Talk:PC Tools Spyware Doctor

Non-offficial links
So, I am going to log out for now, after saying this: I think www.antispyware.ws is likely a scam and shouldn't be on here. With that said, anyone who disagrees please post if/why, thanks. Howdoesthiswo 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed a spam link of theirs again just now... Cooldude7273 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And again... but this time they saw it fit to add == level 2 headlines around their link... Cooldude7273 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet again... and made both external link headlines. (trying to blend in?) Cooldude7273 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--AntiSpywareReviews 03:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) No! In anyway www.antispyware.ws is a scam. Why you think that?. I am security software reviewer and the file offered is the official Spyware Doctor 5 trial that we place on our server and offered to the community.
 * What not link to the official one? What do you get out of hosting the file? Cooldude7273 20:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Spyware Doctor itself a spyware? If I remember correctly, it made big trouble on some workstations few years ago. It is so called Rogue software, like Spylocked and Spyware Stormer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasReboot (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not as far as I know. Cooldude7273 20:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard similar allegations before, but reliable sources documenting this is what we need. -- intgr [talk] 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a rogue product called "SpyDoctor" produced by someone else to trade off the "Spyware Doctor" name, there have been numerous other ones trying to rip off the name as well but Spyware Doctor is legit. See Spyware Warrior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.188.6 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SpyDoctor is Spyware Doctor for short. - JC Talk to me My contributions 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

'is' or 'was' popular
An unregistered user (68.59.243.164) has again changed the opening line to 'Spyware doctor WAS a popular ...'? I've changed it back to 'is'.

The same user changed:

The company was accused by some users of releasing version 5 before it was production quality.

to:

The company's credibility was greatly damaged for releasing version 5 before it was production quality.

I assume that this is also unwarranted, and have changed it back. Or does anyone know that the stronger statement is justified? Earthlyreason 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, "greatly damaged" is certainly move POV than "accused by users" -- intgr 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed "popular" entirely since it is a pretty obviously biased term with no clear cutoff or defintion.--Wafulz 13:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

October 2007?
October 2007 issue? Today we`re 21th of September...at least here.. Virenque 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? -- intgr [talk] 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I'm betting we need numbers or something to proove notability here? I'm betting this has been widely download and used. Mathiastck (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This product has been rated "Best Buys" and "Editors Choice" by major media outlets like PC Magazine and PC World multiple times. I'd say that'd notable enough. Cooldude7273 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Fascinating to see scam artists worming their way into the Wikipedia. I came across Spyware Doctor today. I smelt a rat. Downloaded the 16Meg of it saving it into my Appz\Viruses directory (I was already prejudiced). Wouldn't even install, complaining that it needed at least Windows 5.0 (sic!). NetCommando (from the defunct deltadesignuk.com) smelt a rat too and offered me to kill it. I searched the Net for more information about Spyware Doctor and found this:

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6138_102-0.html?forumID=31&threadID=231856&messageID=2393694

Interesting isn't it? So I searched some more and found version 4.1 of Spyware Doctor, that didn't think my WinME was Win3.11 or a Commodore 64 or an Altair. It installed, sneaking scrobj.dll into WINDOWS\SYSTEM, and trying to add a browser helper object to the registry (but Spybot told me and I disallowed it). It "detected 50 infections". 8 were in fact 0-byte files, all with the same date stamp: 9-11-2005 15:38:22. The rest were registry entries, most of them HKLM\SOFTWARE\XSoft100... Nothing to do with a password detector, like Spyware Doctor claims, it's just the settings of a crap cleaner. Oh never mind, you're not supposed to know that! You're supposed to be soiling your pants, fifty infections, fancy, wow!

So you rush to their site with your credit card in your hot little hand to "register" the wondrous Spyware Doctor. That'll be AU$49.95 thank you very much, and cheap at the price! And you go to the "secure checkout." Do you ever read the Terms and Conditions of Purchase?

You should in this case at least. What do you get for your $49.95?


 * 1) a licence to use the then current version of the Software...
 * 2) the right to receive support and updates for a fixed period of time ("initial term")

Er... what fixed period of time?

Well, Unless we specify a different period of time to you at the time you purchase the Software (or unless we separately agree otherwise), the initial term will be 12 months commencing from the date of purchase.

Oh, all right then, fair enough. That means you get a year of updates and technical support.

Read on, though: ''you agree to allow us to automatically extend your right to receive support and updates... by directly charging your credit card or debiting your debit card.''

Charging? How much? for an amount that is no greater than PC Tools' then current price of the Software, excluding promotional and discount pricing. In plain English: for whatever price they'll be charging, and NO discounts! Year in, year out. Exactly what that fellow drshi was describing on the c/net forum above.

