Talk:Ad-Aware

Title

Shouldn't this be at Ad-Aware, since that's its official name (i.e. with the second word capitalized). I'd move it myself, but the redirect page would need to be deleted first. — Asbestos | Talk 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done, though you could have done it yourself. Ad-Aware did not have to be deleted because there was nothing in its history except a redirect. If there had ever been more than that, you would have needed a sysop to delete the page, do the move and undelete it to restore the history, but anybody can do it without deleting anything if the history is nothing but a redirect. —Lowellian (talk) 21:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi All. The official name of the company is adaware (no caps, no dashes, no hyphens) since 2017. The product's brand names have also changed to reflect this: adaware antivirus, adaware web companion, etc. (suggestion by: Daniel Assouline, CEO, co-owner of adaware).

Norman?

The first sentence of the last paragraph in the article reads "Norman, together with Lavasoft, offers the Ad-Aware Plus and Ad-Aware Professional versions." Norman is not previously mentioned in the article nor does it have a link. Who or what Norman is needs to be explained. Thanks. --Tregonsee 13:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. It now points to Norman ASA page. CyR 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Norman at all now, but Norman has two products called "Norman Ad-Aware Plus" and "Norman Ad-Aware PRO" for sale in their online shop. I came here to see how they are related to Lavasoft, because neither site mention a cooperation. Please clarify. -- Nillli (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Norman basically offer a rebrand of Lavasoft's Ad-Aware, but I can't find a reference for that at the moment. I also think that they only did this with Ad-Aware SE and not the newer versions. Casey boy (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.norman.com/about_norman/press_center/news_archive/2004/55079/en —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey boy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links

The term "Team Lavasoft" is a misnomer. There is no "Team Lavasoft", however the Former team exists. The LandzDown Team is the former "Team Lavasoft". Although we continue to assist with Ad-Aware SE, we are not "product specific" and help people with other software programs when Ad-Aware SE cannot remove the offending objects. Members of Lavasoft Research answer questions on occasion at "LzD Forum" but we have no connection with Lavasoft or its management.

--209.222.250.33 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Corrine, *MS-MVP Windows Security; Administrator @*LandzDown Forum; Former Administrator, Lavasoft Support Forums

Corrected typo above.  ;) --209.222.250.33 22:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Corrine, *MS-MVP Windows Security; Administrator @*LandzDown Forum; Former Administrator, Lavasoft Support Forums

"Controversy"?

The source for the apparent-controversy about Ad-Aware couldn't be even slightly reliable. I'm going to remove it from the article unless someone can come up with an actual source for this. - PlayItBogart 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

== Controversy - Viewpoint by Daniel Assouline, CEO, Co-owner of adaware. There has been 2-3 people who have taken a very negative stance against our company. We are not quite sure why... But clearly the bias seems to continue to spread even more and it is now time for us (owners) to intervene.

The whole section is mostly factually incorrect. Let me try and shed some light...

*** Correction 1 ***** The company was acquired in January 2011 by the Solaria Fund, a private equity fund.[3] It was soon discovered that the fund was actually a front for the entrepreneurs (Daniel Assouline and Michael Dadoun) behind UpClick and Interactive Brands.[9]

- Solaria is not a Private Equity Fund. It is a Canadian Holding Company. - "It was soon discovered that the fund was actually a front for the entrepreneurs..." Why such a biased statement?

   a.  "Discovered" suggests we were hiding.  A Canadian holding company was created to purchase the assets of Lavasoft.   This is standard business practice.   Ownership of Canadian corporations are publics matters and can be queried on the web - by anybody.   If we wanted to hide the ownership - a Canadian Corporation with clear beneficial ownership is NOT the way to go.
   b.  "actually a front for the entrepreneurs" - again, why such a biased statement?    The ownership is clear and transparent.   Why suggest it was hidden and therefore a front?

