f-prot/fp-up

  • Thread starter Thread starter bifocals
  • Start date Start date
B

bifocals

does anyone know how to make fp-up downloader etc. and f-prot[dos ver] run
on win xp pro pc.
 
does anyone know how to make fp-up downloader etc. and f-prot[dos ver] run
on win xp pro pc.
Click to expand...

F-Prot for DOS is not suitable for any NT based OS. Use it only on Win
9X/ME or DOS. NT based OS, particularly the majority which use the
NTFS file system, do not have a alternate maintenance OS such as DOS.
There have been some who claim that DOS av scanners work ok on Win 2K
and XP if the file system is FAT32, but F-Prot is not specified for
use on these OS in any event. The use of NTFS DOS Pro to supply the
needed driver support for DOS av scanners has also been reported to be
a "iffy" proposition. It's best to just forget it.

One partial solution for malware problems on NT based OS is the use of
Safe mode with command prompt only. This allows for the use of the
internet and GUI version av scanners .... and is often sufficient for
removal of many modern malwares.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Fixed top post >>
Steven Burn said:
does anyone know how to make fp-up downloader etc. and f-prot[dos ver] run
on win xp pro pc.
Click to expand...
F-Prot for DOS will run on Windows XP Pro ONLY if you use a 98 boot diskette
to get into DOS.
Click to expand...
Actually this will only work if you have your drives set up as FAT32 drives
and not NTFS drives.
HK
 
F-Prot for DOS is not suitable for any NT based OS. Use it only on Win
9X/ME or DOS. NT based OS, particularly the majority which use the
NTFS file system, do not have a alternate maintenance OS such as DOS.
There have been some who claim that DOS av scanners work ok on Win 2K
and XP if the file system is FAT32, but F-Prot is not specified for
use on these OS in any event. The use of NTFS DOS Pro to supply the
needed driver support for DOS av scanners has also been reported to be
a "iffy" proposition. It's best to just forget it.

One partial solution for malware problems on NT based OS is the use of
Safe mode with command prompt only. This allows for the use of the
internet and GUI version av scanners .... and is often sufficient for
removal of many modern malwares.
Click to expand...

Good reasons not to use the NTFS file system IMO.

Even when I switch to Windows 2000 and/or XP from Win98 shortly, I
will retain my FAT32 partitions, because I can use them with Linux
safely, and I don't have to worry about NTFS incompatibilities with
everything under the sun.

There is nothing in NTFS that seems worth the hassle. Journaling is
nice (Linux ext3 and Reiser filesystems have it), but a proprietary
journaling system is bad news.
 
Well, I don't know what made you think that. I have been using F-Prot for
DOS for some years on Windows NT 4.0 without any problems. It has caught
many email viruses that my other AV program missed. My file system is NTFS.
I believe that programs don't read file systems - the OS does.
F-Prot will not read an NTFS partition if used from a DOS one (and under
DOS), because DOS can't read it.
Good reasons not to use the NTFS file system IMO.

Even when I switch to Windows 2000 and/or XP from Win98 shortly, I
will retain my FAT32 partitions, because I can use them with Linux
safely, and I don't have to worry about NTFS incompatibilities with
everything under the sun.

There is nothing in NTFS that seems worth the hassle. Journaling is
nice (Linux ext3 and Reiser filesystems have it), but a proprietary
journaling system is bad news.
Click to expand...

Well, NTFS is better, despite its large MFT reserved space, because you can
set security separately per files or folders. Apart from that, it is also
case sensitive (although Windows isn't).
Linux is another choice, once I manage to connect it to the Internet :-(

Helen
 
Well, I don't know what made you think that.
Click to expand...

Endless discussions by technical people on the virus lists. Also,
Frisk's (the author of F-Prot) recommendations and specifications.
Look at the FSI web site and you'll see that F-Prot DOS isn't
specified for use on NT based OS.
have been using F-Prot for
DOS for some years on Windows NT 4.0 without any problems. It has caught
many email viruses that my other AV program missed. My file system is NTFS.
Click to expand...

You've been lucky because it's unreliable.
I believe that programs don't read file systems - the OS does.
Click to expand...

Running the DOS program in Windows may give the appearance that the
scanner is working since the OS supplies the requiste NTFS drivers, as
it were. But there are scanner issues such as max path lengths, etc,
inherited by the DOS based design of the scanner. Frisk hasn't changed
the design of F-Prot DOS in years, and he doesn't plan to since his
business is mainly in GUI version scanners ... which is what you
should be using.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Endless discussions by technical people on the virus lists. Also,
Frisk's (the author of F-Prot) recommendations and specifications.
Look at the FSI web site and you'll see that F-Prot DOS isn't
specified for use on NT based OS.


You've been lucky because it's unreliable.


Running the DOS program in Windows may give the appearance that the
scanner is working since the OS supplies the requiste NTFS drivers, as
it were. But there are scanner issues such as max path lengths, etc,
inherited by the DOS based design of the scanner. Frisk hasn't changed
the design of F-Prot DOS in years, and he doesn't plan to since his
business is mainly in GUI version scanners ... which is what you
should be using.

Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Click to expand...

Hello Art:
2 weeks ago, I sent a email to you regarding a F-Prot error message. No
answer, posted on the alt.comp.anti-virus ng, was told to go to F-Prot,
I did, they said they will respond, no answer to date.

Can I contact you again on it?

Mike Sa
 
Well, NTFS is better, despite its large MFT reserved space, because you can
set security separately per files or folders. Apart from that, it is also
case sensitive (although Windows isn't).
Click to expand...

Yes, the NTFS security features are nice if you have multiple users -
and to some degree, even for a single user since you can protect
system files with administrator privileges. UNIX/Linux of course has
had this stuff for years. Now Linux has Access Control Lists as well.

But for a single user who wants to dual boot I don't think it
outweighs the problems of being a proprietary file system that nobody
else can read. It's just another method of "lock-in".
 
Back
Top