F-Prot for Dos on XP

Maebhe Ryan wrote:
> Hi,
> please forgive a possibly stupid Question. Before switching to WinXP
> I just got used to F-Prot for Dos. I think it's usefull to scan now
> and then before starting the OS.
>
> Now with WinXP I do miss this opportunity. Installing Win 98 just for
> F-Prot seems pretty sensless. Would W98 as a second OS be the only
> Way?

have you tried downloading f-prot for windows and using fpcmd? its a
commandline app that handles xp and ntfs a lot better than fprot for dos...

--
"hungry people don't stay hungry for long
they get hope from fire and smoke as the weak grow strong
hungry people don't stay hungry for long
they get hope from fire and smoke as they reach for the dawn"
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:58:32 GMT, Bill <wsblevins RemoveThis @mchsi.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:54:06 GMT, null RemoveThis @zilch.com wrote:
>
>>Did you have problems with W98?
>
>
>Perhaps he wanted a 32 bit OS.

He?

bjg
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

In article <k3e6mvgvsao1naa8hr7ganse0mgrdvkuj7.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com
says...

> >Beyond that Windows XP is significantly more stable than Win98.
>
> Who says? M$?
>

I'm running W98se and XP side by side here on two separate machines. I
like W98 more than I thought I would, but XP is definitely the more
stable and resilient to user errors, and errors caused by third party
applications. But it certainly requires a degree of 'taming' before
letting it loose on the Internet.

But don't fool your self that W98 is somehow invulnerable to outside
threats. When I acquired this machine I found nearly two hundred bits
and pieces of spyware and adware, and that was in addition to the
various traces of dialers, pop-ups and the like, that the previous owner
had been blissfully unaware of. I also know for certain that the said
owner had also suffered two serious virus infections. I know because I
helped them clear them out.

There are no completely safe computers or operating systems, but it does
help if the user takes the time and trouble to clue themselves up, and
keep up to date too.

Cheers,

Roy
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:04:00 GMT, null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

>
>No. Didn't you read the FAQ? It's the 8.3 limitation of DOS av
>scanners that can result in some files not being scanned on NT based
>systems.
>

It doesn't take long to read the faq. Which out of the 8 answers gives
the missing info?


>>I can't recall one post on this ng or elsewhere where f-prot dos has
>>supposedly failed with fat32, so unless there's some other reason for
>>frisk's remarks I think Michael's post is accurate, frisk's web page
>>is misleading, and you shouldn't take everything you read on their
>>website verbatim.
>
>I have no reason to doubt Frisk on this. He's even discussed the
>problem here in the past.

The problem, yes. Clearly he was talking about ntfs filesystems.


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

null RemoveThis @zilch.com schrieb:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:26:08 +0200, Maebhe Ryan <maebhe.ryan RemoveThis @web.de>
>
>Did you have problems with W98? Why did you switch to XP? Dump XP,
>use W98 and be done with it.

To many re-installations, . And then, I believed "THEIR"
Marketing.

That it would be:
Better, Oh- so safe, stable, allways running well...:)Hmm,
I don't think XP's worse. Feels ok. But I'm just an average
user, struggling to learn. But I call always go back to 98.

Regards,
°****°Maebhe (female)
--
Please use "Reply-To" for private messages!
Header address is valid but flooded with spam.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:37:53 -0400, Jeffrey A. Setaro
>In article <mk46mv0o3qu8cibgvtg0gkfujbuq3ho5i4.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, null.RemoveThis@zilch.com
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:26:08 +0200, Maebhe Ryan <maebhe.ryan.RemoveThis@web.de>

>> >please forgive a possibly stupid Question. Before switching to WinXP
>> >I just got used to F-Prot for Dos. I think it's usefull to scan now
>> >and then before starting the OS.

>> >Now with WinXP I do miss this opportunity. Installing Win 98 just for
>> >F-Prot seems pretty sensless. Would W98 as a second OS be the only
>> >Way?

What I do is:

1) Avoid the use of NTFS
2) Keep the DOS mode of Win98xx on HD as alternate boot

If you use FDisk (or BING, or...) to partition the HD, then DOS Mode
Format C: /S to make the HD bootable before installing XP, then XP
will preserve the DOS mode as an alternate boot (unless you break
compatibility by using NTFS - so don't).

This is much cleaner than using the whole of Win98xx as the alternate
boot, because unlike the whole of a Win98xx, the DOS mode does not
share any dirs or file names with XP (think "C:\Program Files",
C:\Windows) - so you don't need a separate partition for it.

>> Did you have problems with W98?
>I don't know anyone who hasn't problems with Win98.
Or computers in general, XP included. The frequency of problems in
either OS is low if the hardware and installation are OK.

>> Why did you switch to XP?
>Hmm... WAG... Stability?

