A new version of SUPERAntiSpyware 5.7 was released about 10 days back. I found time today to see what is new with this version? Is it better than its previous avatars?
Having used SuperAntiSpyware, the free version, for several years (has it been that long?), My expectations were high that there would be something new, swift and safer in the latest version. Did the latest release - SuperAntiSpyware 5.7 - live up to it?
At first look, the latest version, 5.7 of SuperAntiSpyware appears as though it has nothing but a slicker version of GUI slapped on the earlier version. The new GUI is more slicker and user friendly. Unlike earlier versions, where we have to move around to find the preferences button, the renamed ‘System Tools and Program Settings’ button is right under the ‘Scan your Computer’ button.
Clicking the former brings up a new ‘dashboard’ with many configuration options - including the old ‘Preferences’ button - and tools - with the new ‘Unwanted Programs’ removal feature. Intrigued, I clicked the PUP removal button, and it was startling to see the SuperAntiSpyware listing Zoom Downloader infection on one of the browsers.
A check on the browsers did not reveal Zoom Downloader. Quickly firing up the trusted IOBit Uninstaller I could not find any references to the irritant extension. The recently installed and under review System Mechanic Free too did not scream anything. Frustrated, I fired up the CCleaner and found no sign of Zoom Downloader.
By going back to SuperAntiSpyware 5.7, found it is now claiming Two unwanted programs - the 2nd one being IOBit Uninstaller. A ‘Scan your Computer’ by SuperAntiSpyware itself brought up several tracking cookies but nothing about the extension.
Scratching my head - to be polite - I decided to click on the ‘uninstall’ button and remove both of them.
Was there a Zoom Downloader infection?
Was that a false positive?
I do not know. But what I do know is not blindly trust the new features of SuperAntiSpyware 5.7..
IceRocket Tags: superantispyware
Having used SuperAntiSpyware, the free version, for several years (has it been that long?), My expectations were high that there would be something new, swift and safer in the latest version. Did the latest release - SuperAntiSpyware 5.7 - live up to it?
At first look, the latest version, 5.7 of SuperAntiSpyware appears as though it has nothing but a slicker version of GUI slapped on the earlier version. The new GUI is more slicker and user friendly. Unlike earlier versions, where we have to move around to find the preferences button, the renamed ‘System Tools and Program Settings’ button is right under the ‘Scan your Computer’ button.
Clicking the former brings up a new ‘dashboard’ with many configuration options - including the old ‘Preferences’ button - and tools - with the new ‘Unwanted Programs’ removal feature. Intrigued, I clicked the PUP removal button, and it was startling to see the SuperAntiSpyware listing Zoom Downloader infection on one of the browsers.
A check on the browsers did not reveal Zoom Downloader. Quickly firing up the trusted IOBit Uninstaller I could not find any references to the irritant extension. The recently installed and under review System Mechanic Free too did not scream anything. Frustrated, I fired up the CCleaner and found no sign of Zoom Downloader.
By going back to SuperAntiSpyware 5.7, found it is now claiming Two unwanted programs - the 2nd one being IOBit Uninstaller. A ‘Scan your Computer’ by SuperAntiSpyware itself brought up several tracking cookies but nothing about the extension.
Scratching my head - to be polite - I decided to click on the ‘uninstall’ button and remove both of them.
Was there a Zoom Downloader infection?
Was that a false positive?
I do not know. But what I do know is not blindly trust the new features of SuperAntiSpyware 5.7..
IceRocket Tags: superantispyware
If you knew history well( which as you mention you don't) you would be surprised how well Chennamma and Jijabai could get along if they ever met (or atleast would try to diplomatically get along). The main reason being and one which is never mentioned surprisingly is that Chennamma's husband was king Mallasarja Desai, a Maratha Chief belonging to the Gharge Desai house of Maratha royalty. So, while Chennamma was the daughter of a wealthy Kannada Lingayat merchant, she was also the daughter-in-law of a Maratha royal house. So, unlike what modern Marathi and Kannada regional jingoist would have you believe, there is a historical link between the two women.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the historical tidbit. But your contention that just being born in (or married into) one caste/community/religion would make people get along, have same beliefs and ideology or have same goals, is questionable, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIn earlier days we have had brothers killing each other, sons committing regicide and Jai Chands betraying his own countrymen (or was that his own caste/community people?).
If what you say was true, then Raja Ambi of Taxila should have aligned with Porus instead of with Alexander.
Be that it may, I surely agree with your last line "modern Marathi and Kannada regional jingoist" --> and would add 'Tamil' jingoists too to that.
I agree with you that they need not necessarily get along. I didn't mean to sound as though "they should get along simply because of their caste identities". My goal was to state that the way they are exaggerated( or understated) as linguistic icons has nothing to do with actual history.
ReplyDeleteFirstly what people need to know is Chennamma wouldn't qualify as an exact queen. She was the wife of a powerful Desai( Deshmukh equivalent, above a Patil and below a Raja in Deccan). Whatever relative autonomy he enjoyed would be the result of the ensuing chaos after the 3rd Anglo-Maratha war. The size of the kittur principality would be equivalent to half a Taluka (Tehsil, a sub-district unit) of Modern India. I agree she was a brave woman. But, her fight was a personal one and not of much gain to Kannada/ Marathi commoners per se. She was fighting to maintain her family Desaidom( which the British were trying to eradicate as unnecessary middle men in territories directly under Company rule). There were tens of Desai rulers in and around Goa( which included NW Karnataka and SW Maharashtra). One can at max safely assume Mysore Wodeyars to probably represent a substantial part of Kannada territory but not Kittur.
Similarly, Jijabai's fight through her son Shivaji was against the relgious persecution of Non-Muslims (aristocracy and plebeians alike) in the Deccan Sultanates and Mughal empire and not primarily for Marathi Identity.
I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression that the 2 great women should be viewed through Caste lens. All I intended to say was that they( and their acts) should be seen through the lens of "Power politics" and not "Linguistic Bigotry" of our country's State Governments( which for some reason is acceptable within the secular identity of our countries politics).
Well said. I couldn't have put it better, though I would have been more circumspect in criticism of their 'exaggerated' role by present day short-sighted politicians and chauvinists ;-)
ReplyDeleteViewed in that angle, many of the various 'independence' struggles in India were of similar nature. If the British had let them be, perhaps the rebels would have stayed quiet. They as such were not thinking of the whole of India (or even their states as we know), but were fighting for more personal reasons.
In that respect 1857 Sepoy Mutiny rightly seems to have the claim for the 1st Struggle for Independence - for it was more 'republican' in nature than any other struggle preceding it. But even that struggle was geographically restricted to the Central and Eastern India rather than whole of the nation as we know it. Another problem was the essentially 'republican' uprising took a 'Monarchical' turn when the mutineers beseeched Bahadur Shah Zafar to assume leadership. :-)
History of India has so many intrigues, comparable or even surpassing those of the European Royal Houses. Too bad we aren't taught History much more in deep.
Cheers and a Happy New Year to you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete