SpywareBlaster 3.2 released!

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by javacool, Jul 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shas

    Shas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    Hi nadirah, I did as you suggested and defragmented before re-downloading version 3.2, but still no luck. I was able to download, install and run version 3.1 again from one of the alternative sites and thought I'd at least have that running, but when I checked for protection upates, it directed me to the 3.2 download again (which again would not work) so I'm back to square one!
     
  2. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    Hmmmm...... I think you should ask one of the admins or javacool about your problem. They should help you solve your problem faster and easier. There are many experienced people on this forum who will guide you. :)

    Actually, I have never had a single problem with spywareblaster at all. No errors, everything is so smooth, fast and stable.
     
  3. Shas

    Shas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    OK, thanks for trying.
     
  4. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    You are welcome. :)
     
  5. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
  6. Shas

    Shas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    Thanks iceni60, I had looked there already. There was nothing that fitted and a search didn't bring anything up either. I've started a new thread on the subject now so I'll keep my fingers crossed!
     
  7. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
    Good Luck,Shas
     
  8. Shas

    Shas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    10
    Thanks! :eek:(
     
  9. sunflower

    sunflower Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    5
    Javacool--

    JC: Did version 3.1 take a long time to load?

    No, it didn't. The mozilla/firefox protection did take a few seconds longer to load than the others.

    JC: This sounds like the result of an extremely large registry.dat, something that Netscape has been known to create on certain systems.

    Can you please search your computer for "registry.dat" (without the quotes) - there should be one in an "Application Data/Mozilla" folder under your user profile. Then, check the size. If it's a few MB or more, you are probably experiencing that issue.

    It's over 23 MB :).

    JC: That said, I'd also recommend you take a look at either Mozilla or Firefox (both at http://www.mozilla.org) to replace Netscape 7.1 - Netscape is actually based off of Mozilla, but the newest Mozilla runs much better/faster.

    I'll switch to Mozilla eventually, but I'm not ready yet. Which will give me the best protection in my situation, 3.1 or 3.2?

    Thanks,

    Sunflower
     
  10. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    4,098
    Well that would be the problem then - it certainly sounds like Netscape has corrupted that file in some way.

    If you try renaming that file, Netscape should create a new one that is a few KB in size. (You may have to reconfigure Netscape - however your profile directory should stay, so you can copy the contents to the new directory it creates).

    SpywareBlaster 3.1 probably won't give you completely protection, considering that huge registry.dat file (it should be around a few KB, not 23 MB) could cause some problems.

    If you delete it and start fresh, SpywareBlaster 3.2 will be able to protect you - however, again, you may lose your profile settings (see steps above).

    That particular bug in Netscape is one of the reasons I'll continue to push you to try Mozilla instead. ;)

    Best regards,

    -Javacool
     
  11. TonyP

    TonyP Guest

    I have just downloaded SB 3.2 (did have 3.1). All seems well but I have just one query... after downloading and during setup, I got a message - something like WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 is a read only file - then there were the options; one to alter the file, to skip or to abort. I chose skip and carried on with the installation.

    Was this the right thing to do? What does that all mean?

    Any help appreciated in answering this query.
     
  12. Robin J.

    Robin J. Guest

    Hi there,
    Sorry i have'nt got answers, just a question about where the proper download site for SB ver. 3.2 is? If i hit the provided link, it comes up as ver. 3.1, which is what i just deleated from my system.
    Thanks for any help R.J.
     
  13. snowbound

    snowbound Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Posts:
    8,723
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Here u go,

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



    snowbound
     
  14. Rita

    Rita Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Posts:
    6,863
    Location:
    wilds of wv
    hi
    mine is all blank just about.what would be wrong?update and everything work but screen is practicaly blank.i would send a screenshot but i dont know how :oops: can anyone help?
    thanks--rita
     
  15. Ferdinand Feghoot

    Ferdinand Feghoot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Posts:
    2
    I have been using SpywareBlaster 3.1 successfully with Mozilla 1.7; I just upgraded to 3.2, and it will not recognize Mozilla 1.7 on my computer.
    Plz help - Mozilla is my primary web engine.
     
