quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
No they don't take up valuable space. They have every right to say their opinion too about the matter, just as we have every right to defend and/or reply in their forums/blogs. Deleting that other thread was not good either for that same reason.
They do when they post stuff, quoting it as true when they don't really have a clue, as you said yourself. If I ever had myself in a respectable position like that, I would make sure that I didn't look like a complete noob by researching the thing I was talking about rather than going on generalisations given by everybody else. I also wanted the other thread to stay open as the points already covered by it will now just be reiterated in this thread (will this one get deleted then?
) As I stated earlier (may have been deleted
), MS bundles software in with their own installations and the OS even comes with "Alexa"... Should we boycott MS products because of this? No, we carry on, CHOOSING not to install things we don't want (such as during the WLM installation as someone pointed out).
If there are people out there who think it is too much effort to click "I refuse to give my support" then they deserve to have the sponsor installed. I always install the sponsor and it does not EVER bother me. I don't care if I get a few ads every so often. One day, you might just find something you want
The thing that really gets me about all of this? It's not even the users of MP!L that are complaining about this, they're happy. It's only people that don't use MP!L that seem to be complaining about a thing.
The only time I've ever seen problems with the removal of the sponsor is when someone used an "adware tool" to remove it rather than following the correct procedure, a procedure that is clearly stated on this very site I might add. I think it was an MS program that did this by the way. MS causing problems with itself again
I've seen you also post complaining that just the very fact that the installer has the adware bundled with it makes the program a "security risk" or "potentially dangerous". Installers do not launch themselves. The only things installed are what the user chooses.
I've had many different types of virii and *-ware on my PC over the past few years. Things like Look2Me and "WinAntiVirus 2000" as well as browser hijacks and right now a message has popped up for "Adware.L.ptiew.A" being found on my PC. I can safely say that I'd rather have this sponsor installed than have one of those. This LOP can't be that bad really can it if I notice those other things more
In cases such as this, people always believe they are right and there is never going to be a "agree to disagree" situation. Things will always turn out one way or another. The way this is gonna turn out is that you may challenge the idea of the sponsor program as much as you like, but the users will still WILLINGLY download the software and keep MP!L alive.
If I asked my Contact List on WLM what an MVP was, they wouldn't have a clue. If I asked them what MP!L was, they would all know that it's THE add-on for WLM. Not
an add on,
the add on. If I asked them what LOP was they wouldn't know or care for the simple fact that they will never NEED to know. There is always the case for saying that the installer could better identify what the program is and does.
As for somebody posting a log of changes to the system after installation of the sponsor program (other thread?), thats what happens during an installation of any program
I don't quite know what you were supposed to be getting at.
So MVPs, if you're truly interested in "security risks", why don't you help finish patching up all the weaknesses in Windows XP for example and possiby even safety issues in WLM itself, before needlessly attacking a reputable brand.
If any of this doesn't make sense, it's quite late and I'm tired
MenthiX, you can check my language again if you like I think it's acceptable this time
/ 
hmmmm....