*** Correction 2 ***** SC Magazine discovered that Lavasoft had been acquired by the same entrepreneurs who have been accused of selling software that is available for free (such as the free version of AVG antivirus) to unwitting users under the guise of premium support.[10]

- It is NOT SC Magazine that "discovered" it - it is the Guardian. - The Guardian article is not very clear as it involved many different companies owned by different people. A very careful read of the article clearly stipulates that Market Engines (the company we were operating) or any of its subsidiaries was NOT involved in the download/charging of free software. Many other companies / people in the article are targeted by this practice (selling free software) but not us. Rather the article describes that we were offering support, that he was disappointed with the support and managed to get a refund for most of the order. We are clearly disappointed that the customer service experience he received was not fantastic and it is not our proudest moment but it is quite harsh to judge a company's whole offerings and its owners reputation on a single call to its customer service and to lump it all up the same as everyone else. - "Free version of AVG Antivirus" - I cannot find any mention of this in any of the articles mentioned.

*** Correction 3 ***** - ... used to sell the free version of Lavasoft's security program prior to acquiring the company itself. This has been well-documented by security consultants such as Dancho Danchev.[11] - We cannot find a reference to his article. This isn't the first time we had read something similar (a long time ago) so it may be possible that he is referring to something else he read but not sure... - It is again factually incorrect. The company bought and paid for 10,000 licenses of Lavasoft's adaware antivirus prior to buying the company. We can easily prove this as there are invoices and payments done for this. Lavasoft's then-owners did voice their frustration when we started to advertise on their own keywords on Google (lavasoft, adaware, adaware antivirus). We stopped promoting it when we sold the remaining licenses.

*** Correction 4 ***** Lavasoft is now used to hide hard-to-uninstall programs into third-party software to trick the users in installing them...

- Reference 12: It is not Danchev, Dancho that wrote the entry - rather it is an entry by Anvisoft. Anvisoft is a low-tier AV engine. It gets most of its traffic by spamming the search engines in writing dummy pages like this: http://forums.anvisoft.com/viewtopic-53-4717-0.html. Many other pages on their site refer to removing other AV products as a virus... Anybody who spends more than 2 minutes on this page could easily determine that it is a standard template with no real content other than that necessary to fool Google into a higher-ranking. - They refer to a URL (http://securesearch.lavasoft.com) as a virus. - There are no programs to remove whatsoever. A simple default search setting can be changed on any browser. There are no search-recapture mechanisms whatsoever. - This search was offered ONLY to users of adaware and was highly retained by our users.

So... - Why characterize it as "hard-to-remove"? - Why imply that we "trick the users"? Where is the evidence? On the contrary, we enforce strong user-consent practices and it is reflected in the 3rd-party ratings of our products.

IMPORTANT: The company and product claiming that our product is an antivirus has gotten very bad

*** Correction 4 ***** Although the company shields itself behind the complete legality of bundled software and claims that their software is only used to fight malware, several users are starting to brand their products as malware.[12]

Again - where do they make this assumption? The company (AnviSoft) that is making this mention has a terrible online reputation with its users (http://www.shouldiremoveit.com/Anvi-Smart-Defender-19684-program.aspx). In comparison, our product is very well rated by people who use it (wouldn't that be the opposite if we "tricked into installing"): http://www.shouldiremoveit.com/Web-Companion-128861-program.aspx.

AnviSoft *(the company that accuses us of being a virus and tricking users) - Their Consumer Rating: BAD / 55% of users remove it. WebCompanion (the product accused of having bad practices) - Our consumer rating: Good / 19% of users remove it.

Ad-Aware no longer in Google Pack

I've noticed that Ad-Aware is no longer included in third-party software offered by Google Pack/Google Update. Sure enough, Google addresses this here. I'm going to make the edit in the second paragraph, but it'd be nice to nail-down an exact date of change.Caen 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work anymore. Does anyone remember the gist of what the link said? 71.139.142.119 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Huge table

Is that huge table of feautres really necessary? It makes the article read like an advertisement. --Mosquitopsu 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is always a danger with articles about software that either so much detail, or so much favourable information is added that the article becomes unbalanced and, indeed, as you have noted, can start to read like an advertisement, instead of an encyclopedia article. If, in reading the current version of this article, you think it is getting that way then perhaps it is time to even out the "pro" information with the "critical analysis" to return some balance, before it gets tagged as an "ad".

