---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AF59132B0226; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:13:29 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <15.00CC78C5@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; 1 Feb 2004 6:13:23 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 8219 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 06:13:16 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 6438; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 06:11:40 -0500 Received: from smtp.aaisp.net.uk [217.169.20.17] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 06:11:40 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by smtp.aaisp.net.uk Received: from hibernaculum.org.uk ([217.169.5.1] helo=TP380Z) by smtp.aaisp.net.uk with smtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AnFVu-0004hK-1J for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:11:42 +0000 Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.10.2010 for OS/2 Warp 4.05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:11:41 +0000 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Howard Winter Subject: Re: [OT:] Windows XP intermittent performance To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <401A6A45.32102.5D4C958@localhost> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856746 Andrew, On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:29:25 -0800, Andrew Warren wrote: > Howard Winter wrote: > > > I have *never* agreed to any adware being installed on any of my > > computers. I have never even been asked for my permission, in > > fact! > > Yes, most people with adware on their PCs believe that. Ah, but I'm not one of "most people", and proud of it! :-) > However... If you ever answered YES to a banner or pop-up ad that > said, "Your computer clock may be wrong, would you like to keep > it accurate?" (or any of the other ads that install a free > utility bundled with adware), and then clicked through the > often-misleading dialog boxes that appeared afterward while the > software was downloaded and installed, you actively gave your > permission. No of course I haven't - I am nowhere near gullible enough for this sort of thing! To take the example above, I already run a clock-synchroniser of known origin which used my ISP's time server. The same is true of any banner advert: I completely ignore them. > There are media viewers that contain bundled > adware, too, so if you've ever agreed to download a program in > order to view a particular file on the web, you may have agreed > to install the adware then, too. Other programs, like Kazaa, > also install adware. I only run the major ones such as Flash, and I have never installed any of Kazaa, Napster or any of their ilk. It's just not the sort of thing I do. > The download/installation dialog boxes do say that you're > installing adware, but of course they don't say so in those > words; the information is usually written and presented in such > a way as to hide its real meaning. > > If you've set your web browser's security settings to "Low", > you've also given your permission, although implicitly. The > "low" setting says that you will trust and accept software from > ANYONE. I don't use Windows unless I have to, and usually I don't use IE even then. Mozilla doesn't have the same settings, so there is no "low" to set. > There's very little adware that installs itself without your > "permission"; I'd bet that you've given it, albeit unknowingly. I don't think so! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads .