changes to the main executable, or making global changes to the 'source code' that have an direct impact on the architecture and performance of the software.

All of the changes that are made to the 'source code' of an developing 'project' are maintained and controlled by special software called 'versioning software' that may or may not be
part of the developing package.

Perhaps this brief article will help shed more light on the subject

Software Version Numbers Explained:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Software_Version_Numbers_Explained

HKEY1952

cqpreson

November 7th, 2009, 08:03 AM

Thank you very much,HKEY1952 and SUPERAntiSpy:) .You are so kind.

I just see the updater named after random numbers in my firewall.It force me to set a allowing rule for the updater.It is cockamamie to me.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 11:11 AM

-{ Quote: "Thank you very much,HKEY1952 and SUPERAntiSpy:) .You are so kind.

I just see the updater named after random numbers in my firewall.It force me to set a allowing rule for the updater.It is cockamamie to me." }-

Our updater is always named the same - version information changes inside the file, and does NOT alter the name of the file.

JosephB

November 7th, 2009, 01:53 PM

Nick,

What priority do you plan on giving to enhancing SuperAdBlocker with further updates/fixes, after its final release ? In the past, SAS has been the priority (and this is understandable to me, since it is the most important of the 2 products), but I had reported a few bugs that I had encountered with SuperAdBlocker, about a year ago and it has taken a long time for this new release which I assume includes fixes to the bugs that I had reported on the last offical release.

BTW, SAB is a great product !!! The bugs encountered were very minor. Look forward to trying the version when it is offically released.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 07:14 PM

-{ Quote: "Nick,

What priority do you plan on giving to enhancing SuperAdBlocker with further updates/fixes, after its final release ? In the past, SAS has been the priority (and this is understandable to me, since it is the most important of the 2 products), but I had reported a few bugs that I had encountered with SuperAdBlocker, about a year ago and it has taken a long time for this new release which I assume includes fixes to the bugs that I had reported on the last offical release.

BTW, SAB is a great product !!! The bugs encountered were very minor. Look forward to trying the version when it is offically released." }-

We will be enhancing the product many times over the next year. If you have issue that are still not resolved and are actual bugs, please let us know and we can address them!

Dr payne

November 7th, 2009, 07:25 PM

-{ Quote: "We will be enhancing the product many times over the next year. If you have issue that are still not resolved and are actual bugs, please let us know and we can address them!" }-

To work with Opera?

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 07:28 PM

-{ Quote: "To work with Opera?" }-

We do not yet support Opera, Chrome or Safari - those don't provide and easy way to "hook in" to filter the content - but we are looking into it!

Dr payne

November 7th, 2009, 07:31 PM

-{ Quote: "We do not yet support Opera, Chrome or Safari - those don't provide and easy way to "hook in" to filter the content - but we are looking into it!" }-

I have heard that for over a year.
AM works great with Opera.

hayc59

November 7th, 2009, 07:33 PM

-{ Quote: "We do not yet support Opera, Chrome or Safari - those don't provide and easy way to "hook in" to filter the content - but we are looking into it!" }-
Thank you Nick always on top of things!!

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 07:36 PM

-{ Quote: "I have heard that for over a year.
AM works great with Opera." }-

Opera does not provide an easy way to hook into it and the user base is very small compared to IE and Firefox.

If you need support for Opera immediately, then use a product which supports it like AM.

Dr payne

November 7th, 2009, 07:59 PM

-{ Quote: "Opera does not provide an easy way to hook into it and the user base is very small compared to IE and Firefox.

If you need support for Opera immediately, then use a product which supports it like AM." }-

What's that got to do with the promise you made over a year ago?

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 08:08 PM

-{ Quote: "What's that got to do with the promise you made over a year ago?" }-

I don't believe we "promised" to support Opera at any point - we have always looked at the smaller market share browsers and watched their growth and user numbers.

All you are looking to here is a combative situation - which I won't engage in - from a market share standpoint I would invest resources into Chrome before Opera as Google is behind Chrome and it likley will grow faster than Opera - in our web stats of tens of millions of users (from our multiple sites), we see less than 1% of users surfing with Opera (that's only our stats of course). In a perfect world we could support everything, but we have to be realistic with our resources.

hayc59

November 7th, 2009, 08:34 PM

-{ Quote: "I don't believe we "promised" to support Opera at any point - we have always looked at the smaller market share browsers and watched their growth and user numbers.