The table does seem to give a lot of very detailed information about the software application. The question is whether that level of detail is excessive for an encyclopedia article. It is perhaps justifiable to leave it in if the article is made longer and more balanced with more critique or analysis. Right now, because the article is a bit short, the table does seem to dominate the text. A few versions ago the critique section was longer, but it has been shortened, which adds to the "ad-like" appearance. Ahunt 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite large and intrusive to the article because the article is still quite small.--The Negotiator 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the "Version feature summary" table. -68.236.103.195 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The table is actually wrong in two places and needs updating. However, they aren't simple yes/no answers and so I'm not sure how to do this. Basically, Ad-Aware AE Free does have Heuristical detection but for spyware only. Also the first row "Anti-Spyware + Anti-Virus" whilst it is true Ad-Aware Free does not have the Anti-Virus capabilities it looks as though, from the table, that it has no Anti-Spyware either. 1305, 07 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.9 (talk)

Article seems like ad

Where do I send my money? More 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to expand the criticism section to make it less "ad like" then feel free to find the references and add to the criticism already there! - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that this article has been tagged as reading like an ad. Perhaps, comparisons with other similar products might help put a balance on the article? Casey boy (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely now the article can be freed from it's advertisement-like banner? Casey boy (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows 98

Adaware 2007 is not compatible with windows 98. Is there any information on earlier versions available that are compatible with win98? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.106.209 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The older versions of Ad-Aware, which support the older OS, are no longer supported by Lavasoft - so you wouldn't get program or even definition updates. Casey boy (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are they of 2007 if it is about 2008 now? Someone should find some new pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.245.22 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest version is 8.1 and a new screenshot has been uploaded. Casey boy (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Version History

It would be helpful to see a summary version history table with links to sites that detail changes and bug fixes. It would also help if there were links to where install files for earlier versions reside. In my case, I have found the new 2009 "Anniversary Edition" somewhat unstable and prone to become unresponsive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.107.200 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I could provide you with the details of the version history, but the download files are harder to come by since the older versions aren't supported anymore. Casey 15:43, 25 May 2009

Critism

I know that we don't want this article to be an add, so critism (I guess) is good. But the critism here is of Ad-Aware SE. This version is 3 generations old (SE > 2007 > 2008 > AE) and completely unsupported. I suggest removing it. Casey 15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk)

Well then, lets post critism of Ad-Aware 9 Pro, the current version for 2010-2011. Lets start with the fact that it no longer actually blocks popups/ads/redirects/windowspawns like it used to back in the good old days. It claims it has a blacklist to block access to sites, but as best as I can figure out, their blacklist is empty. We can continue with the fact that the addition of Anti-virus was horrible. Ad-Aware is/was supposed to be an app regarding ads. So instead of being a single purpose app that does a great job, it's trying to become an all-purpose app that suceeds in doing nothing well (IE: Jack of all trades, master of none). Can't flat out disable the anti-virus componete either it seems. And you know what, this would have been tollerable if it was atleast a decent anti-virus. 100% of the virus found reports Ad-Aware gave me were false positives that Avast, NOD32, Kaspersky and others correctly report as being clean. Let's move on to it being system resource intensive. Using upwards of 20%+ of CPU & 120,000k+ of memory just sitting there in the background. It also caused the launching of any app to take much much MUCH longer (Replay Media Cather would load in under 10 second without Ad-Aware loaded, Takes over 30 seconds with Ad-Aware. Don't bother trying to use this as a secondary "run when you want it" program either. If you try to set the ad-aware hog of a resource service to manual, the program will automaticly set it back to automatic when you exit it. And because it's set to restart on failure (twice actually), it ultimatly will restart itself again later, even after you use the full terminate & exit option. Back in the SE days and earlier, I used to rely on Ad-Aware myself very heavily and recommended it to everyone I knew. Not anymore. I refuse to use this garbage and can honestly only advise everyone else to stay far away from it. And for the record, I was using the full version of v9 Pro, as Ad-Aware had emailed me a free 6 month Pro trial key. And after a week of fighting every step of the way against this program that did nothing but allow ads, give me false virus reports, use up resources and slow my computer down, I happily uninstalled it, and will never look back.--98.211.145.167 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My most recent experience is similar:

• When I went to "upgrade" it, the button to download the free version was "grayed out", as if I was not allowed to click on it, while the button for the pay version was highlighted prominently. It really looked like I couldn't get the free version anymore. I thought maybe people who had previously obtained the free version weren't allowed to upgrade. But after thinking about it and trying, I discovered that if I ignored the hint, I actually could click on the pale gray download button for the free version.
• During the entire installation process, which went through multiple stages of screens, I kept noticing that somewhere in the fine print in different places on the screen there was some extra button or check-box, where if I didn't notice what was happening and took the default path, I would be installing or enabling some extra stuff that I didn't want. I'm more careful about this than most people, but it was very hard to avoid the hints. I had to halt the installation a couple of times after realizing that maybe I should have been more careful on the previous screen. The place on the screen and the method of selecting the non-default path seemed to shift around from place to place in the different menus so that it would be hard to identify what I needed to do.
• I clearly indicated that I did not want the "real time" / "live" and anti-virus part of it. As you said, I thought of Ad-Aware as a simple secondary "run when you want it" program to check for unwanted installed stuff once in a while. I think that's the way it used to be, and that is what I wanted. It seemed to want to install something much different than what the program used to be.
• After installation, it had some registration menu that made it look like I had to provide personal information or go buy a product key and enter it. Only after almost giving up did I notice that it was possible to just close this menu and proceed without doing that.
• Even though I had clearly indicated that I didn't want the real-time monitoring and anti-virus features, when I checked the program after installation, I found that they had been installed and turned on. And there was now a big process running in the background for this thing.
• After noticing that, I uninstalled the program, which forced a reboot – but the computer took forever to shut down and reboot – as if the registry was now messed up. This actually happened twice – I forced a "hard reboot" the first time. I then left the PC overnight on a screen saying something like "trying to shut down" – and finally the next morning it seemed to have successfully rebooted and now could reboot reasonably quickly. I hope the program is now gone and has not left lingering effects.

This computer (my wife's) has been acting very sluggish lately and experiencing long lock-ups. I had tried to use Ad-Aware to help diagnose and fix the problem. Now I wonder whether its recent versions may have actually been causing or aggravating the problem instead of helping to fix it. Having multiple real-time tools such as anti-virus tools installed at the same time can cause problems. I have lost my trust in this program. I suppose these are unsourced comments and it is difficult to find objective third-party descriptions of such software, but I think it is worth looking to find some recent objective discussion of this program. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To follow up on my above comments, I looked for some reliable source information. I found an article at CNET by Seth Rosenblatt, entitled Ad-Aware Free Internet Security, dated August 29, 2011. I noticed that it is about version 9.5, while the current version is 9.6, so some things may have changed. Some remarks in the article confirm that the scope of the program has substantially changed ("No longer content with offering only malware protection") and says that there have been "several missteps in recent years". It now seems to review the product primarily as an anti-virus and real-time web monitoring package, whereas this is not what the program orginally was some years ago (and not what I was looking for). The user approval rating for the 9.5 version seems to be lower than the historical average for prior versions. The main complaint in the article seems to be about scans being slow (referring to "performance-based annoyances"), although that is not what bothered me personally (assuming that it is not referring to general slow-down of the PC during normal operation or boot-up, which may be an incorrect assumption). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that the above article (about version 9.5) says that the software doesn't try to install toolbars. That is no longer true for the 9.6 version. In a quick look at the LavaSoft support forum, I noticed someone from Lavasoft saying on 31 Oct 2011 that "You can indeed install Ad-Aware without installing the browser add-on - just select the appropriate options during install". That may be sort of true, but notice that he does not name the option or say exactly how to select "the appropriate options". As I described my experience above, it seemed very hard to figure out "the appropriate options" when installing this software. (And in my case it seemed to ignore at least some of my explicit instructions indicating that I did not want to use some of the "features"). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found some of what looks like pretty disturbing information. Apparently, Lavasoft software was bought out in January 2011, and the new owners don't seem to have the best reputation. Here are a few pointers to further information:

• Danny Bradbury, "Lavasoft's new owners operated misleading websites", SC Magazine, Aug. 5, 2011.
• Wikipedia Lavasoft article ("Controversies" section).
• "Solaria Fund aquires software business from Lavasoft", Jan. 18, 2011.

