I was notified this was now available when I went to update the 2007 
version. When I installed it, a new icon appeared on my desktop, Ad Watch, 
as well as the AdAware 2008 one. Clicking Ad Watch just seems to run AdAware 
2008 Has anyone else done this yet?
Steve Hague

"Steve Hague"  wrote in message 
news:SNCgk.19704$X72.16146@newsfe29.ams2...
>I was notified this was now available when I went to update the 2007 
>version. When I installed it, a new icon appeared on my desktop, Ad Watch, 
>as well as the AdAware 2008 one. Clicking Ad Watch just seems to run 
>AdAware 2008 Has anyone else done this yet?
> Steve Hague
I've deleted that icon now, but I seem to remember it came up with an advert 
for the paid version of AdAware which includes this other program, AdWatch. 
I think.

ally

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:17:15 +0100, "a l l y"
 wrote:

>"Steve Hague"  wrote in message 
>news:SNCgk.19704$X72.16146@newsfe29.ams2...
>>I was notified this was now available when I went to update the 2007 
>>version. When I installed it, a new icon appeared on my desktop, Ad Watch, 
>>as well as the AdAware 2008 one. Clicking Ad Watch just seems to run 
>>AdAware 2008 Has anyone else done this yet?

>I've deleted that icon now, but I seem to remember it came up with an advert 
>for the paid version of AdAware which includes this other program, AdWatch. 
>I think.
>
I have an icon labelled AdWatch 2007, as well as AdAware 2007. Have
the two merged? 

-- 
Jo

Jo Lonergan wrote:
>>
> I have an icon labelled AdWatch 2007, as well as AdAware 2007. Have
> the two merged?


no its the same company as said before its an add on extra that works if you 
buy the full version


better with crap cleaner

down load from here
http://filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/

great program also even if you run adware run crap cleaners registery 
checker after running its very good

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:56:57 +0000, Dave xxxx wrote:

> Jo Lonergan wrote:
>>>
>> I have an icon labelled AdWatch 2007, as well as AdAware 2007. Have the
>> two merged?
> 
> 
> no its the same company as said before its an add on extra that works if
> you buy the full version
> 
> 
> better with crap cleaner
> 
> down load from here
> http://filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/
> 
> great program also even if you run adware run crap cleaners registery
> checker after running its very good

what is this registry of which you speak? why would I need Ad-Aware in 
the first place?

Derek Turner wrote:
>
> what is this registry of which you speak? why would I need Ad-Aware in
> the first place?

all computers have a registery after running crap cleaner or even installing 
programs or windows update I run registery checher in crap cleaner

its the lots of little squares under the brush on the right of the window 
when you have opened the program


as for "why do I need adware" with any of these programs getting rid of 
cookies and nastys its good to have a couple of programs

in case on misses some of the rubbish

Dave xxxx wrote:
> Derek Turner wrote:
>> what is this registry of which you speak? why would I need Ad-Aware in
>> the first place?
> 
> all computers have a registery after running crap cleaner or even installing 
> programs or windows update I run registery checher in crap cleaner

For some values of all, Mac and Linux don't have it. The registry is a 
special file in Windows that is used to store all sorts of gubbins 
related to programs and settings. Over time it fills up with out dated 
references and references to programs that have been uninstalled, and 
slows down the system as it takes more time to search through it.

The CCleaner registry cleaner scans through for any references to files 
that are missing or no longer used, backs them up and deletes them. I've 
been using it on various pcs for several years now with no problems.

-- 
neil h
google brights

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:35:14 +0000, Dave xxxx wrote:

> Derek Turner wrote:
>>
>> what is this registry of which you speak? why would I need Ad-Aware in
>> the first place?
> 
> all computers have a registery 

Mine doesn't as a look in the headers of my post would have told you.


> 
> 
> as for "why do I need adware" with any of these programs getting rid of
> cookies and nastys its good to have a couple of programs

'Nastys' don't affect my computer: see above.

On 21 Jul 2008 07:14:19 GMT, Derek Turner  scrawled in
the dust...

>Mine doesn't as a look in the headers of my post would have told you.

It says you use Pan as a newsreader, there is a Widnoze version of Pan.