  16. manOFpeace

    manOFpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Posts:
    717
    Location:
    Ireland
    I want to add my voice to this chorus of thanks to Javacool. ;)
    Another great creation. Now if only I could find a way to reward you properly
    for your work. For the meantime "thanks". :cool:
     
  17. Robin J.

    Robin J. Guest

    Thanks Snowbound for that ultra fast response. It worked, i should have went past the Javacool page. Javacool take note--it was confusing to hit a a link for ver. 3.2 and the page pops up with only 3.1 titled, however, many many thanks and kudos to all your efforts!!!
    R.J.
     
  18. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Everyone must be trying to download as I get a 404 error when tying to access JavaCool's site. I wanted put the new version on my XP box. But I'm going to hold off on my W98SE box. I have heard that it does not work on W98SE.

    Just got for my XP box and everything went smoothly. :) Am I correct that it protects only Mozilla 1.7 and above? (Not 1.6)?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2004
  19. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2004
  20. Ian Bartlett

    Ian Bartlett Guest

    I have version 3.1 on Windows 95 which works fine. Before I take the plunge with Version 3.2 can you please confirm that it is compatible with Win 95. Many Thanks.
     
  21. Ian Bartlett

    Ian Bartlett Guest

    Re my last posting - I have answered my own question. I noticed the MajorGeeks download site says it is suitable for WinAll so I installed over my 3.1 version (after removing protection and then reactivating) as I always have done with your new versions and all is fine on my Win95 OS. I notice that the 3.2 version shows 3022 items as at 7/7/04 whereas the last June update also showed 3022 items (I thought). Have we actually had an update with the items?
     
  22. thefly

    thefly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Posts:
    8
    Hi,
    I have just updated from Ver3.10 to Ver3.20 on two Win98SE PC's. One of them went fine but the other gives the following error on running Spywareblaster. This was after uninstalling the older one and installing the newer version. I uninstalled Ver3.20 and reinstalled Ver3.10 and it ran fine with no such errors.

    This looks similar to Shas's problem I think. Although it does not seem to affect all Win98SE PC's. The main difference between the Pc's is that the one with the problem is a slower PC. They both have similar software on them although the lower powered one has less of them.

    Thanks for any help.

    SPYWAREBLASTER caused an invalid page fault in
    module SPYWAREBLASTER.EXE at 0167:00603ec3.
    Registers:
    EAX=c83f0b80 CS=0167 EIP=00603ec3 EFLGS=00010292
    EBX=bff713d4 SS=016f ESP=008ffe1a EBP=005fe000
    ECX=00000fc8 DS=016f ESI=00604b28 FS=0eb7
    EDX=800b3ff4 ES=016f EDI=00000004 GS=0000
    Bytes at CS:EIP:
    8b 1a 66 8b 5a fc bf 9f 5f 00 00 03 fd 66 89 7a
    Stack dump:
    0000005f dc200000 ff788164 fe3c008f 0000008f dc80007f dc408164
    e0008164 b560005f 0000bff8 dc200000 00008164 7053007f 72617779
    616c6265 72657473
     
  23. HMI

    HMI Guest

    I upgraded from SpywareBlaster 3.1 to 3.2 by uninstalling 3.1, then installing 3.2. 3.2 will not recognize Mozilla 1.7. Tried uninstalling 3.2 and installing 3.1, which does recognize Mozilla, but can't be updated with the latest protection. Mozilla 1.7 was installed in the default directory and the profiles are in the default profile directory. I'm using Win2K. Any workarounds or bug fixes for this? Thank you.
     
  24. sbb04

    sbb04 Guest

    Not sure where I get it but I keep picking up the following tracking cookie.

    Vendor:Tracking Cookie
    Category:Data Miner
    Object Type:File
    Size:104 Bytes
    Location:c:\...\sam\cookies\sam@server.iad.liveperson[2].txt
    Last Activity:7-10-2004 3:22:22 AM
    Risk LevelLow
    Comment:
    Description:This cookie is known to collect information that may be used either for targeted advertising, or tracking users across a particular website, such as page views or ad click-thrus.
     
  25. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    That "liveperson" one is probably relatively harmless, a heck of a lot of places use it -- Bell Canada for one, if I remember correctly. But of course it's a nuisance if you're trying to keep cookies to bare-minimum essentials.

    That looks like an Ad-Aware "item" report -- probably about all you can do is let A-A keep on removing it (or else ignore it). Or if it really bothers you, set up your browser to never accept that one.

    Best,
    Mike
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.