Comments on: Hawt or Nawt: Browzar

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:08:02 +0000

Thanks for the update and maikng me aware before I did anything with this “crap in sheeps clothing”.

By: Maigh

Maigh — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:28:40 +0000

Right-o, I intended for it to the perma link: *real linkage* which says (in part)

Contrary to earlier coverage, Browzar appears to be nothing but a simple shell to IE which forces Overture ads on its own users. The creators didn’t write a cache or history function, calling this a feature, and users are unable to change the search function or home page to anything other than Browzar ad results. Furthermore, some users are complaining that URL auto-complete is not working properly and also redirects to the Browzar home page, with ads, when it shouldn’t. Wev2.0log concludes by saying “There was time when badware developers tried to install ad pages as homepage or searchpage in user’s IE by any possible means. Nowadays users install adware voluntarily and write news about it. True web2.0 style!” Make your own decision on Browzar if you like, just make sure you know what it is you are downloading before you pull the trigger. Browzar This entry was posted on Friday, September 1st, 2006 at 7:33 pm and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:24:47 +0000

Browzar is getting widely panned by just about everyone now. It’s actually just a wrapper for IE and forces the search to an Overture engine which is why you weren’t getting your desired ranking. Even worse, it doesn’t really work as advertised as many of the local files it claims to delete or not store are still recoverable.
I know you put up that NAWT! comment and vague link, but it’s kind of buried and Browzar still almost looks like it’s being endorsed to the casual observer. I certainly don’t intend to tell you how to run your blog, but if you think this thing is a piece of poo, like I think you discovered, you might make that more obvious to your loyal readers. Here’s another link http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/3380?source=NLT_AM&nlid=1
that has several different takes on the thing.

By: Maigh

Maigh — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:24:27 +0000

Con't - conclusion: NAWT! See related article on http://www.techcrunch.com/

By: Maigh

Maigh — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:07:57 +0000

So bogus.