Need Good Ad Blocker

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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


HKEY1952

 

You bet! Lifetime means LIFETIME!

 

Thank you.

 

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

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

do you offer a free trial to try the product?thanks AntiSpy

 

So what you are saying is that version 5 has no CPU issue (I'll take your word for it). And version 4.6 running at 25-35% CPU constantly does not have a CPU issue either. Thanks for clearing that up.