All you are looking to here is a combative situation - which I won't engage in - from a market share standpoint I would invest resources into Chrome before Opera as Google is behind Chrome and it likley will grow faster than Opera - in our web stats of tens of millions of users (from our multiple sites), we see less than 1% of users surfing with Opera (that's only our stats of course). In a perfect world we could support everything, but we have to be realistic with our resources." }-
Especially considering that Firefox is number one followed by IE and then Google Chrome last time I checked

cqpreson

November 7th, 2009, 08:51 PM

-{ Quote: "Our updater is always named the same - version information changes inside the file, and does NOT alter the name of the file." }-

The file's name wasn't changed.The change was the name of the updating process instead of the updater.It is my mistake.

Here is my firewall's prompt:

acr1965

November 7th, 2009, 09:06 PM

-{ Quote: "MODERATORS : Can you pull his posts as all he does is hurl insults and bash our products and company and the the threads turn off topic. THANK YOU!" }-

You jumped into this thread pimping your product and future releases. I called you on it and you responded by asking my posts be removed. Maybe before making such requests you should be reminded of your own posts on this forum? And I never "bashed" your products. In fact, I have purchased licenses in the past. I have two licenses for SAS, one lifetime, and had a license for SAB which I purchased partly because of your representation that Vista support would be coming soon. SAS works very well, SAB does not (my opinion, of course).

My post would only be off topic had you not made your posts about more promises about SAB.

My comments on this subject are finished. Now go ahead and ask that my posts be removed as I suspect you will do.

Dr payne

November 7th, 2009, 09:38 PM

-{ Quote: "I don't believe we "promised" to support Opera at any point - we have always looked at the smaller market share browsers and watched their growth and user numbers.

All you are looking to here is a combative situation - which I won't engage in - from a market share standpoint I would invest resources into Chrome before Opera as Google is behind Chrome and it likley will grow faster than Opera - in our web stats of tens of millions of users (from our multiple sites), we see less than 1% of users surfing with Opera (that's only our stats of course). In a perfect world we could support everything, but we have to be realistic with our resources." }-

I am not looking for a "combative situation". You said over a year ago about making it compatible with Opera. That being said, I stand down.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 10:39 PM

-{ Quote: "The file's name wasn't changed.The change was the name of the updating process instead of the updater.It is my mistake.

Here is my firewall's prompt:" }-

That's SUPERAntiSpyware, not SUPERAdBlocker and that's not the updater, that shows you are using RUNSAS or the Alternate Start that changes the name each time! Just use the regular shortcut and that won't happen.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 10:40 PM

-{ Quote: "I am not looking for a "combative situation". You said over a year ago about making it compatible with Opera. That being said, I stand down." }-

Yes, we indicated we were looking into it and unfortunately it's not that easy, neither is Firefox, but the market share is bigger for Firefox at this point. We would love to support all browser if we had unlimited resources.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 10:42 PM

-{ Quote: "You jumped into this thread pimping your product and future releases. I called you on it and you responded by asking my posts be removed. Maybe before making such requests you should be reminded of your own posts on this forum? And I never "bashed" your products. In fact, I have purchased licenses in the past. I have two licenses for SAS, one lifetime, and had a license for SAB which I purchased partly because of your representation that Vista support would be coming soon. SAS works very well, SAB does not (my opinion, of course).

My post would only be off topic had you not made your posts about more promises about SAB.

My comments on this subject are finished. Now go ahead and ask that my posts be removed as I suspect you will do." }-

The version of SUPERAdBlocker that has been out for the past year has had full Vista support.

I would encourage you to try the 5.0 version of SUPERAdBlocker instead of highlighting a post from 2 years ago that is old information at this point.

ePost

November 7th, 2009, 10:54 PM

Shouldn't Opera's management and staff be interested in cooperating? I would have thought so if the above didn't give cause for doubts...

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 10:55 PM

-{ Quote: "Shouldn't Opera's management and staff be interested in cooperating? I would have thought so if the above didn't give cause for doubts..." }-

We have tried contact, but have had no actual response from Opera.

HKEY1952

November 7th, 2009, 11:05 PM

Are previously purchased Lifetime Licenses for SUPERAdBlocker still valid for the version 5 series?

HKEY1952

SUPERAntiSpy

November 7th, 2009, 11:26 PM

-{ Quote: "Are previously purchased Lifetime Licenses for SUPERAdBlocker still valid for the version 5 series?

HKEY1952" }-

You bet! Lifetime means LIFETIME!

cqpreson

November 7th, 2009, 11:30 PM

-{ Quote: "That's SUPERAntiSpyware, not SUPERAdBlocker and that's not the updater, that shows you are using RUNSAS or the Alternate Start that changes the name each time! Just use the regular shortcut and that won't happen." }-

Thank you.

HKEY1952

November 8th, 2009, 01:50 AM

If the Moderators will permit, I would like to Post this here.....I believe that it is overdue.....