—BarrelProof (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In some situations Ad-Aware seems to behave like malware. It became installed on my computer without knowledge concent. It caused my MS Surface Pro 4 tablet Wifi to stop about once an hour, th error log shows that Ad-Aware caused the Kernel driver to crash. The uninstall program did not properly uninstall the software service and did not delete the installed software. CaliViking (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Free version is "not free"???

"It is not actually free; the redirect to download from LavaSoft's website to CNet requires that the downloader complete a purchase of an unrelated product from an associated marketing company. "

Um, when I downloaded it, a couple months ago, I had no such issure from CNet's Download.com, nor did I when I just tried it again now. The user is offered an option by a third party to "buy" another product or service and get a paid subscription to Ad-Aware for free. But it isnt even a pop-up window or anything. Many programs that are free offer a similar option when downloading from CNet, for their paid versions. Without adequate sourcing, and without it actually occuing the way this article describes, this page needs to be corrected for this misleading information. The free version is in fact completely free with no hidden catches. No I do not work for Lavasoft nor am I affiliated with Lavasoft in any way, aside that I have downloaded Ad-aware.Xcalibur27 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Try it now. You can download the installer file, but to run the application, you need a key. To get the key, you have to fill out a form with your name and email, and then it takes you to a dialogue where you have to buy something to get the key.

I could be misinterpreting the sequence of events but I wasn't able to get it to run without a key. It is confusing at best.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've mis-understood it I downloaded the free version recently with no trouble. At various stages they offer you paid upgrades, but you don't have to take them, and I ended up with the free version without any purchase or (as far as I remember) even registration. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify; Ad-Aware Free is completely Free and does not require any user to sign up to offers - however, Lavasoft do offer the TrialPay option for users to get the Plus version for free.

You will be asked for a key in case you have purchased one - the installer is the same for all versions. However, if you don't enter a licence code and just click close (or something similar) then you will be allowed to use the free version. I have undone your edit Erxnmedia.

FYI here is a download link Ad-Aware Free. Casey_boy @ Lavasoft Support Forums

See my detailed comments above. The web site seems to make it look like you can't get the free version, although it is actually available (but I no longer recommend using it). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement

This article is poorly written, contains no references from WP:Reliable sources and looks like a candifate for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree the article is poorly written, but this app was (and probably still is) the most popular adware removal tool for Windows. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant, I use it myself. Notability, confirmed by verifiable and reliable sources are the critieria on Wikipedia. There must surely be RS out there for this programme? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried adding some better references, what do you think? Casey boy (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section

The products in this list that have now been removed by another editor were named by PCWorld magazine in the cited article as examples of competing free anti-malware products that offer more features. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact

"With the latest free versions , Ad-Aware Pops up messages advertising promotions for it's products exiting full screen apps , even making them crash ."

Wikipedia is no AD billboard . Po pups are there , they break full screen applications and games , makes some games crash. all fact .

83.101.83.181 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a citation and make your contributions in a neutral way. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact , the popups _are there_ then break full screen apps , by making those that work windowed go windowed and makes the ones that don't crash . This is a fact , not a point of view , not an opinion . it is solid fact.

83.101.83.181 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Again , this is wikipedia , not an advert billboard. Keep your hands off my contribution.

Ad-aware spewing out ADS is ironic.

83.101.83.181 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is a problem with the new version then you should be able to find some reliable sources to that effect. This article is not the place to report bugs. ... discospinster _talk 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote : "remove unsourced claim" Adding Screeshot here: not wanting to clutter up the page:

This option cannot be disabled in the free version >> PIC << Notifications means ADS. When they broadcast the AD for the special "back to school" discount i have been getting , I will screenshot that too.

It is not a bug . It is intentional.

83.101.83.181 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a screenshot of an actual AD. PIC QED 83.101.83.181 (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Added Sources which is simply overkill IMO. Any more removal of this contribution has to be considered trolling. How more descatian do you want your explenations anyway . The only thing that doesn't need any proof of existance if the fact that you are thinking , everything else is possibly an illusion. In the thread about earth do you want references there for it being a sphere? So you can argue the instruments used are flawed? Give me a break.

83.101.83.181 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote[1]: "Much grief is saved for everybody involved just by abstaining from writing about oneself, one's company, or one's product." "Discuss the matter on the discussion page associated with the article." "Please, no online drama. However infuriating the actions or reactions of other users might be, the situation can only be made worse if tempers are allowed to flare."

