Boclean Advantage

I'm sorry, I understand German. In your links there is NO refer to BOClean. Could you post links were BOClean is discussed, please.

 

@SSK

"In your links there is NO refer to BOClean. Could you post links were BOClean is discussed, please."

Correct. This is because Hojtsy did not ask for BOClean links but for links to spyware reviews.

I would also be interested in meaningful BOClean reviews (if any) which are not already mentioned in this thread.

 

@:-:-:
I thought you posted in reply to above quote. It looks to me like hojtsy does ask for a link regarding BOClean?

 

Do you mean this post from about a year and a half ago?

Blue

 

That was one of the good articles blue.

& even though the "hacking the kernel is not allowed" statement was made I thought that had changed which ment the Gov would accept it and since my memory is getting bad, I couldn't remember if it was mentioned in a forum or e-mail and it all came about by the tests that were done on BoClean that came out. I must be wrong if he GOV still doesn't allow hacking the kernel.

Does anyone have any magic memory dust left to share?

controler

 

:-:-: responded for my other post a little bit back in the thread. In that post I was asking exactly for the links he posted, thanks for them. Sorry for the confusion with posting a second question (BoClean & ring0 & Kevin) before the first question (links to respected AS reviews) was answered.
-hojtsy-

 

Me bad. I scanned the thread to see if I was missing something
... Looks like I DID miss something

 

you should hunt a bit less on those twojans and start to concentwate

j/k

 

... Ok ok, concentwate eh?

 

first time was a good laugh behind my chair

 

How well or poorly would BOClean run on a 500MHZ Dell Pentium 3 with 512 Meg of ram and NOD32 ,Spybot 1.4, MS-antispy running with resident protection, ADaware 1.6 free,A2 free, Eraser5.7, FreeUndeleate.

 

I think boclean would fit in just well. it does it's job good.

 

I was concerned about memory and cpu usage as all the other programs take up some memory and wonder if the processor is fast enough to handle everything. I should also add that i am considering trialing SafeNsec and am using a router. I will probably get a new computer when Longhorn is released.

 

BOClean takes about 7K mem / virt.mem and 2% cpu power per scan cycle on my AthlonXP 3200+ / 512MB Ram.
I have excluded trusted components like KAV services and Outpost service to minimize the overhead.

 

I've got a machine here -xp pro, 500 mhz, avast, a2 per., boclean - 384 meg ram. It does just fine.

 

yes, I don't think some of the other Anti Trojans would fare well on your setup Hammer...that's why boclean would be nice. also you can install it on your other computers as well (futureproof...like the wise men say ...that's a quote )

 

Thanks Infinity and SSK this had me wondering about using it on a older machine as my processor is even slower than the one in the quote although ram is the same. Thank's toadbee as well.

 

If I were you Hammer, I would try Ewido first cause atm I prefer it over Boclean.

if Ewido works out, you have a top performer. but you cannot go wrong with these too...new Ewido is nice though...

 

See post #7 in this thread which refers to Ewido 3.5 memory usage.https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=87655

 

I went to that link of Ntl too btw...

hmmm, It depends on every system. I don't have any probs even if I use boclean, pg, rd, ewido and the whole bingbang...

Others will experience glitches with boclean or TH, .. that's the difficulty of making a program that will suites everybody...cause it will never happen

yes, boclean is ok then

 

Is NOD one of them?

 

Not on my machine.
I did exclude BOClean folder / ini file in NOD's AMON and added the NOD exe's to the excluder in BOClean.

 

So Nancy can this program function as a adequate replacement for Microsoft Antispy, Adaware 1.06 and Spybot 1.4?

 

Without doubt: in fact it is far superior.

 

Thank you for your reply.