SpywareGuard or SpywareBlaster?

Discussion in 'SpywareBlaster & Other Forum' started by biscuitz, Nov 28, 2004.

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

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    Which one is better: SpywareGuard or SpywareBlaster? I only want to use one of these for protection. Which one is the better "Spyware Blocker"?
    I have read everything about these 2 and have no clue which one is the best.
    o_O :doubt:
     
  2. Huwge

    Huwge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Posts:
    405
    Location:
    UK
    I guess the best option is to have both installed.
     
  3. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    That is not an option. I said I only want to use 1 and only 1. Not both. Which 1 will block spyware the best?

    o_O I want to be able to keep off spyware without slowing my computer down alot. :doubt: Would having a spyware scanner be faster? or would a spyware blocker be better?
    Which is the best fastest anti-spyware solution program?
     
  4. scott lang

    scott lang Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Posts:
    211
    Location:
    claremore,ok
    i have spywareblaster, adaware SE and spybot search and destroy plus running nis 2005. and i have no probs with any of them. those 3 free prgs all work great together. i tried guard once but it just didnt work out for me. caused minor probs. so i just stuck with blaster. lots of other folks use both guard and blaster with no probs.
     
  5. javacool

    javacool BrightFort Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,997
    Hi,

    Technically, in terms of "the fastest", SpywareBlaster would be what you are looking for. No part of it runs in the background, so you really don't need to worry about "memory or cpu hogging". And it just blocks the installation of spyware, adware, browser hijackers, dialers, etc. No warnings or prompts after-the-fact - it takes care of "all that stuff" before it can get onto your system.

    However SpywareGuard has a nearly negligible performance impact (it does run in the background), so it's a very close contest, although it's a lot like comparing apples and oranges. (SpywareGuard deals with real-time alerts when changes to browser settings are detected, etc.)

    It sounds like, for your system, you'd be very happy with just SpywareBlaster installed (a no hassle, no mess approach) so that's what I'd recommend. :)

    [That said, they do form a rather potent multi-layer web of protection, but if you really want to only go with one, better stick with SpywareBlaster.]

    Best regards,

    -Javacool
     
  6. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    ;) Thanks for the info. Ok but I've had lots of experience in computer speed. I know a lot about what makes a computer slow or fast.
    One thing that slows down a computer is a large registry. Doesn't SpywareBlaster block by adding things to the registry? I think I heard that it adds registry entries or something. If it does then how much stuff does it add? Cuz if it adds a lot then that would slow down a computer.
     
  7. mccarob

    mccarob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    31
    The registry is already a huge sorce of text and data. You will not loose any type of preformace by adding registry keys. You loose preformace and speed by the number of processes and modules that start up when you turn your computer on. Windows starts these up, becuase there are registry keys located in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Run and many other locations.

    You will not see a drop in preformace if you install SpywareBlaster. However, to clearly answer your question, yes it does enter in some registry keys. Howmany? I don't know. I didn't make the program. :D

    I think your safe to install it, and not see a drop in preformace. If your worried about preformace, go into MSCONFIG, and uncheck some of the items and services that are starting up. With MSCONIFG, if you happen to uncheck the wrong one, you and re-enable it with out an issue.

    I think this is the best way to go for you.

    Best of Luck!
     
  8. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    Actually your mistakin :rolleyes: . Your computer opens the registry when it starts up and may access it while it's running. The registry is a file. The bigger the file the longer it takes to open it.
    Thanks for answering my question though :D . ;) Mccarob I already know that trick. One of the many ways to make your computer start faster :D .

    I'm confused. How does SpywareBlaster block then if it's passive? I don't get how it can block spyware if it isn't running. :eek:
     
  9. mccarob

    mccarob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    31
    From my understanding, SpywareBlaster changes the registry value of websites to be restricted so the ActiveX controlls can not be downloaded and installed. They are a DWORD value. DWORD value of a 2 is a perment. While, SpywareBlaster changes it to a DWORD value of 4 which is a restriction.
     
  10. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    :( Wait a minute. Are you saying it adds an entry for every spy site it knows into the registry.
     
  11. Biine

    Biine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Posts:
    1
    Your computer opens the registry and it remains open the entire time you have your computer booted up. Adding entrys to the registry isn't going to make a impact on your computer that you can see. If you see performance issues from installing things as small as spywareblaster then you seriously need to think about upgrading your computer past a pentium 1 !!!
     
  12. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I think JavaCool gave a fairly good response to the original question, although I feel that SpywareBlaster is probably at least an order of magnitude more efficient in terms of resources used.

    I don't enough about the O/S or SB to back that up with solid facts. It is just based on my own experiences and what I believe is true. Anyway, here are some of my assumptions, and hopefully someone will correct them.

    - My registry has roughly 500,000 keys
    - SpywareBlaster adds 3 or 4,000 keys
    - When IE opens a page with an ActiveX control, then IE will search for the
    corrosponding CLID whether or not SpywareBlaster is installed.
    - If it finds an entry by SB then it ignores the ActiveX instructions
    - If it does not then it procedes to execute the ActiveX instructions which
    may be time consuming at best...

