Shavlik's site for Updates

Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.

I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.

I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.

"<*(((><" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
> alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
> for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>
> I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>
> I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>
>
Hi Fishy
I am a basic coward - never heard of that site - but would rather take my
chances with MS - despite the bloody problems that have been caused again on
another Black Tuesday - at least there are a number of great 'helpers' here
if you get into trouble. I f Shavlik goes ape-shxt what are you going to do
about it?
Antioch

From: "antioch" <>

| Hi Fishy
| I am a basic coward - never heard of that site - but would rather take my
| chances with MS - despite the bloody problems that have been caused again on
| another Black Tuesday - at least there are a number of great 'helpers' here
| if you get into trouble. I f Shavlik goes ape-shxt what are you going to do
| about it?
| Antioch
|


Which kis GOOD Safe Hex practice !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit expensive,
but works very well.

"<*(((><" wrote:

> Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
> alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
> for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>
> I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>
> I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>
>
>

I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far I've
seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network with
five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer it
seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that. The
spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds but
not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for yourself
whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)


Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
> I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit expensive,
> but works very well.

> "<*(((><" wrote:

> > Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
> > alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
> > for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
> >
> > I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
> >
> > I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.

--
Gary L. Smith
Columbus, Ohio

I have been using the free NetChk Protect and have had no problems with
it. It could be an intimidating interface to some but it is very easy to
use. And it may be a little overkill and I don't use the spyware scans
they have. It does find and install the MS updates for you as well as
most other major program updates like adobe acrobat reader etc.

Since I havn't been able to use MS Update I have had no choice anyways
because it won't work on my machine after every suggestion everyone had
to fix MS Update.

Chuck


Gary Smith wrote:
> I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far I've
> seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network with
> five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer it
> seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that. The
> spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds but
> not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for yourself
> whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)
>
>
> Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
>> I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit expensive,
>> but works very well.
>
>> "<*(((><" wrote:
>
>>> Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
>>> alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
>>> for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>>>
>>> I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>>>
>>> I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>

hmmm, I wonder where you found out, that this software is a free product.
I've registered me and in the following mail is clearly said, that this is a
trial version only.

Where did you found the free product?

Greets...

"Gary Smith" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:%...
> I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far I've
> seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network with
> five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer it
> seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that. The
> spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds but
> not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for yourself
> whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)
>
>
> Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
>> I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit
>> expensive,
>> but works very well.
>
>> "<*(((><" wrote:
>
>> > Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
>> > alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
>> > for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>> >
>> > I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>> >
>> > I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>
> --
> Gary L. Smith
> Columbus, Ohio

This is a bit long, but it explains what Shavlik's NetChk windows
updater is, how I found it, etc.

I found the Shavlik site after reading a release from Brian
Livingston's Windows Secrets Newsletter, Issue 79, dated 2006-07-13.
You can find it at WindowsSecrets.com. He reviews MS patches as they
are released, compiled information regarding their reliability and/or
any problems, and posts his findings in easy to understand language.

Shavlik was the one who developed the Baseline Analyzer that MS uses.
Shavlik has just changed his NetChk products so that it is FREE for
ordinary users like me. If you've got a single, stand-alone computer
or a small network, you can use some of his offerings simply by
registereing.

Basically, NetChk products seem to be designed for patch deployment in
a corporate environment. Like MSUpdates, the NetChk scans and reports
the updates that are needed. The user can select whether to have
NetChk install those patches or not. There is also an option for
NetChk to check for patches on other commonly used programs, lilke
Adobe.

There is no WGA foro the Shavlik site; no authentication to prove
you're not a thief, no spyware to report back to MS.

I'm still evaluating and deciding whether to try NetChk by Shavlik.

I have found Brian Livingston's newsletters to be helpful. When there
is a batch patch release, he reports it quickly. That way, I have
been able to avoid problems causesd by bad MS Updates. I got stung a
couple of times before I learned that I had to check the updates and
not just trust them. :-(

This is too long. Sorry.

