Spybot vs SpywareBlaster

When I use the "Immunize" function of Spybot it tells me that all
known bad products are blocked, and it adds that "If you want more
control on ActiveX protection, we recommend JavaCools SpywareBlaster".
The impression this gives is Immunize does the same thing that
SpywareBlaster does, and that the only reason to use SpywareBlaster
is if you want finer control (which we don't).

Is this impression correct? What do I gain by using SpywareBlaster
if I am not interesting in making fine distinctions, and all I want
to do is block as much as possible without breaking normal Windows
functionality?
--
John Brock
jbrock.TakeThisOut@panix.com

"madmax" <maxpro4u.TakeThisOut@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:kG9Pc.99311$fv.24183@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> John Brock wrote:
>
> > When I use the "Immunize" function of Spybot it tells me that all
> > known bad products are blocked, and it adds that "If you want more
> > control on ActiveX protection, we recommend JavaCools SpywareBlaster".
> > The impression this gives is Immunize does the same thing that
> > SpywareBlaster does, and that the only reason to use SpywareBlaster
> > is if you want finer control (which we don't).
> >
spybot & spywareblaster are different programs with different functions,
read the label on the tin for explanation & use both anyway.

"without breaking normal Windows functionality?"

If that is your aim then best not use it. If windows 'normal' functionality
was any good then you would not be using spybot would you? think about it...

....or switch to firefox