    This is even more speculative on my part, but here goes: Since XP is written by Microsoft, as is IE, as is the concept of ActiveX, I am assuming that M$ has engineered them to work together in an efficient manner. Probably...

    - The entire registry is not read when searching for the ActiveX compatability
    flag. Most likely it goes straight to the section containing the flags. You
    may notice that when you go to Regedit and search for a string it takes
    forever! At least 20 seconds! but when you ecounter a banned CLID on
    the internet there is no OBSERVABLE delay as the AX is rejected.
    - The time spend to do this subsearch of the registry is very close to zero.
    I truly doubt the theoretical performance impact is one that is actually
    OBSERVABLE to a human being.
    - The longest search, naturally, would be for a CLID not present, so
    depending on how many CLID on the SB list are encountered ironically,
    having the list installed might shorten the searches. (even if this is not
    a valid point, irony is irony :)).
    - One installation of a malware program can cause a HUGE observable impact
    on the running of your computer.

    Also, lets not forget that the list of CLIDs is completely customizable. One could remove every single CLID in the list that was painstakingly put together at the cost of many compromised computers, and and their own personal list of the five worst CLIDs know to man. You know the ones I mean. And if you don't...

    The zealot continues, look at the corrosponding Hosts file. The so called "SuperTrick." The same logic prevales. The cost in terms of observable performance degredation is non-existant, which is to say, I don't can't see it. Yet the time it takes to load bogus abnoxious ad banners and popups is very observable. That's right! Adding more will improve your performance again.

    Also, by NOT installing these protections YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Yep, it had to be said. When you allow the dirty tricks of the people who attempt to harras computer users to succeed, you encourage them to continue this exploitation.

    Personally, I have vowed NEVER to respond to any unsolicited marketing ploy. Even if they do re-rout me, reprogram my computer, and spam me until hell freezes over, I will not lower my self to do buisiness with people who are lower on the ethical totam pole than ambulance chasing lawyers.

    Does that help?


    -HandsOff
     
  13. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    :oops: Gosh guys calm down. I didn't mean to tick u off like that. Gees. Now that your done yelling at me. Actually 3,000 extra keys can slow down your computer but not noticebly like yall said (happy I agree with you now). Well after all the arguments at me I see that it doesn't impact a system in a negative way. By negative I mean noticeable. I'm not criticizing the program I'm just doubting it. Sorry but I'm an extreme speed tweaker and I automatically doubt something (I automatically say its slow) if I'm not sure. Usually I'll try it to see the speed impact but yall keep tellin me it doesn't hurt so its good ;) .
    Well in the end, by conclusion of HandsOff, it does more good to have it. That is the ultimate answer that ends this discussion. Without SpywareBlaster slower speed occurs because of all the unblocked spyware. And even more negatives come out of not having it.
    o_O I have another dilema. This seems like another case of the reduce fragmentation tweak. If you don't know what I mean then your computer isn't as fast as it can get. Both my computers are bout 2x faster than their factory settings. Anyway the reduce fragmentation tweak in short has negative speed impact but in long terms has a good speed impact. Well don't worry anymore all questions have been answered.
    SpywareBlaster in short terms has slow speed impact (like most programs;which is unnoticeable by untrained humans :D ) but in long terms better speed.
    What the heck? This forum doesn't have a smiley for LOL. The closest 1 I could find is :D
     
  14. biscuitz

    biscuitz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    7
    o_O There is another problem that may exist. Is it possible for spyware to change or delete the protection entries entered by SpywareBlaster. Like one day someone could make a new thing that gets rid of this protection without you knowing it (like a spyware virus :( ). That would be bad (bad as in bad, not bad as in good). :eek: Is this a security hole in SpywareBlaster cuz then they need to fix it. If not then dang they got this spy stuff covered :D .
     
  15. AJohn

    AJohn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    935
    If you download a file which deletes your entire computer then you are screwed. This is the same for downloading a file which edits your registry in a way that allows spyware. Spyware Blaster does its job, you just have to be carefull what you download (in any case).

    If you are worried about your registry being changed check out MJ Registry Watcher:
    http://www.jacobsm.com/#downloads

    SpyBot Search & Destroy would also be worth checking out. It uses both the approach of Spyware Blaster and Spyware Guard (optionally).
     
  16. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Hi Biscuitz -

    Sorry I did not catch your reply earlier. Did I need calming down? Sorry...caffeine does tend to make me a bit demonstrative at times.

    Not an extreme speed tweaker you say? The truth is I go back and forth a bit on that. Somethings that are slow are either familiar or consistent and stable...BUT I HATE WAITING ON THE COMPUTER TO DO SOMETHING. Uh oh, i'm loosing it...

    don't understand how defrag could slow anything down. where do you stand on page file configuration? separating data and applications? second drive to increase the performance of the system drive? If you got some goods on us, lets have 'em!

    - HandsOff
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.