So please , enough with the blanking , reverting and threats .. Thnx in advace. 83.101.83.181 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, it may benefit you to review the policy on the proper attribution and manner of citing articles found at WP:CITE. The content that you have added under the section "Irony" is challenged. Forum postings are unreliable sources and inappropriate for use as references. See WP:SPS. Additionally, the citation is attributed incorrectly. You may want to review WP:CITE#CHALLENGED and WP:VERIFY. Material that is controversial or challenged requires exceptional, reliable, publishes sources using an inline citation. You will find information on how to attribute inline citations at WP:CITE. Additionally, the manner in which you are directing other editors to stop editing this article is a violation of policy. ("Keep your hands off my contribution.") The relevant information on this policy can be found at WP:OWN. You have been warned on your talk page, but I thought to offer some direction as to why your edits are inappropriate. Nobody is here to arbitrarily slap your hands, but to encourage you to abide by the policies and guidelines established by Wikipedia. Once you review the links provided that relate to editing and citations, please feel free to ask questions for anything you do not understand. Continued editing in violation of policy is highly likely to result in a block of your account. Nobody wants that. Cindamuse (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time , Since The first time I added this , what i would call moderately interesting bit of information about ad-aware , i have added to the discussion , proving with screenshots the veracity of it . It is an undeniable fact , it has nothing to do with opinion or truth. Ad-Aware , the program that strips your computer of ad-ware and spyware , now pops up it's own ads. I found it unneededly cluttering at first to add a myriad of sources to something that is not even debatable . And it's an undeniable fact that by any dictionary's standard , a program that is made to clean our computer of ads that starts poping up ads for flowers for mothers day and back to school promotions is ironic. The reasons stated for reverting were 1 , Point of view.. Nop. this is not a point of view . 2, not ironic , It is by any definition ironic. 3, Unsourced , I have proven with screenshots that it is true. 4 Self-published sources (online and paper) Nop , The on,ly thing i have published is 1 screenshot of the grayed out part of ad-aware where the popups cannot be removed. The rest has nothing to do with me

None of the reasons stated for the blanking and reversions hold true. What is happening here is imo pure trolling and harassment. It sadens me this is happening.

How more veritable does a source have to be than having an employee of ad-aware actually say : (this quote is available from the thread the link on the article page points to) Quote :

"The messages we send to our freeware users are very infrequent, and always geared with freeware users in mind...we're not just hocking products for the heck of it." etc etc

Admitting it is taking place.

I have added screenshots , and a discussion by a whole lot of people who talk about this happening to them.

I cannot do more than that.

And yes , I would kindly ask to leave my contributions alone , thank you very much. Or give a legitimate reason.

Wanting to stay anonymous , does not make this contribution less valid or worthy.

83.101.79.248 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More souces.. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.86 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbiased vs. Balanced

I thought that it would be obvious (but apparently is not)that unbiased is not the same as balanced. If the issue, is a psychopatic murderer, an un-biased assessment might still be condemnation. An assessment & review of a well made product should be clear & unbiased in its presentation of good and bad points, not try to force an equal number or value of each. Semantics is not an easy art.
Wikidity (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

advertisement suppression

I cannot find any reference to actual "advertisement suppression", except for 'pop-ups', at Ad-Aware.com. I would expect that to be critical and criticized.
Wikidity (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If one goes back 5 or 6 years, Ad-Aware "USED" to be very effective at doing exactly this. But over time, they wanted to push out their newer versions and stopped updating the .dat file for older versions they didn't want to support anymore, and I stopped using them. Recently I've been running into a lot of websites that were just crazy with ads, and came across Ad-Aware again. Suprized they were still around, I downloaded it thinking it was going to be the same great program it used to be. They even emailed me a free 6 month Pro registration key. After a week of trying it, I uninstalled it after finding it is completely useless. They claim it blocks acess to sites on their blacklist too, but I can only assume their blacklist doesn't contain any ad sites entries, since in reality, it does no such thing and pop-ups/redirect/ads/windowspawns abound with Ad-Aware active.--98.211.145.167 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is an advertisement.

Founded neutral criticism surrounding this product gets edited out .

It can only be concluded that this is done by a dedicated team of lavasoft staff members at least. That have as job to get "higher up" in the Wikipedia hierarchy , like it is the case with a lot of subversive wikipedia users.

This article has a following of people maintaining it so it never becomes anything more than an advertisement , it is not the only blatant product advertisement of this kind.

This trend is an abhoration of what wikipedia is supposed to be.

 83.101.83.7 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why call it ad-aware?

Is it a software to be aware of advertisement?

But it is anti-virus software119.85.245.97 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ad-Aware became famous because it was effective at removing cookies and blocking efforts by on-line advertisers to track and trace web-browser activities and profiles.

More recently, Ad-Aware professional adds anti-virus tools ... but you don't need to install the anti-virus tools if all you want is cookie removal to obstruct advertisers from tracking you.

Enquire (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ad-Aware installs Google Chrome?

As is today, the last paragraph of the Overview reads:

"Ad-Aware installs Google Chrome, which will be done automatically unless the user de-selects the tick-box in the Ad-Aware installation program."

I have been using Ad-Aware for many years and have never been prompted for an install of Google Chrome. Maybe Lavasoft offered that at one time as part of the install bundle, but it I certainly didn't see it in the latest install (v9.6, released 2011-11-01).

It is quite possible that Lavasoft included a promotion for Google Chrome in its installation process in the past, with the option to also install Google Chrome (opt-in or opt-out), but it would have been possible to opt-out (as described in the quote by de-selecting that option). Remember, most users use the free version, so Lavasoft (if true) would be receiving revenue from Google to promote Google Chrome to help pay for the free users. Sometimes, these install options / 3rd party software promotions often look (at first) as required part of the installation, but if you look carefully, there is almost always a way to opt-out of the offer/promotion of 3rd party apps.

I was tempted to delete this paragraph, but defer to anyone else who knows more definitively what this is all about. Was Chrome ever an install option (if so, I suspect it was a promotion, an optional install). If so, when was that offered and when was it discontinued?

On the other hand, do we need (should we) be documenting optional 3rd party applications that are sometimes bundled as opt-in or opt-out installation add-on applications?

Enquire (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ad-Aware Antivirus

As read today, the article currently states that Ad-Aware Antivirus uses the Avira AntiVir engine. However as recently as 2011-08-29, CNET's Seth Rosenblatt wrote in his review that Ad-Aware Antivirus is powered by Sunbelt's Vipre (now owned by GFI Software).

This requires clarification. Was Seth wrong, or is the article wrong ... or did Ad-Aware either change its anti-virus OEM and/or use components of both vendor anti-malware solutions? Also, we shoud try to nail-down when these third party components were first introduced and, if they were later dropped in favour of another third-party solution, when did that happen. There is probably not a simple answer to this question, so may need some input and effort from several parties to establish the full story. Maybe Lavasoft used Avira AntiVir in the past, but switched to Sunbelt's Vipre more recently ... or some other story.

Enquire (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Ad-Aware component descriptions

There are several components to Lavasoft's Ad-Aware ... depending on which version you install ... free (freemium) or one of the premium versions. Depending on which version and the options you select during install, you may get one or more components which include (but not limited to):

(1) Ad-Aware Live!, (2) Ad-Aware Anti-Virus; &, (3) Ad-Aware Security Browser Add-On

There is currently no mention of two (relatively) new functions: Ad-Aware Live! and Ad-Aware Security Browser Add-On. Also,

It seems that this article needs some expansion to break-down and describe the various components of Ad-Aware including, of course, the anti-adware application that Lavasoft initially gained recognition for.

Enquire (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The contents of the page are far from True / complete / updated:

Please refer to: "Controversies" section of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavasoft

And the reference [6]: http://ddanchev.blogspot.no/2008/03/cybersquatting-security-vendors-for.html

Also refer to: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2738880:

The software itself is an adware now. I used it for more than 7 years, but my Firefox 17.0 was hijacked by Ad-Aware for page not found / server not found page. It showed me a page with ad. I was not notified of this change to my Firefox when I updated the Ad-Aware software after I was asked for many many times. I removed it completely afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.49.30 (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ad-Aware. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lavasoft.com/products/compare.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lavasoft which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)