FPROT any good?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:10:21 GMT, "Noozer" <dont.spam DeleteThis @me.here> wrote:
> Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
> software?
>
I vote "good", but it should be the MS-DOS version, run under pure MS-DOS.
(Start the computer from a DOS boot disk, so Windows is totally dormant.)
That way every file gets scanned, even those that are part of windows.
This computer has NEVER copped a virus when F-PROT is around!
(touch wood)
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good? 

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:10:21 GMT, "Noozer" <dont.spam.RemoveThis@me.here> wrote:

>Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
>software?

Although it appears to finish okay, the (free) dos version won't run
properly in a winxp command window regardless of whether you have a
fat32 or a ntfs filesystem.

On the (pay) windows version it appears to run okay but does stop for
a breather on some files it finds difficult to scan. It appears to get
hung up but eventually continues.


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good? 

Hercules Smackbottom wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:10:21 GMT, "Noozer" <dont.spam RemoveThis @me.here> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
>>software?
>>
>
> I vote "good", but it should be the MS-DOS version, run under pure MS-DOS.
> (Start the computer from a DOS boot disk, so Windows is totally dormant.)
> That way every file gets scanned, even those that are part of windows.
> This computer has NEVER copped a virus when F-PROT is around!
> (touch wood)

nope...

if you can read the filesystem after booting from an msdos floppy then
f-prot for dos is fine, but if the filesystem is ntfs then f-prot for
windows is more or less required...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good? 

Noozer wrote:

> Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
> software?

bottom line - if you're looking to detect viruses then f-prot is
good... make sure you use the version that's appropriate for your
operating system, though...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good? 

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:35:54 -0500, kurt wismer <kurtw RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hercules Smackbottom wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:10:21 GMT, "Noozer" <dont.spam RemoveThis @me.here> wrote:
> >
> >>Does anyone have anything to say (good or bad) against the F-PROT Antivirus
> >>software?
> >>
> >
> > I vote "good", but it should be the MS-DOS version, run under pure MS-DOS.
> > (Start the computer from a DOS boot disk, so Windows is totally dormant.)
> > That way every file gets scanned, even those that are part of windows.
> > This computer has NEVER copped a virus when F-PROT is around!
> > (touch wood)
>
> nope...
>
> if you can read the filesystem after booting from an msdos floppy then
> f-prot for dos is fine, but if the filesystem is ntfs then f-prot for
> windows is more or less required...
>
You're absolutely right. I should have mentioned that. Sorry...
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good? 

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:26:27 -0000, bassbag said


>Im not exactly sure as i run 98.It seems different to the fprot for dos
>that i tried a year or two ago although it does use its defenitions.It
>gives the rightclcik shell ability and has a resident as well as
>ondemand scanner , plus an auto/manual updater.It also has an excluder
>folder for excluded files etc.
>me


I tried Tech-Protect out to see. Though there's not enough output
statistics to say definitively, it appears to do the business (on a
FAT32 xp home system)

What appears to happen is that tech-protect creates its own list of
(sub)directories to scan (independently of f-prot) and then applies
f-prot to the list. Whether this gets by f-prot dos's limitations I
can't say. Certainly, the list of directories shown being scanned is
all in long filenames and appears to complete okay. It shouldn't take
too much effort for a later version of tech-protect to return the
number of files scanned in addition to the number of directories
(which it does now). That would be definitive when compared to
f-prot's own numbers.


Other than that my main comment on the program would be that it needs
to occasionally yield time to the operating system. Something similar
to a vb DoEvents() function.

I didn't run it all the way through but the "clean" function seemed to
just start the scanning process again rather than feeding the results
of the "scan" function into it. Not sure why that's necessary.


Jim.
 >> Stay informed about: FPROT any good?