In my book you are OK SuperAntiSpy.....you can take an joke just as well as you can give one.....in my book that is being cool 8)

You are an lot slicker than most here realize.....I believe that sometimes while sitting in your office fighting Malware you become frustrated to the point that you need an outlet so you log in here
at Wilders to do some business and also have some fun and release some frustration.....that is cool also, because if one reads between the lines of your Posts there is nothing in vain.

We all have our faults and sometimes our faults injure our reputations, however, most people can not look beyond others faults to see the accomplishments that person has made for themselves and for
the benefit of others. You have educated yourself and have an successful and distinguished carrier of over twenty five years along with an successful AntiSpyware business.

Most people do not realize or exist the knowledge that you have founded and led several highly successful companies such as:

Human Machine Interfaces, Inc. that pioneered the first digital mixing sound system (Sound Operating System) that helped revolutionize in-game audio by allowing games to play more than one digital sound at a time.

Panicware, Inc. that independently created the Pop-Up Stopper product and product line, and designed the first toolbar based ad-blocker that is still used in Pop-Up Stopper.

SuperAdBlocker.com that concentrates on state of the art ad blocking software development

SUPERAntiSpyware.com that specializes in anti-spyware technology

Those unaware of your above accomplishments only know SuperAntiSpy from the Wilders Forum point of view and projection. The Wilders Forum image of you, created by you, and me, and other members of this Forum,
has created an negative habitual response every time you log into the Forum and over time has created an fog that is obscuring the truth. This habitual degrading response behavior must stop. No one deserves to be
degraded and picked on while trying to accomplish something positive, at the same time no one person has the right to disrespect others because they do not understand some technical aspect of software.

I became aware of all this when one of my Posts right here in this Thread, intended for jest, was deleted by the Moderator.....it was then that I realized, hey, the joking is over.....intended jest is causing undue influence.

I will be the first to publicly apologize to you Nick Skrepetos if I have hurt your feelings or caused you any grief while visiting Wilders Security Forums.

That being said EVERYONE should read this:
http://superantispyware.com/company.html

No one gets this far without intelligence and an dedication to the field.....

HKEY1952

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 01:59 AM

-{ Quote: "If the Moderators will permit, I would like to Post this here.....I believe that it is overdue.....

In my book you are OK SuperAntiSpy.....you can take an joke just as well as you can give one.....in my book that is being cool 8)

You are an lot slicker than most here realize.....I believe that sometimes while sitting in your office fighting Malware you become frustrated to the point that you need an outlet so you log in here
at Wilders to do some business and also have some fun and release some frustration.....that is cool also, because if one reads between the lines of your Posts there is nothing in vain.

We all have our faults and sometimes our faults injure our reputations, however, most people can not look beyond others faults to see the accomplishments that person has made for themselves and for
the benefit of others. You have educated yourself and have an successful and distinguished carrier of over twenty five years along with an successful AntiSpyware business.

Most people do not realize or exist the knowledge that you have founded and led several highly successful companies such as:

Human Machine Interfaces, Inc. that pioneered the first digital mixing sound system (Sound Operating System) that helped revolutionize in-game audio by allowing games to play more than one digital sound at a time.

Panicware, Inc. that independently created the Pop-Up Stopper product and product line, and designed the first toolbar based ad-blocker that is still used in Pop-Up Stopper.

SuperAdBlocker.com that concentrates on state of the art ad blocking software development

SUPERAntiSpyware.com that specializes in anti-spyware technology

Those unaware of your above accomplishments only know SuperAntiSpy from the Wilders Forum point of view and projection. The Wilders Forum image of you, created by you, and me, and other members of this Forum,
has created an negative habitual response every time you log into the Forum and over time has created an fog that is obscuring the truth. This habitual degrading response behavior must stop. No one deserves to be
degraded and picked on while trying to accomplish something positive, at the same time no one person has the right to disrespect others because they do not understand some technical aspect of software.

I became aware of all this when one of my Posts right here in this Thread, intended for jest, was deleted by the Moderator.....it was then that I realized, hey, the joking is over.....intended jest is causing undue influence.

I will be the first to publicly apologize to you Nick Skrepetos if I have hurt your feelings or caused you any grief while visiting Wilders Security Forums.

That being said EVERYONE should read this:
http://superantispyware.com/company.html

No one gets this far without intelligence and an dedication to the field.....

HKEY1952" }-

I appreciate that post. Nothing said here hurts my feelings - I believe strongly in my mission to produce software that HELPS users and hopefully advances the industry forward. I also hope that users reading some of these back and forths can see the "other side" of things - meaning there are always two sides to a situation, story, etc. etc. and I feel that often times people jump on one "side" (many times on any post I make) and never look at the other side.

I am also not just here to "pimp" my products as I often am accused of - I like interacting and learning from large variety of users here and other forums and hopefully am imparting some knowledge at the same time.

