F-Prot

"Jafo" <a DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ejhpe15np9gshv3pt3jagj3frie88qu5lo@4ax.com...
> As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, Ghostown wrote:
>
> >"badgolferman" wrote...
> >>Richard Oliver wrote:
> >>>Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??
>
> >>F-Prot for Windows will, F-Prot for DOS won't. At first it
> >>looks like it is, but it shuts down shortly into the scan.
> >
> >Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
> >used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
> >You may have a problem on your machine.
>
> Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.
>
> --
> Jafo

Agreed. I typically dont use NTFS. If its skipping directory trees and
what not, I dont know what it might be missing, but its sure found things
many times before and gotten my butt out of a sling. )

"Ghostown" <none.DeleteThis@thistime.com> wrote in message
news:3DXHe.59985$gL1.37838@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Jafo" <a.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ejhpe15np9gshv3pt3jagj3frie88qu5lo@4ax.com...
> > As viewed from alt.comp.anti-virus, Ghostown wrote:
> >
> > >"badgolferman" wrote...
> > >>Richard Oliver wrote:
> > >>>Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??
> >
> > >>F-Prot for Windows will, F-Prot for DOS won't. At first it
> > >>looks like it is, but it shuts down shortly into the scan.
> > >
> > >Im sorry to disagree with you, but this is not true. I have
> > >used FPROT for DOS on many XP machines and never had a problem.
> > >You may have a problem on your machine.
> >
> > Depends on whether the disk is FAT32 or NTFS.
> >
> > --
> > Jafo
>
> Agreed. I typically dont use NTFS. If its skipping directory trees
and
> what not, I dont know what it might be missing, but its sure found
things
> many times before and gotten my butt out of a sling. )

The point of the discussion was to caution against trusting F-Prot for
DOS when it is running in the XP software "environment" even if FAT32 is
the file system in use instead of NTFS. It is NOT the file system (NTFS)
that makes F-Prot unreliable in that environment. Forget the side
discussion about what constitutes an "XP platform" because it is the
"environment" that the platform is currently running that matters - it
should not be XP's environment with a DOS session within.

"Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:u8bpe1t9kig0li6fnecmn9cpj08j0bve06@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "* * Chas" <dnafutz DeleteThis @aol.spam.com> wrote in message
> > > "James Egan" <jegan DeleteThis @jegan.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Actually, it does - from a DOS boot disk..... but it probably
doesn't
> > > scan correctly.
> >
> > Actually it doesn't - a boot to DOS is no longer an "XP platform"
>
> A platform isn't defined by what you boot to. Most users will call a
platform
> after the installed OS(s).

Are we to define things by what "most users" call them - looks like an
appeal to numbers. You can build upon a hardware platform by adding
software of a type that the platform supports - to build upon a software
platform, the software has to be running - otherwise it is just data in
storage. I was wrong in assuming the OP meant the XP environment.

If I have a deenergized computer with WinXP on one partition, Win98 on
another, OS/2 on a removeable harddrive, Linux on a CD in the drive
tray, and a DOS 6.22 on a boot floppy in drive 'A' then what would you
call the "platform" without knowing what program control data was in the
CMOS? What is it about a storage device that makes an OS considered
"installed" on a computer?

> > whereas a DOS window within XP would still be. Booting to DOS would
not
> > support NTFS without the driver supplied by NTFS4DOS (for scanning)
and
> > then you would need to pro version to affect any changes (write
> > capability).
>
> Wrong again. NTFS4DOS is a free full access NTFS driver for DOS, from
Datapool.
> You are confusing it with NTFSDOS from Winternals. It's the latter
that has a
> pro version, required for full access (read-write).

Right, I was confused on that issue.

"Zvi Netiv" <support.RemoveThis@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
> "Roger Wilco" <yesman.RemoveThis@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > "Zvi Netiv" <support.RemoveThis@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman.RemoveThis@yourservice.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sources I trust have mentioned here many times that F-Prot for
DOS does
> > > > not work properly on XP irrespective of which file system one
chooses
> > > > when installing XP. The OP should use F-Prot for Windows instead
as
> > > > mentioned by another poster.
> > >
> > > NTFS4DOS is a DOS driver, used to mount NTFS volumes *under DOS*.
The governing
> > > factor whether F-Prot will run properly on the platform is the OS,
*not* the
> > > target drive file system. As Frisk explained here, years ago, the
problem is
> > > with the DOS extender used.
> >
> > So, the answer to "Will F-Prot run on an XP platform ??" is still
no if
> > F-Prot for DOS and XP's DOS emulation are indicated? Using NTFS4DOS
> > indicates the user is not using XP's DOS emulator and so the "XP
> > platform" part of the question is not relevant to the answer "If you
use
> > NTFS4DOS it wil". It's like answering "Linux" to the question "What
is
> > the best AV". )
>
> Idiotic sophistry.

Does it make you feel all high and mighty to belittle other's comments?

> It depends on what you understand as an "XP platform".

A platform 'running' XP.

> A PC with only XP
> installed will be considered by most users as an XP platform, even
when switched
> off.

Anything that makes a computer malfunction will be considered a virus by
most users - so what, are we defining things by what most users think? A
deenergized computer has hardware and that can be considered a hardware
platform for the type of software that platform supports. Anything
beyond that requires an active software environment, that is the
hardware coupled with the active software (OS) becomes a platform for
software that "they" support.

> Hence, not the running OS is what makes it a "platform", the installed
> system does.
>
> I stand by my statement.

Very well, I'll just file it away with the other unique definitions you
have for things.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:44:58 -0400, "Roger Wilco"
<yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>news:5qape1llt4572qaqc4fmhf7of1qcfpg1im@4ax.com...
>> "Roger Wilco" <yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
>> > "Zvi Netiv" <support DeleteThis @replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
>> > > "Roger Wilco" <yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid> wrote:
>> > >

>Does it make you feel all high and mighty to belittle other's comments?
>
>> It depends on what you understand as an "XP platform".
>
>A platform 'running' XP.
>
>> A PC with only XP
>> installed will be considered by most users as an XP platform, even
>when switched
>> off.
>
>Anything that makes a computer malfunction will be considered a virus by
>most users - so what, are we defining things by what most users think? A
>deenergized computer has hardware and that can be considered a hardware
>platform for the type of software that platform supports. Anything
>beyond that requires an active software environment, that is the
>hardware coupled with the active software (OS) becomes a platform for
>software that "they" support.
>
>> Hence, not the running OS is what makes it a "platform", the installed
>> system does.
>>
>> I stand by my statement.
>
>Very well, I'll just file it away with the other unique definitions you
>have for things.
>

Hardware platforms: x86-risc