Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pxxb1" data-source="post: 950392" data-attributes="member: 69270">But that neither you or Unchecky can asure anyone 100% safety is a given for anyone who understands a little about this matter and that is why i wonder about your method, your alternative way. It seems cumbersome. You still have not answered my question fully as to why this method instead of a much simpler one. Hence my question: Why not all? A question that got even more valid based on your answer above. If it is the same, why not all, which it could be with the Unchecky method. Now you have limited the programs usage with this way, and therefore potential buyers/donators.Anyway, uninstallers leave a lot of leftovers so with a really good uninstaller that monitors i think your program will be interesting for a broader public. It would also then be able to uninstall, FULLY, a &quot;slip by&quot; of an ad-ware, for later manual installation of the same.Good luck!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pxxb1, post: 950392, member: 69270"] But that neither you or Unchecky can asure anyone 100% safety is a given for anyone who understands a little about this matter and that is why i wonder about your method, your alternative way. It seems cumbersome. You still have not answered my question fully as to why this method instead of a much simpler one. Hence my question: Why not all? A question that got even more valid based on your answer above. If it is the same, why not all, which it could be with the Unchecky method. Now you have limited the programs usage with this way, and therefore potential buyers/donators. Anyway, uninstallers leave a lot of leftovers so with a really good uninstaller that monitors i think your program will be interesting for a broader public. It would also then be able to uninstall, FULLY, a "slip by" of an ad-ware, for later manual installation of the same. Good luck! [/QUOTE]

Verification