I also apologize if I have offended anyone here - that is not my intention!

acr1965

November 8th, 2009, 02:27 AM

-{ Quote: "The version of SUPERAdBlocker that has been out for the past year has had full Vista support.

I would encourage you to try the 5.0 version of SUPERAdBlocker instead of highlighting a post from 2 years ago that is old information at this point." }-

Fair enough. A year ago was only 20 months after your Jan. 2007 post and I was not going to respond anymore but since you said version 4.6 now has full Vista support I decided to install and give it a whirl.

My set up is Vista Home Premium, 32 bit, Core 2 duo with 3 GB installed RAM. Here is the good and bad as I see SuperAdBlocker as I have it running now with no other security apps currently running alongside (I did not want some unknown conflict to interfere). Certainly I am no expert, but here goes-

Install went fine although I had Kaspersky alert that the SAB .exe was not digitally signed and was later warned that a hidden driver was being installed. I allowed everything to be installed. And rebooted.

SAB started with Windows, previous versions would not start with Vista, but this one did fine in that regard. CPU was an issue and as I write this post it is still an issue. SAB is running at 33.14% CPU and has consistently been between 25-35% since it has been running- about 30 minutes now.

After reboot I disabled all other security software and disabled all ad blocking add ons in Firefox 3.5.5 and FF was then closed. Internet Explorer is version 8.0. SAB was double checked to ensure that under "Misc Options", "Block Pop Ups and Ads in Firefox" was enabled.

I then browsed the internet in IE8 on about a half dozen sites- yahoo, a couple forums, etc. SAB did a pretty good job overall and blocked most ads although some flash ads came through. Then I browsed the internet on the same sites with Firefox and SAB provided no ad blocking whatsoever. I checked to see if I had missed some setting but all seemed to be in tact.

Because SAB did so poorly with Firefox, I then checked the "online manual" at the SAB web site to see if there was some setting I missed. But that manual must be for a prior version of SAB. The interface of version 4.6 is not the same under the "ad blocking" -> "ad blocking options" of the online manual. In fact, the interface of the program in the online manual does not even show the "Block Pop Ups and Ads in Firefox" option. So I suspect the online manual is for some older version of SAB. Considering the 4.6 version has been out "for the past year" it was disappointing to see there was not even a current user manual available.

After further investigation, I finally went to the Online FAQ's at SAB. There it says:

"Does Super Ad Blocker work with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.?
Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.x and above, Firefox 1.x-2.x, AOL and MSN.

Super Ad Blocker is not compatible with Firefox 3.x or Internet Explorer 8 at this time. We are working on finalizing our support for both Firefox 3.x and Internet Explorer 8, and it will be available in our next public release."

To close, I must say that SAB has improved since it will actually start with Windows in Vista. But CPU is still running high, even after an hour, at 35.38%. I even have all my browsers closed and am typing on Notepad and CPU stays at 24-26%. So maybe there is something with Vista that SAB does not like still. With IE8, SAB provides some ad blocking (even though it claims it doesn't) but with Firefox 3.5.5 it provides none. The online help manual is not current and apparently not been current for a long, long time. There are still pages on the SAB site that show the program is compatible/system requirements-

"System Requirements

Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, or XP
Internet Explorer 5.0 or above, Firefox, AOL or MSN
128MB memory
300Mhz CPU or above"

And the last "press release" on the site is from October 11, 2005.

I suppose someone who runs Vista with Firefox 2.X and an older version of Internet Explorer (and can stand the high CPU) can find SAB useful.

I suspect the market share for an ad blocker compatible with Internet Explorer 8 has a niche. Ad Muncher has its faults although it provides pretty good ad blocking. It is extremely easy to use although it has some compatibility issues with other programs at times. IE7Pro has hit a lull and the future of that program is in question. AdblockPro seems to be picking up steam and may be a useful product- I have not tried it.

How SAB does in the future is anyone's guess. But I suspect the site is in dire need of being updated. In fact it almost appears abandoned. There have been promises for a while that take months to become fact. IE8 has been out a while and Firefox 3.0 was released during June of 2008, yet the product provides support for neither. And I seriously doubt FF3 is a market that needs tapped as there are many, very effective add ons just as good (if not better) than any paid product provides.

Good luck with your version 5. But it will take more than a few promises for me to come back to your product and I suspect more than a few others will say the same.

denniz

November 8th, 2009, 08:46 AM

-{ Quote: "
Good luck with your version 5. But it will take more than a few promises for me to come back to your product and I suspect more than a few others will say the same.
" }-
-{ Quote: "
How SAB does in the future is anyone's guess. But I suspect the site is in dire need of being updated. In fact it almost appears abandoned. There have been promises for a while that take months to become fact. IE8 has been out a while and Firefox 3.0 was released during June of 2008, yet the product provides support for neither.
" }-

Agree.

