jonathanbean
New member
at the same time? Will WD's shield conflict with tea timer? How does it work differently?
Run Spybot AND WD?
- Thread starter jonathanbean
- Start date
spybotsandra
New member
Hello,
It is not recommendable to run more than one resident protection at the same time as they can interfere with each other.
But our TeaTimer is programed in such a way that there should not be any problems with the compatibility.
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
It is not recommendable to run more than one resident protection at the same time as they can interfere with each other.
But our TeaTimer is programed in such a way that there should not be any problems with the compatibility.
Best regards
Sandra
Team Spybot
Jonathon,
Though Sandra already answered, I'll explain why it's not recommended a bit more in depth.
Though it's possible to run both active (real-time) programs at the same time, there is always the potential for a conflict, since both are to some extent going to be doing similar things. This means that unintended interactions can occur, even if those developing the antimalware applications are attempting to avoid them as in this case.
The real problem for most users, however, is actually much more simple to predict, though it's more likely to create a real problem in this case. The issue is what to do when there is an overlap in protection where both programs detect something, good or bad, and then ask you what to do about it.
For most users just dealing with the question that arises is enough, but when both programs alert about the same item, the confusion more than doubles. The reason is that now there are two programs offering to perform some operation, usually called a block or deny, for the same event. So which choice should you make for which program and is the event even a truly important one? And what if one program automatically makes a decision, then what happens if the other disagrees (less likely)?
I'm not saying this can't be done, I've had this very situation myself multiple times, but the additional alerts can be confusing and deciding which program to have perform the deny, since the other will fail if you try to deny with it too, is simply useless confusion with no benefit.
As you'll note from other threads here there are also situations where the design decisions made by various software vendors have caused at least indirect conflict between the applications. This has led some vendors to state that you should uninstall the other's application if you intend to use theirs. If you continue to use both you are now in a no mans land between those vendors and may not receive support from at least one of them.
For these reasons, it's usually best to only run one active mode or real-time protection for antispyware just like the recommendation for antivirus that's long existed. Generally you can run a second antispyware for manual scans only without significant issue, though even this can create conflicts and at least overhead under certain circumstances.
Bitman
Though Sandra already answered, I'll explain why it's not recommended a bit more in depth.
Though it's possible to run both active (real-time) programs at the same time, there is always the potential for a conflict, since both are to some extent going to be doing similar things. This means that unintended interactions can occur, even if those developing the antimalware applications are attempting to avoid them as in this case.
The real problem for most users, however, is actually much more simple to predict, though it's more likely to create a real problem in this case. The issue is what to do when there is an overlap in protection where both programs detect something, good or bad, and then ask you what to do about it.
For most users just dealing with the question that arises is enough, but when both programs alert about the same item, the confusion more than doubles. The reason is that now there are two programs offering to perform some operation, usually called a block or deny, for the same event. So which choice should you make for which program and is the event even a truly important one? And what if one program automatically makes a decision, then what happens if the other disagrees (less likely)?
I'm not saying this can't be done, I've had this very situation myself multiple times, but the additional alerts can be confusing and deciding which program to have perform the deny, since the other will fail if you try to deny with it too, is simply useless confusion with no benefit.
As you'll note from other threads here there are also situations where the design decisions made by various software vendors have caused at least indirect conflict between the applications. This has led some vendors to state that you should uninstall the other's application if you intend to use theirs. If you continue to use both you are now in a no mans land between those vendors and may not receive support from at least one of them.
For these reasons, it's usually best to only run one active mode or real-time protection for antispyware just like the recommendation for antivirus that's long existed. Generally you can run a second antispyware for manual scans only without significant issue, though even this can create conflicts and at least overhead under certain circumstances.
Bitman
jonathanbean
New member
Thanks
Thanks, Bitman! I suspected that would be the case. Better to just keep a backup of 2d or 3d antispyware programs to scan occassionally.
BTW, WD has done very poorly on more tests (very anecdotal, mind you). Both Spybot and AVG Antispyware found some serious spyware (not just cookies, which WD doesn't do). WD found nothing. I've heard similar reports elsewhere on the web.
Frankly, when it comes to antispyware, magazine reviews aren't much help. They are all over the place, they use different configurations for the various software, etc. (For example, I think Spybot gets downgraded because they use the "Basic" setting because "that's what most user will use." But they note in passing that teatimer works very well but it is not for the average user. Huh? A few popups is beyond the average user? Haven't we got used to it with firewalls popups?! This is why I highly recommend that Spybot put teatimer in the default config so it doesn't keep getting bashed). Just my two cents.
Thanks again.
As for backup, there isn't much good donate software out there. Lavasoft has never impressed me (based on my results), Spycatcher Express logs a zillion false positives (if you took any action, you'd mess up your system), WD's information is clueless (even MS programs and popular vendors like Adobe are "Not Yet Classified!" Huh? ).
So, for the time being, I'm using Spybot (with teatimer, et al.) and AVG Antispyware (free) as a backup. I donated to spybot and will do so occassionally because they seem to be working on improving the program and the forums are quite good (!). AVG has no resident shield in the free version so I would not rely on it alone.
Thanks, Bitman! I suspected that would be the case. Better to just keep a backup of 2d or 3d antispyware programs to scan occassionally.
BTW, WD has done very poorly on more tests (very anecdotal, mind you). Both Spybot and AVG Antispyware found some serious spyware (not just cookies, which WD doesn't do). WD found nothing. I've heard similar reports elsewhere on the web.
Frankly, when it comes to antispyware, magazine reviews aren't much help. They are all over the place, they use different configurations for the various software, etc. (For example, I think Spybot gets downgraded because they use the "Basic" setting because "that's what most user will use." But they note in passing that teatimer works very well but it is not for the average user. Huh? A few popups is beyond the average user? Haven't we got used to it with firewalls popups?! This is why I highly recommend that Spybot put teatimer in the default config so it doesn't keep getting bashed). Just my two cents.
Thanks again.
As for backup, there isn't much good donate software out there. Lavasoft has never impressed me (based on my results), Spycatcher Express logs a zillion false positives (if you took any action, you'd mess up your system), WD's information is clueless (even MS programs and popular vendors like Adobe are "Not Yet Classified!" Huh? ).
So, for the time being, I'm using Spybot (with teatimer, et al.) and AVG Antispyware (free) as a backup. I donated to spybot and will do so occassionally because they seem to be working on improving the program and the forums are quite good (!). AVG has no resident shield in the free version so I would not rely on it alone.
TeaTimer is quite good within the scope of the items it covers, but it has turned out to be a bit too much for the novice to handle. If the user is interested in learning about malware and how to protect themselves it is a fairly powerful tool, but those who expect the program to perform the protection on its own are often left wanting.
Part of the issue has been the same lack of automatic decision making that you noticed with Windows Defender, though the specifics are different. This is being improved to some extent in the new 1.5 beta version, especially in the area of 'good' software such as known antimalware applications, which would generally cause an alert in the past.
This is the trade-off taken by Defender, which tends to be weaker at identifying or removing some malware, but more automatic and generally less prone to false positives than most other protection. This conservative approach generally works better for the large and diverse group of less knowledgable users which are its target market.
For some reason, the Microsoft SpyNet doesn't seem to be as effective at helping detect and identify new infections as it appeared originally. This may have something to do with a lack of interest by advanced users who would be more likely to help in this initial detection or simply the fact that these advanced users tend to know how to avoid malware in the first place.
Bitman
Part of the issue has been the same lack of automatic decision making that you noticed with Windows Defender, though the specifics are different. This is being improved to some extent in the new 1.5 beta version, especially in the area of 'good' software such as known antimalware applications, which would generally cause an alert in the past.
This is the trade-off taken by Defender, which tends to be weaker at identifying or removing some malware, but more automatic and generally less prone to false positives than most other protection. This conservative approach generally works better for the large and diverse group of less knowledgable users which are its target market.
For some reason, the Microsoft SpyNet doesn't seem to be as effective at helping detect and identify new infections as it appeared originally. This may have something to do with a lack of interest by advanced users who would be more likely to help in this initial detection or simply the fact that these advanced users tend to know how to avoid malware in the first place.
Bitman
jonathanbean
New member
Teatimer -- using common sense
I have not found Teatimer to be particularly difficult to use. When I am making changes and expect a pop-up, I quickly look at the teatimer description and allow the change. Otherwise, I don't. Is this a safe practice?
I can't be expected to know what every registry key means but this seems to work for me.
Besides, I have had such bad experience with MS products that I don't trust them much at all. (I'm even a confirmed WordPerfect user though my computer has Word when I _must_ use it!).
I have not found Teatimer to be particularly difficult to use. When I am making changes and expect a pop-up, I quickly look at the teatimer description and allow the change. Otherwise, I don't. Is this a safe practice?
I can't be expected to know what every registry key means but this seems to work for me.
Besides, I have had such bad experience with MS products that I don't trust them much at all. (I'm even a confirmed WordPerfect user though my computer has Word when I _must_ use it!).
jonathanbean
New member
Ps
Does WD check for items beyond Teatimer? You mentioned Teatimer is good for the items it checks, but what are they? Registry changes? What does WD check?
I use Comodo Firewall which should provide additional shield protection.
Does WD check for items beyond Teatimer? You mentioned Teatimer is good for the items it checks, but what are they? Registry changes? What does WD check?
I use Comodo Firewall which should provide additional shield protection.