Running Linux is a choice. 
Occasionally pointing out the advantages of Linux over other OSs is
reasonable. 
Taking the piss out of Windows users or trying to ram Linux down their
throats just for the sake of it is annoying and childish.
-- 
Penny
There are unexpected holes in my ignorance.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.umra.freeuk.com/nicks.html

Penny   wrote:
> Running Linux is a choice. 
> Occasionally pointing out the advantages of Linux over other OSs is
> reasonable. 
> Taking the piss out of Windows users or trying to ram Linux down their
> throats just for the sake of it is annoying and childish.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think (this time) Derek was actually
doing the former and not the latter. Dave had been writing about "all
computers" and I too would strongly argue against the assumption that
everyone is running the same software.

What I didn't fully agree with is the description of the registry as
some obscure and detrimental part of Windows that necessarily fills
up with crap. (That was not a point raised by Derek.) All systems have
huge amounts of settings to store for all kinds of software. To try and
provide a centralised place to store them in a more or less systematic
way is not a bad idea. Is hasn't been all successfull though. The UNIX
approach is more "every software packages rolls its own configuration
format", and compared to the Windows one, I think it has advantages as
well as drawbacks.

Sebastian

Sebastian Lisken  writes:
>Penny   wrote:
>> Running Linux is a choice. 
>> Occasionally pointing out the advantages of Linux over other OSs is
>> reasonable. 
>> Taking the piss out of Windows users or trying to ram Linux down their
>> throats just for the sake of it is annoying and childish.
>
>I agree with the sentiment, but I think (this time) Derek was actually
>doing the former and not the latter.

actually, he had been doing a bit of both -- suggesting that linux was
immune to attack is a childish sort of attitude that regularly bites
those of our users we've given enough rope to...

>Dave had been writing about "all
>computers" and I too would strongly argue against the assumption that
>everyone is running the same software.

agreed.

>What I didn't fully agree with is the description of the registry as
>some obscure and detrimental part of Windows that necessarily fills
>up with crap.

i don't know that it _necessarily_ fills up with detritus, but my
limited experience[*] tends to confirm the view that registries mostly
_do_ fill up that way.

>All systems have
>huge amounts of settings to store for all kinds of software. To try and
>provide a centralised place to store them in a more or less systematic
>way is not a bad idea. Is hasn't been all successfull though. The UNIX
>approach is more "every software packages rolls its own configuration
>format", and compared to the Windows one, I think it has advantages as
>well as drawbacks.

the linux style has the disadvantage that you often can't guess where
the settings might be, so that it's easier still to collect detritus.

with a windows style, you can say, in a sense, where the settings are
likely to be; but finding them is regularly (ime) tricky.  (if you're
a developer, you know where _your_ data are, but the data of a random
piece of software, whether free or commercial, is a matter for
guessing.)

what's more, i remain amazed that one has so few instances of
registries becoming corrupted, and thereby unloadable.  we do
occasionally delete all of a person's hkcu on a machine with roaming
profiles (in our case, that's just accounts on the terminal servers),
but i find it amazing that it is _so_ seldom.

[*] part-time, i'm a widnoze sysadmin
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

On 21 Jul 2008 16:09:16 GMT, Sebastian Lisken
 scrawled in the dust...

>Penny   wrote:
>> Running Linux is a choice. 
>> Occasionally pointing out the advantages of Linux over other OSs is
>> reasonable. 
>> Taking the piss out of Windows users or trying to ram Linux down their
>> throats just for the sake of it is annoying and childish.
>
>I agree with the sentiment, but I think (this time) Derek was actually
>doing the former and not the latter. Dave had been writing about "all
>computers" and I too would strongly argue against the assumption that
>everyone is running the same software.

I think there was a large portion of the latter and a dash of the former in
the way he phrased his 'question'.

I've no idea why it annoyed me enough to say anything about it though, I
usually just mutter ****** to myself and move on. Probably something to do
with a looming deadline. I'm sure displacement activity isn't supposed to
create stress.
-- 
Penny
There are unexpected holes in my ignorance.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.umra.freeuk.com/nicks.html

Penny   wrote:
> I think there was a large portion of the latter and a dash of the former in
> the way he phrased his 'question'.

Ah. I didn't have the first post in mind when I wrote my reply. Anyway,
time to give this Windows machine some sleep.

Sebastian