Talk:Spy Sweeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Advertisement stub for a software product. --Chessphoon 02:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Notable program. Marginal keep; truly needs cleanup to legitimately be kept. Rhymeless 02:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Because if there were a proper page here, the description would be nearly as notable as Microsoft Windows and there would be no more advertising than on the Microsoft Windows page. The problem that the software product addresses would itself provide an interesting, noteworthy, and useful encyclopedia page. But I object to anyone creating a stub on any subject with so little information on it. If a reader found this page, they would expect to find something more than what is here. ---Rednblu 02:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I say that because, whether it's Ad-Aware or Spam Assassin or Warez4U, this article fails the deletion guidelines by being a straight ahead ad. One line and then straight to the "download here." I used to have more confidence in Clean Up than I do these days, so I don't think we can put it out of sight and mind there. Geogre 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I have to agree with Geogre. This is nothing more than an advertisement and items tend to languish untouched on cleanup. No need to keep an advert placeholder for what could be a legitimate article. If anyone wants to write an actual article, they can do it without this advert placeholder. SWAdair | Talk 04:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. The product is good and quite worthy of mention in Wikipedia, whether alone or as part of an article on anti-spyware products. But nothing here should be an advertisment. Jallan 18:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but add a cleanup tag. PeteBegin 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Skeptical

I am extremely skeptical of the claims that the software is "recepient of many awards, such as a Best Buy award from PC World, an Editor's Choice from PC Magazine, and the TopTenREVIEWS Gold Award." I would like to see a source - I have heard similar claims from Spysheriff. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

this is an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.149.89 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A Google search validates Spy Sweeper's Best Buy Award. I'm working on verifying other parts of the article. --BWD 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also validated the TopTenREVIEWS award. The only one I couldn't validate was the PC Magazine award. Also, can you please review the NPOV tag? Does that still apply? --BWD 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I get PC Magazine monthly, and yes Webroot Spysweeper is its current editor's choice for spyware detection and removal.

I got the demo of this and it actually put crap on my computer and said it found it. Then it demanded I buy the program to remove it. I'd never give 'em money after a scam like that. --DanielCD 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You should probably add a criticisms section. --BWD 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would, but it would just be my word. However, if I find a credible source that I can cite regarding this issue, I'll be back. --DanielCD 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm DanielCD. Either you are lying or refering to another program. Many programs have similar names, I think you got em confused. The Demo version removes everything it finds, only limit is expiration of update service. And what does crap mean, be more specific please. A human 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD, what the hell are you talking about?

I can confirm some of DanielCD's frustrations with Spy Sweeper. While I'm not sure of its insertion of false positives, I can confirm that it runs processes that CANNOT be terminated in Task Manager unless manually done so in the actual program. [[User:Taospark|Taospark] 04:03, 09 August 2006 (EST)

[edit] 2006 version

Besides the advertisement-like quality of this entry, which I, like other Wikipedians, strongly object to, there is also the question of relevancy to the year 2006. When would Webroot be planning on releasing a new version beyond 4.5.x? For a while they were keeping the program up to date, but they've languished in recent months, and it's already February 2006 as of this posting. Eventually, if it doesn't shape itself up, Webroot is going to very quickly fall behind in the anti-spyware business. 71.255.208.178 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Though this program comes recommended by many netizens, I found it has an interesting quirk when running. The 2 Spy Sweeper processes cannot be terminated in Task Manager unless you manually shut down the scan in the program. Not even Windows Defender, Microsoft's own program, does this. This is both a minor nuisance and potential backdoor vulnerability. If anyone plans to expand this article, they should link to the "unbiased" reviews which gave the software its award. (Anonymous User) 6:31, 11 July 2006 (EST)

When I bought Spysweeper 2 years ago, it installed a bunch of crap during the install. My computer was beyond repair, and I had to buy a new one. This program should be researched and problems noted in article. I agree that the article reads like a advertisment (Chris Smith)

I have been seeing a number of computers come in to be repaired in the IT department with this version of this software installed on it, and many of them are indeed suffering from dramatic performance slowdowns. In addition, not a single one of the computer owners can remember actually downloading and installing it. I'd really like to back up the section saying that this version causes dramatic slowdowns and has suspicious behavior associated with the software, but short of citing myself (which the wiki-gestapo doesnt like), all I can do is back this up in the discussion. (Comrade Adam)

[edit] Not free, unlike many leading spyware programs??

IMHO, very few antispyware programs are free. There's Ad-Aware Personal and Spybot S&D (which sucks). That's it. For instance Spyware Doctor isn't free either. The correct statement would be: "Just like many leading spyware programs, Spy Sweeper is not free." Jancikotuc 06:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)