TeeJay3800

MSI stands for Microsoft Installer. Download from here: http://www.opera.com/browser/next or here: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2009/07/09/snapshot

Same here. It's an intriguing project, especially being based on the Linux kernel. I'll be very interested in see what the GUI looks like.

I just did a scan with ESET Online Scanner, and was very impressed. It only took 43 minutes to do a full system scan, and (not surprisingly) didn't find any viruses. It installs as a small app that can be run outside of Internet Explorer, which is nice, but that makes it a little different than other online scanners which usually run as an ActiveX control. I'd fully recommend this to anyone looking for an on-demand scanner. As for the Kaspersky recommendation, I have no doubt it may do a more thorough scan, but I've never had a virus before, and have no desire to let my computer take overnight for a full scan. It's probably the best for finding absolutely everything among online scanners.

Sounds good! One last thing: does ESET also fix (delete/remove/whatever) the viruses it finds?

Obviously I'd like to avoid that kind of thing. Im most concerned with speed here. A "full scan" on MBAM takes 45 minutes, so something around there would be nice.

Sounds good; thanks for the explanation. Is it a decently fast scanner? The computer I'll be using it on does not have very powerful hardware (PIII 500, 256MB RAM, Windows 2000...web browsing is speedy, but not much else is )

Why in the world is it your favorite? It can't remove anything it finds, while other online scanners can...

I'm wondering what is currently considered to be the best online (web-based) virus scanner. I run Avira AntiVir on my XP machine, but am looking for the best browser-based virus scanner for my Win2000 machine (similar to Trend Micro HouseCall). What do you recommend?

Use Opera Link and you never loose anything! Just type "about:config" in the address bar and hit enter.

That may be true, but how is the test valid if some tests are done using final version software, but others are done using ALPHA software? It's well known that alpha software is in a very early stage of development, and that beta and final versions almost always offer improved performance and stability. So to compare Opera 10 ALPHA to Firefox 3.5 FINAL is very unfair.

That test is bunk. Opera 10 Beta has been out for several weeks longer than Firefox 3.5, yet they used Opera 10 Alpha for their comparison tests. I certainly wouldn't put much weight on a test done by an organization using badly outdated software.

Not to minimize your concern, but I'm not sure I'd call that about of RAM usage insane. Right now, in 10 Beta, I have two tabs open and it's using 84MB of RAM. You might want to try asking on the Opera forums at my.opera.com. It's always possible for Beta software to have memory leaks, and if so you'll want to report it there. Good luck!

You can manually add files that you want CCleaner to delete every time it runs.

I did a scan on the installer on VirSCAN, and 3 of the engines found a trojan: http://www.virscan.org/report/8374e694a4a8...449c61135f.html. (could be false positives)

Good point. I usually scan files here: http://online.us.drweb.com. I guess I don't see the point of an app like Cometbird. It seems exactly like Firefox, with only a few very minor changes.

Is this safe to be on my PC or not?? Being a "clone" of legitimate software is bothering me.

How many RCs do they need?? I feel like Ive been waiting forever for 3.5.

I just installed it. I see no difference between Cometbird and Firefox...at all. I just installed the WOT addon and it thought I was using Firefox. I didn't just willingly install spyware did I?

Opera 10 is a Beta so it does not install in the default location of a normal Opera release. It doesn't make any sense for CCleaner to support cleaning of Beta apps since it's only a temporary release. As soon as the full version 10 comes out, the cleaning for 10 Beta would be useless. You can always manually add the 10 Beta files that you want cleaned to the CCleaner include list.

On my WinXP machine I run Avira AntiVir, Outpost Firewall, SpywareBlaster, and MVPS and hpHosts hosts files. Then I do monthly scans with MBAM. However, I use my Win2000 machine quite often and only run Sygate Firewall and MVPS and hpHosts hosts files. I use Opera exclusively on that computer, so I don't have SpywareBlaster installed (although I might install it considering the comments above). I also do monthly scans with MBAM. I've never got ANY viruses or spyware on EITHER computer, despite having no active virus protection on the Win2000 machine (both are also behind my router's hardware firewall which gets a 100% on the GRC port test).

Yes, your computer only has one hosts file, but you can use entries from both sources. You're using HostsMan right? Click the update button, check the boxes for MVPS and hpHosts, make sure the "overwrite" button is check, and hit update. That will merge both hosts files together and delete the duplicate entries. If you use the "merge" option, both hosts files will be merged, but doesn't delete duplicates (leaving a LOT of them). With both files merged and duplicates deleted, there are currently 78,xxx domains blocked!

I recommend using both MVPS and hpHosts hosts files.

Opera did used to contain an advertising window, but I don't think "adware" is the best term to use. Adware is usually used to describe those pesky apps that are installed on your computer without your knowledge or permission, and cause pop-up ads and other hassles. I agree that Opera is the best browser though, with Firefox close behind.

So Firefox 3.5 has the potential to use well over a gig of RAM when running? That sucks. One of my machines has 1 GB of RAM, and the other only has 256 MB. It sounds like performance of 3.5 would suck on those machines.

Has anyone tried the new release of Auslogics Disk Defrag? I noticed in the Version History that there are a number of significant improvements in version 2.0. I used this product for a long time, but recently switched to IObit Smart Defrag because it is significantly faster and also offers "optimization" to rearrange files on the disk for faster access. If the new release of Auslogics is worth trying I will, so I was wondering if anyone has any input.