Support for SAS is good, but support for SAB in the last 2 years has been horrible. Also SAB has never been fully Vista compatible, no matter what SUPERAntiSpy says. Development of SAB has been painfully slow, many promises were made regarding true full Vista compatibility, including full support for IE7, IE8 and Firefox 3.x. And now more then 2 years!! later finally an updated version appears with compatibility fixes that should have been implemented ages ago.

If SAB were a free product then nobody can complain, but for paying customers I found the development additude towards SAB unacceptable. I really hope this additude is going to change with the release of SAB 5.0.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 11:13 AM

-{ Quote: "Fair enough. A year ago was only 20 months after your Jan. 2007 post and I was not going to respond anymore but since you said version 4.6 now has full Vista support I decided to install and give it a whirl.

My set up is Vista Home Premium, 32 bit, Core 2 duo with 3 GB installed RAM. Here is the good and bad as I see SuperAdBlocker as I have it running now with no other security apps currently running alongside (I did not want some unknown conflict to interfere). Certainly I am no expert, but here goes-

Install went fine although I had Kaspersky alert that the SAB .exe was not digitally signed and was later warned that a hidden driver was being installed. I allowed everything to be installed. And rebooted.

SAB started with Windows, previous versions would not start with Vista, but this one did fine in that regard. CPU was an issue and as I write this post it is still an issue. SAB is running at 33.14% CPU and has consistently been between 25-35% since it has been running- about 30 minutes now.

After reboot I disabled all other security software and disabled all ad blocking add ons in Firefox 3.5.5 and FF was then closed. Internet Explorer is version 8.0. SAB was double checked to ensure that under "Misc Options", "Block Pop Ups and Ads in Firefox" was enabled.

I then browsed the internet in IE8 on about a half dozen sites- yahoo, a couple forums, etc. SAB did a pretty good job overall and blocked most ads although some flash ads came through. Then I browsed the internet on the same sites with Firefox and SAB provided no ad blocking whatsoever. I checked to see if I had missed some setting but all seemed to be in tact.

Because SAB did so poorly with Firefox, I then checked the "online manual" at the SAB web site to see if there was some setting I missed. But that manual must be for a prior version of SAB. The interface of version 4.6 is not the same under the "ad blocking" -> "ad blocking options" of the online manual. In fact, the interface of the program in the online manual does not even show the "Block Pop Ups and Ads in Firefox" option. So I suspect the online manual is for some older version of SAB. Considering the 4.6 version has been out "for the past year" it was disappointing to see there was not even a current user manual available.

After further investigation, I finally went to the Online FAQ's at SAB. There it says:

"Does Super Ad Blocker work with Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.?
Super Ad Blocker supports Internet Explorer 5.x and above, Firefox 1.x-2.x, AOL and MSN.

Super Ad Blocker is not compatible with Firefox 3.x or Internet Explorer 8 at this time. We are working on finalizing our support for both Firefox 3.x and Internet Explorer 8, and it will be available in our next public release."

To close, I must say that SAB has improved since it will actually start with Windows in Vista. But CPU is still running high, even after an hour, at 35.38%. I even have all my browsers closed and am typing on Notepad and CPU stays at 24-26%. So maybe there is something with Vista that SAB does not like still. With IE8, SAB provides some ad blocking (even though it claims it doesn't) but with Firefox 3.5.5 it provides none. The online help manual is not current and apparently not been current for a long, long time. There are still pages on the SAB site that show the program is compatible/system requirements-

"System Requirements

Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, or XP
Internet Explorer 5.0 or above, Firefox, AOL or MSN
128MB memory
300Mhz CPU or above"

And the last "press release" on the site is from October 11, 2005.

I suppose someone who runs Vista with Firefox 2.X and an older version of Internet Explorer (and can stand the high CPU) can find SAB useful.

I suspect the market share for an ad blocker compatible with Internet Explorer 8 has a niche. Ad Muncher has its faults although it provides pretty good ad blocking. It is extremely easy to use although it has some compatibility issues with other programs at times. IE7Pro has hit a lull and the future of that program is in question. AdblockPro seems to be picking up steam and may be a useful product- I have not tried it.

How SAB does in the future is anyone's guess. But I suspect the site is in dire need of being updated. In fact it almost appears abandoned. There have been promises for a while that take months to become fact. IE8 has been out a while and Firefox 3.0 was released during June of 2008, yet the product provides support for neither. And I seriously doubt FF3 is a market that needs tapped as there are many, very effective add ons just as good (if not better) than any paid product provides.