A horribly unstable Win98 is likely to be a horribly unsatble XP, if
the underlying cause is hardware. If it's software, then a scorch and
proper software rebuild would fix either; a bad software rebuild would
fix neither, no matter whether the OS was '98 or XP.

>ROFL... Microsoft has dropped support for Win98 and it's only a matter
>of time before most ISVs follow suit. If the OP wants to be able to use
>newer applications he/she needs to migrate to a new OS.

The same will equally be true of XP. It's just a matter of when, and
the logical time to switch is when building a new PC.

>Beyond that Windows XP is significantly more stable than Win98.

This is potentially true. It's also significantly far less
maintainable, so when problems bite hard, they kill.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:38:24 GMT, null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

>Well, maybe your memory is clearer than mine. If so, I wonder why that
>isn't made clear since FAT 32 can be used.

FAT32 can be used with xp but old NT can only use old FAT (16).


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

Jeffrey A. Setaro <jasetaro.TakeThisOut@mags.net> wrote:
>
>Hmm... WAG... Stability?
>
Right, Stability was a promise mainly kept.

>ROFL... Microsoft has dropped support for Win98 and it's only a matter
>of time before most ISVs follow suit. If the OP wants to be able to use
>newer applications he/she needs to migrate to a new OS.
>
>Beyond that Windows XP is significantly more stable than Win98.

Right, though kooks like me <irony> might be able to ruin even that.
:-O But the support question was also a point.

Regards,
°****°Maebhe
--
Please use "Reply-To" for private messages!
Header address is valid but flooded with spam.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

Zvi Netiv <zvi RemoveThis @invircible.com> wrote:
>Maebhe Ryan <maebhe.ryan RemoveThis @web.de> wrote:
>
>> >Did you have problems with W98? Why did you switch to XP? Dump XP,
>> >use W98 and be done with it.
>>
>> To many re-installations, .
>
>Give XP enough time and you'll have to reinstall it as many times as other OS.
> XP's system restore, which was suppose to take care of that, became a real
>"can of worms" with the loads of new viruses and worms, and turned into a
>nuisance rather than anything else.

Well, I heard rumors referring to XP's system restore. I already had
a missing system32/config** which gave me first trouble right after
Blaster had gone rampant.
>
>> °****°Maebhe (female)
>
>I wonder what is that "fe" prefix to male!
<GGG> don't think "she-male" No I don't f'up to s.s.g

Regards,
°****°Maebhe
--
Please use "Reply-To" for private messages!
Header address is valid but flooded with spam.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On that special day, Zvi Netiv, (zvi@invircible.com) said...

OT:

> > °****°Maebhe (female)
>
> I wonder what is that "fe" prefix to male!

Anyone who is interested in Irish mythology, knows that there was once a
powerful queen with the name of Mebdh or Maeve, or similarly, which
could even use magic. She would get very upset at times, which everybody
would rather avoid, as she could become quite furious.

But she should not be mistaken for being another version of Morgaine.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Neukam.TakeThisOut@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A good, too valuable theses days, to give it away, just
so, at no cost.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

Gabriele Neukam <Gabriele.Neukam DeleteThis @t-online.de> knew:
>> > °****°Maebhe (female)
>>
>> I wonder what is that "fe" prefix to male!
>
>Anyone who is interested in Irish mythology, knows that there was once a
>powerful queen with the name of Mebdh or Maeve, or similarly, which
>could even use magic. She would get very upset at times, which everybody
>would rather avoid, as she could become quite furious.
>
>But she should not be mistaken for being another version of Morgaine.

OT: Yehaaw!!! At least a woman who knows!! Ahh, feels good. Well
Maebhe - They say, must have been quite difficult so deal with.
Her husband had quite a time

BTW: Thanks and admiration to you Gabriele for all your post & infos
on the net, they kept me alert so often. Ok - enough flattery....

Regards,
°****°Maebhe
--
Please use "Reply-To" for private messages!
Header address is valid but flooded with spam.
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:13:08 +0100, James Egan <jegan.DeleteThis@jegan.com>
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:38:24 GMT, null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:

>>Well, maybe your memory is clearer than mine. If so, I wonder why that
>>isn't made clear since FAT 32 can be used.

>FAT32 can be used with xp but old NT can only use old FAT (16).

NT 4 - FAT16 or its versions of NTFS
NT 5.0 ("Windows 2000") - FAT16, FAT32 or its version of NTFS
NT 5.1 ("Windows XP") - FAT16, FAT32 or its version of NTFS

NT 4 changed NTFS version on a particular service pack, and the newer
NT 4 would auto-convert all NTFS volumes to the newer NTFS version
(and no, the older NT verions can't read newer NTFS versions).

Do NT 5.x auto-convert NTFS volumes to their version of NTFS too?


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
 >> Stay informed about: F-Prot for Dos on XP