<*(((><



On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:31:54 +0200, "Pipeline"
<> wrote:

>hmmm, I wonder where you found out, that this software is a free product.
>I've registered me and in the following mail is clearly said, that this is a
>trial version only.
>
>Where did you found the free product?
>
>Greets...
>
>"Gary Smith" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:%...
>> I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far I've
>> seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network with
>> five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer it
>> seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that. The
>> spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds but
>> not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for yourself
>> whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
>>> I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit
>>> expensive,
>>> but works very well.
>>
>>> "<*(((><" wrote:
>>
>>> > Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
>>> > alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
>>> > for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>>> >
>>> > I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>>
>> --
>> Gary L. Smith
>> Columbus, Ohio

Good Morning!

Thank you for this detailed explanation.
So I think for my planed envirioment (company with about 150 PCs) the
product won't be free.

Best regards

"<*(((><" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:...
> This is a bit long, but it explains what Shavlik's NetChk windows
> updater is, how I found it, etc.
>
> I found the Shavlik site after reading a release from Brian
> Livingston's Windows Secrets Newsletter, Issue 79, dated 2006-07-13.
> You can find it at WindowsSecrets.com. He reviews MS patches as they
> are released, compiled information regarding their reliability and/or
> any problems, and posts his findings in easy to understand language.
>
> Shavlik was the one who developed the Baseline Analyzer that MS uses.
> Shavlik has just changed his NetChk products so that it is FREE for
> ordinary users like me. If you've got a single, stand-alone computer
> or a small network, you can use some of his offerings simply by
> registereing.
>
> Basically, NetChk products seem to be designed for patch deployment in
> a corporate environment. Like MSUpdates, the NetChk scans and reports
> the updates that are needed. The user can select whether to have
> NetChk install those patches or not. There is also an option for
> NetChk to check for patches on other commonly used programs, lilke
> Adobe.
>
> There is no WGA foro the Shavlik site; no authentication to prove
> you're not a thief, no spyware to report back to MS.
>
> I'm still evaluating and deciding whether to try NetChk by Shavlik.
>
> I have found Brian Livingston's newsletters to be helpful. When there
> is a batch patch release, he reports it quickly. That way, I have
> been able to avoid problems causesd by bad MS Updates. I got stung a
> couple of times before I learned that I had to check the updates and
> not just trust them. :-(
>
> This is too long. Sorry.
>
> <*(((><
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:31:54 +0200, "Pipeline"
> <> wrote:
>
>>hmmm, I wonder where you found out, that this software is a free product.
>>I've registered me and in the following mail is clearly said, that this is
>>a
>>trial version only.
>>
>>Where did you found the free product?
>>
>>Greets...
>>
>>"Gary Smith" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:%.. .
>>> I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far
>>> I've
>>> seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network
>>> with
>>> five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer
>>> it
>>> seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that.
>>> The
>>> spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds
>>> but
>>> not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for
>>> yourself
>>> whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
>>>> I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit
>>>> expensive,
>>>> but works very well.
>>>
>>>> "<*(((><" wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be
>>>> > an
>>>> > alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
>>>> > for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary L. Smith
>>> Columbus, Ohio
>

I am running a webserver network of over 1000 machines. It has proven to be
helpful in my situation. For that few machines, I would recommend the default
pre installed microsoft tools... Possibly a WSUS server.
I am using Hauri VI_Robot for AV, it actually does wonders for spyware and
malware as well..
I tried Pest patrol for a good while, and it worked well. May be another
alternative for you.

"Gary Smith" wrote:

> I'm currently looking at NetChk Protect, their free product. So far I've
> seen more drawbacks than advantages. If you're supporting a network with
> five or more machines it might be a good thing, but for three or fewer it
> seems to be gross overkill, and not particularly easy to use at that. The
> spyware scanner seems to be particularly bad, reporting what it finds but
> not where, so you have no opportunity to review and determine for yourself
> whether the hits are false positives. (They probably are.)
>
>
> Nicholas Claunch <Nicholas > wrote:
> > I have used HFNetChk pro, and found it to be very useful. Is a bit expensive,
> > but works very well.
>
> > "<*(((><" wrote:
>
> > > Has anybody tried the software at Shavlik.com? It's supposed to be an
> > > alternative to Windows Update. You can have Shavlik's program scan
> > > for needed updates, and have them downloaded and installed.
> > >
> > > I'd like some input on how good this alternative is.
> > >
> > > I'm not too happy with what MS has done with the WGA stuff.
>
> --
> Gary L. Smith
> Columbus, Ohio
>