Good luck with your version 5. But it will take more than a few promises for me to come back to your product and I suspect more than a few others will say the same." }-

1) 4.6 did NOT support IE8 or Firefox 3.x

2) 5.0 DOES support IE8 and FIREFOX 3.x

3) All the CPU related usage was related to SUPERAntiSpyware inside SUPERAdBlocker - that is now it's own product and both SAB and SAS have VERY LOW CPU USAGE

4) As for the markets - end users don't want to configure plugins and download host files and scripts - so I believe there is a viable market.

As for our site, we have a complete update coming out this month. As to why you would test 4.6 which YOU KNEW did not support IE8 or Firefox 3.x just shows all you are looking to do is bash and complain - your interaction with me on this thread started with my POST ABOUT 5.0 - so why not test 5.0 instead of 4.6? Why? Because all you want to do is complain and try and put people down.

acr1965

November 8th, 2009, 11:46 AM

-{ Quote: "1) 4.6 did NOT support IE8 or Firefox 3.x

2) 5.0 DOES support IE8 and FIREFOX 3.x

3) All the CPU related usage was related to SUPERAntiSpyware inside SUPERAdBlocker - that is now it's own product and both SAB and SAS have VERY LOW CPU USAGE

4) As for the markets - end users don't want to configure plugins and download host files and scripts - so I believe there is a viable market.

As for our site, we have a complete update coming out this month. As to why you would test 4.6 which YOU KNEW did not support IE8 or Firefox 3.x just shows all you are looking to do is bash and complain - your interaction with me on this thread started with my POST ABOUT 5.0 - so why not test 5.0 instead of 4.6? Why? Because all you want to do is complain and try and put people down." }-

I was going on your post that said 4.6 now has full Vista support. That's what I tried, what's wrong with that? If SAS causes high CPU usage then you should have added the caveat that the SAS component needs disabled somehow. Otherwise, the product runs a high CPU. Seriously, I was running 4.6 to see if it actually ran well in Vista which is what you said it would do. Why should I test a beta/pre-release product when 4.6 should work?

The front page of you site says it supports Firefox and Internet Explorer. That should not be hidden in the FAQ portion but an * should be placed next to the info on the front page about FF and IE support. Had I known FF 3.x and IE8 were not supported I would not have wasted my time with SAB.

If the SAS component causes high CPU usage in Vista then how does the product fully support Vista? SAS as a stand alone does not have a high CPU usage, in fact it runs very light.

I was not trying to bash and complain- just trying out 4.6 which you said had full Vista support for a year now. Don't try to turn this around now.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 11:51 AM

-{ Quote: "I was going on your post that said 4.6 now has full Vista support. That's what I tried, what's wrong with that? If SAS causes high CPU usage then you should have added the caveat that the SAS component needs disabled somehow. Otherwise, the product runs a high CPU. Seriously, I was running 4.6 to see if it actually ran well in Vista which is what you said it would do. Why should I test a beta/pre-release product when 4.6 should work?

The front page of you site says it supports Firefox and Internet Explorer. That should not be hidden in the FAQ portion but an * should be placed next to the info on the front page about FF and IE support. Had I known FF 3.x and IE8 were not supported I would not have wasted my time with SAB.

If the SAS component causes high CPU usage in Vista then how does the product fully support Vista? SAS as a stand alone does not have a high CPU usage, in fact it runs very light.

I was not trying to bash and complain- just trying out 4.6 which you said had full Vista support for a year now. Don't try to turn this around now." }-

I am not going to debate version 4.6 - we are on version 5.0 now - if you would like to try that and if you discover problems I will be happy to address them and make sure they get resolved!

HKEY1952

November 8th, 2009, 02:07 PM

-{ Quote: "Agree.

Support for SAS is good, but support for SAB in the last 2 years has been horrible. Also SAB has never been fully Vista compatible, no matter what SUPERAntiSpy says. Development of SAB has been painfully slow, many promises were made regarding true full Vista compatibility, including full support for IE7, IE8 and Firefox 3.x. And now more then 2 years!! later finally an updated version appears with compatibility fixes that should have been implemented ages ago.

If SAB were a free product then nobody can complain, but for paying customers I found the development additude towards SAB unacceptable. I really hope this additude is going to change with the release of SAB 5.0." }-

To an small degree I agree, however, to the most part I disagree, please let me explain, and I will try to keep it short.

The technology in the past six years has escalated to maturity at an incredibly fast rate. Trying to keep up with the changes is almost impossible.
The Operating Systems, Browsers, Internet, Coding Languages, Integration of Coding Languages, HTML, Flash, and JavaScript Specifications, are changing and maturing at such an rapid pace it is actually insane.
Only large controlling companies such as Microsoft, the leading controller, and affiliate controllers such as Symantec, McAfee, ZoneAlarm, Sunbelt, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Creative, ATI, Intel, only to mention an few,
can keep up with and be compatible with the rapid technology maturity because they control the trends of the technology. Smaller and mid-sized companies must work twice as hard to keep their products compatible.

Lets start with the Operating System, Microsoft is the main controller here. Everything must be compatible with the Operating System or it simply will not work.
Think of anything not integrated into the Operating Systems 'executable code' as being an Plug-in into the Operating System, just like Browser Plug-ins for example.

This almost is not fair, but if the company is in Microsoft's back pocket, Microsoft will allow the developers to 'Patch' the Microsoft Windows Kernel at an deeper level gaining more control over the Operating System.
Leading affiliate controllers have this privilege to 'patch' the Microsoft Windows Kernel beyond the 'patching level' allowed by standard developing tools.
Without this privileged control, an non-affiliate company must work twice as hard to keep up with the technology changes. These technology changes are not publicly documented to any great extent.

Now to claim that it is an easy task to tear apart SuperAdBlocker from the integrated SuperAntiSpyware is evidence that the person does not realize what is involved in such an 'project', it is just not that easy.
First, the technology is rapidly changing, Second, an New Project must be started, Third, the developing software must be updated to the current technology, and Fourth, the 'source code' needs to be re-written.
While the 'source code' is being re-written, the technology is also changing.....it is just an endless circle, and requires dedication and most importantly $$$$$. Without $$$$$ it goes nowhere.

Now I am not claming that SuperAdBlocker does not have $$$$$ because I do not know the financial status if SuperAdBlocker.
What I am saying is, perhaps after the release of SuperAdBlocker v5.0 SuperAntiSpy will try to dedicate more time to the SuperAdBlocker project, in other words, instead of sitting in his office fighting Malware only,
SuperAntiSpy will also spend more time in his other office fighting Ads. ;D

There could be any number of reasons why SuperAdBlocker did not fair as well as SuperAntiSpyware, and the developer is not obligated to explain. Should one not like or prefer the product/s then do not use them.
No need to bash, degrade, and humiliate the developer and the product/s. This advice also applies to me. It is the responsibility of the developer to maintain courteous dialog with inquires and clients.

Note: I never considered nor am I implying that Member denniz Quote represented hostility.

HKEY1952

acr1965

November 8th, 2009, 02:13 PM

-{ Quote: "I am not going to debate version 4.6 - we are on version 5.0 now - if you would like to try that and if you discover problems I will be happy to address them and make sure they get resolved!" }-

I'll pass on the 5.0 beta/ pre-release or whatever it is. If your SAB site had more info up front (as opposed to nearly abandoned) I would have known FF3.x was not supported. Same for IE8. When the front page of your site claims Firefox and IE compatible what am I supposed to think? Especially when FF 3.x has been out for over a year. And I don't see how you can claim SAB 4.6 is fully Vista compatible if there is a known CPU issue. That must be why your site chooses the word "enhanced" Vista support. There is a difference whether you realize it or not.

You are the one who puts products out there (SAB for instance) and claim they are fully compatible with Vista (or soon will be). And when something comes up (high CPU usage, for instance) you say you are being put in a combative situation. Seriously, just don't make claims and promises you are not ready to keep in a timely fashion. It shouldn't be so much to ask. But when you make claims and then months and years pass without those claims coming to light people get frustrated.

Good luck with your version 5 and the SAB site updates.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 02:25 PM

-{ Quote: "I'll pass on the 5.0 beta/ pre-release or whatever it is. If your SAB site had more info up front (as opposed to nearly abandoned) I would have known FF3.x was not supported. Same for IE8. When the front page of your site claims Firefox and IE compatible what am I supposed to think? Especially when FF 3.x has been out for over a year. And I don't see how you can claim SAB 4.6 is fully Vista compatible if there is a known CPU issue. That must be why your site chooses the word "enhanced" Vista support. There is a difference whether you realize it or not.

You are the one who puts products out there (SAB for instance) and claim they are fully compatible with Vista (or soon will be). And when something comes up (high CPU usage, for instance) you say you are being put in a combative situation. Seriously, just don't make claims and promises you are not ready to keep in a timely fashion. It shouldn't be so much to ask. But when you make claims and then months and years pass without those claims coming to light people get frustrated.

Good luck with your version 5 and the SAB site updates." }-

There is no "known CPU issue" nor does that have anything to do with Vista compatible - you appear to be very misled in the way you are approaching this - the new version is 5.0 - the past versions have nothing to do with 5.0 in to the fact 5.0 is the NEW VERSION to support Windows 7, IE8, Firefox 3.x and forward.