Uh oh, just as I am writing this Agnitum Outpost warns me:

Spyware Doctor requesting an outgoing connection with

Remote service: HTTP(TCP:80)

Remote address: rcm-images.amazon.com

Hmmm... why would it do that? I'll allow it and see. Nothing, apparently. But since I had renamed scrobj.dll to scrobj.dlx and prevented the Good Doctor from adding a browser helper object... who knows?

And before you log off, have a look here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/282/RipOff0282765.htm

It's about Registry Mechanic. Same people, same scam. Not only is there one born every minute, there's ten willing, nay, eager to get ripped off, as we can read here. JacquesGuy (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and? Tons of corporations work like this. Including the big players like Symantec (Norton) and McAfee. Go but their product and what you are really buying is a one year subscription. Its how the industry works. Quit ya whinin. Cooldude7273 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake Fake FAKE!
A friend of mine runs a PC store and he constantly gets PC's in which need Spyware doctor removed because it is a trojan itself. Please don't let anyone be fooled by this software, it is a massive scam to get people into buying their product. Spyware doctor is very dangerous and requires a reinstall of Format and Reinstall Windows to remove. Please get this article sorted out! There is obviously a someone editing this page to make this software like its good when it really is one of the most dangerous trojans out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EwanMclean2005 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, please find a reference for it and add it to the article. No one's saying SD is perfect, but anything like that has to be properly sourced. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of typical Spyware Doctor behaviour


 * http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6132_102-0.html?forumID=32&threadID=63607&messageID=754302

EwanMclean2005 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, SD is not fake at all. I've personally used it on multiple machines for several years without any problems. It actually removed lots of infections that Ad-Aware and Spybot never even found. And certainly, finding a person on a forum who is angry at a product is not quite a reliable indicator of the product being a Trojan. Millions of people hate Windows Vista and say its spys on its users, but does that make it spyware? No. If you can find perhaps a reliable news publication rather than an angry customer saying its a trojan then maybe I will believe you, but that fact that I know you can't find a reliable publication saying that makes your claim completely false. Kinda goes against all those Editors Choice awards and what not they have won too.

Oh, and since you appear very educated on this, and your friend who runs a PC store is too, you both probably know that correlation does not imply causation. What I mean by this is that because Spyware Doctor is found on infected systems does not mean that Spyware Doctor caused the infection by any means. In fact, if you think about it, its likely that Spyware Doctor WOULD be found on an infected machine because the owner probably wanted to remove the infection. Use some logic instead of jumping to irrational conclusions my friend. Unless, I and all the major media publications, and millions of users, and huge international electronic stores are all wrong about this product. That's probably not the case. Cooldude7273 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

After much research I have discovered that it is a good piece of software, but the methods used to promote it are just WRONG! It is not right that you can not remove the trial version off your PC. I have to retract my statement earlier on, but still personally would never use the product. EwanMclean2005 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised to see this software listed in Wikipedia. It, and its automatic subscription renewal service (that deducts from credit cards and cannot be cancelled), combined with the uncontactability of staff for account closure, mean it is almost certainly a scam and borderline fraud. Many customers have to cancel their credit cards to get away from PC TOOLs. It is only a matter of time before the authorities close then down.


 * Agreed that it's morally questionable ... it's not actually illegal, and PC Tools is hardly alone in this; as mentioned in the article, several other companies (including some major players in the industry) operate under the same model. Also, the people who write the sort of crapware that Spyware Doctor is designed to remove: do you think they're sitting around going "Okay, we're going to defraud people of their money with our fake software that does nothing, but we can't use some other product's name because that would be wrong"? It wouldn't surprise me if there's malware out there mislabeled as "spyware doctor" in a deliberate attempt to fool people into thinking it's the legitimate program. 174.65.175.154 (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

licences
Just a note of scepticism relating to the suggestion that the starter edition has a smaller definition library. I just scanned an old computer with the the free scan-only version, uninstalled it and then installed the starter version and and both reported 61 threats of various threat levels and types. Pssible of course that the full version has a larger definition file sstill, but that seems illogical, countering the whole point of a scan-only teaser. Looking forward to that reference! Seblopedia (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

2-spyware link-up
I got spdoc.exe spyware doctor from 2-spyware as their recommended removal tool for an antispy safeguard infection. Neither the website nor the software made a big point of one needing to pay for a license before it actually removes any infections. Instead it scans the computer, finds a ton of 'infections' that include any old tracking cookies, then demands credit card details for a sign-up. This is extraordinarily bad faith on the part of both 2-spyware and spyware doctor, and anyone who actually enters their credit card details on an infected machine is being trained in doing precisely the thing that will lead to them being ripped off in future, as well as potentially exposing their data to any active infections. Nice. 90.194.30.148 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Major quality issues with article
Added a few tags to denote POV and Tone issues. The entire article is written like an ad for Spyware Doctor, except a few statements that are flatly against it. The article may need a re-wright to fix the POV from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.96.71 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: The citation under the "License" section does not mention Spyware Doctor; so this doesn't really count as verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.96.71 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)