You are still hung up on the PAST versions, yes, none of our software works with Windows 3.1 or Windows 286 - maybe you can use those are arguments as well - just to stay on your logic path.

acr1965

November 8th, 2009, 03:01 PM

-{ Quote: "There is no "known CPU issue" nor does that have anything to do with Vista compatible - you appear to be very misled in the way you are approaching this - the new version is 5.0 - the past versions have nothing to do with 5.0 in to the fact 5.0 is the NEW VERSION to support Windows 7, IE8, Firefox 3.x and forward.

You are still hung up on the PAST versions, yes, none of our software works with Windows 3.1 or Windows 286 - maybe you can use those are arguments as well - just to stay on your logic path." }-

I could have sworn that you posted earlier that 4.6 was fully Vista compatible. When I tried 4.6 and brought up the CPU issue you stated something to the effect of -{ Quote: ""All the CPU related usage was related to SUPERAntiSpyware inside SUPERAdBlocker...". " }-

So was the CPU issue only present with 4.6 in Vista? I don't remember a CPU problem when I used SAB with XP. On that note, you seemed well aware of the CPU problem as you were the one to inform me about its cause. So I assume it was known, at least by you.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 03:29 PM

-{ Quote: "I could have sworn that you posted earlier that 4.6 was fully Vista compatible. When I tried 4.6 and brought up the CPU issue you stated something to the effect of

So was the CPU issue only present with 4.6 in Vista? I don't remember a CPU problem when I used SAB with XP. On that note, you seemed well aware of the CPU problem as you were the one to inform me about its cause. So I assume it was known, at least by you." }-

There is no "CPU Issue" - the CPU is being used more than the new SAS (that's what's using the CPU - the real-time protection) - the new SAS real-time engine is MUCH faster and leaner - that was not included in the previous version of SAB.

I was and am aware the 4.6 version uses more CPU than version 5.0 - that why we advance technology in all our products to make them work better and smoother for the users.

What I think some users forget is that I/We are the AUTHORS of the software I am speaking about, so I do know the FACTS about what was said, and what the software does and does not do :)

arran

November 8th, 2009, 04:31 PM

I tried super ad blocker and it only lasted about 10 mins on my pc.

It installs features which I don't need and don't want.

Cookies, who needs cookies control when browsers now a days already have
sufficient cookie security? there are many other common options like cleaning them out from sandboxie.

It comes with an optional Toolbar, don't need this.

It comes with find out what things are running on your pc, don't need this.

It comes with show/ tell all your friends about super ad blocker etc. don't need this.

Things that super ad blocker doesn't have which it should have.

It doesn't have a filter log, which logs all blocked ads.

Its filter list seems very small went to a few sites and ads were showing. I tried right clicking the ad to have it blocked for next time I reload page and I got an error message
"super ad blocker BHO not installed"

doesn't seem to give an option to right click and block flash ads.

And There is no option to white list certain web pages.

Super ad blocker uninstalled. End of story.

SUPERAntiSpy

November 8th, 2009, 05:18 PM

-{ Quote: "I tried super ad blocker and it only lasted about 10 mins on my pc.

It installs features which I don't need and don't want.

Cookies, who needs cookies control when browsers now a days already have
sufficient cookie security? there are many other common options like cleaning them out from sandboxie.

It comes with an optional Toolbar, don't need this.

It comes with find out what things are running on your pc, don't need this.

It comes with show/ tell all your friends about super ad blocker etc. don't need this.

Things that super ad blocker doesn't have which it should have.

It doesn't have a filter log, which logs all blocked ads.

Its filter list seems very small went to a few sites and ads were showing. I tried right clicking the ad to have it blocked for next time I reload page and I got an error message
"super ad blocker BHO not installed"

doesn't seem to give an option to right click and block flash ads.

And There is no option to white list certain web pages.

Super ad blocker uninstalled. End of story." }-

What's funny is that in your haste, you didn't even realize that the what's running on your PC is a web link, you can click and block flash ads, and you can white list certain pages, it's called the alllow list.

There is also an option to see the list of ads that were blocked, and the number of said ads.

The optional toolbar is an IE toolbar that you can enable to quickly access SUPERAdBlocker features - a popular item with our useres.

As for cookie management, that's actually one of the most popular features amongst our users.

Since you mentioned "Sandboxie" that means you are more technical user, and that's not who SUPERAdBlocker is aimed at helping - you think you know everything as most semi-technical people do and you dismiss things that "you can do yourself by installing 40 script plugins and running in a sandbox" - that's not our target market.

Thanks for your out of the gate negative test - you already planned your "slam" on the product before installing - testing for 10 minutes is not testing - in the real world.

Have a great day :)