Antivirus for win98

Full-quoter and Top-Poaster Peter Foldes top-poasted:

Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be
a Troll

I'm having (or trying to have) a technical discussion regarding windows
98 and the use of IE6 rollups from Microsoft. I don't believe that
trolls normally discuss such things.

And you obviously don't have the balls or the knowledge to participate
in the discussion, other than to make a klownish entrance and make a
childish comment and then retreat, as you no doubt will do in this case
as you have done in the past.

Peter ........
98 Guy
is a Troll
Eating on you!

"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
...
98 Guy

Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does
anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune
from the present hacks being used?

Because:

a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching
vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug
fixes might result in a more stable operating system.

b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on
win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute
correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware.

c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new
vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd
have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any
update from Microsoft under any condition.

For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the
idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98
system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these
days,
there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs
to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average
win-98 user does, it should always be
pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98
"support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98
updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these
win-2k files and their operability on win-98.

They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98
enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated
into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same
people that you point to for other useful resources relating
to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to
point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered
your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for
win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was
never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence"
purporting to show unresolved
dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have
never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent
normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding
of your dependency-walker observations.

Peter ........
98 Guy
is a Troll
Eating on you!

"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
...
98 Guy

Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does
anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune
from the present hacks being used?

Because:

a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching
vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug
fixes might result in a more stable operating system.

b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on
win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute
correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware.

c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new
vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd
have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any
update from Microsoft under any condition.

For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the
idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98
system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these
days,
there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs
to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average
win-98 user does, it should always be
pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98
"support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98
updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these
win-2k files and their operability on win-98.

They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98
enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated
into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same
people that you point to for other useful resources relating
to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to
point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered
your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for
win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was
never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence"
purporting to show unresolved
dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have
never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent
normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding
of your dependency-walker observations.

In message , Question
writes:
Rasta Robert wrote in
:

AVG now has a freware virus scan and rescue live CD / USB
stick system, which can be useful for PCs with windows 98.

http://www.avg.com/us-en/226386


Is there any inherent advantage or disadvantage or scanning for viruses
with a separte system?

If the above is truly a "live" system, i. e. bootable, then the
advantage is that it can run independently of _anything_ - including the
(possibly corrupted) OS - on the system being scanned. That is, assuming
you are _sure_ (from BIOS settings and so on) that the system in
question is truly _booting_ from the whatever. (I'd also be inclined to
say the CD version is more likely to be safe as it can't be written to.)

Disadvantage - I can't really think of any, other than false sense of
security (never have that, whatever scanning method you use!), and
having to get used to a different user interface while using it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. 27 years experience in the electronics industry - seeking
employment (also computer, tester, trainer ...); email for details: CV at
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/CV2010-3.pdf !

Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to
understand.

In message , Question
writes:
Rasta Robert wrote in
:

AVG now has a freware virus scan and rescue live CD / USB
stick system, which can be useful for PCs with windows 98.

http://www.avg.com/us-en/226386


Is there any inherent advantage or disadvantage or scanning for viruses
with a separte system?

If the above is truly a "live" system, i. e. bootable, then the
advantage is that it can run independently of _anything_ - including the
(possibly corrupted) OS - on the system being scanned. That is, assuming
you are _sure_ (from BIOS settings and so on) that the system in
question is truly _booting_ from the whatever. (I'd also be inclined to
say the CD version is more likely to be safe as it can't be written to.)

Disadvantage - I can't really think of any, other than false sense of
security (never have that, whatever scanning method you use!), and
having to get used to a different user interface while using it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. 27 years experience in the electronics industry - seeking
employment (also computer, tester, trainer ...); email for details: CV at
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/CV2010-3.pdf !

Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to
understand.

On 2010-04-09, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Question
writes:
Rasta Robert wrote in
:

AVG now has a freware virus scan and rescue live CD / USB
stick system, which can be useful for PCs with windows 98.

http://www.avg.com/us-en/226386


Is there any inherent advantage or disadvantage or scanning for viruses
with a separte system?

If the above is truly a "live" system, i. e. bootable, then the
advantage is that it can run independently of _anything_ - including the
(possibly corrupted) OS - on the system being scanned. That is, assuming
you are _sure_ (from BIOS settings and so on) that the system in
question is truly _booting_ from the whatever. (I'd also be inclined to
say the CD version is more likely to be safe as it can't be written to.)


The AVG Rescue Linux CD/USBkey system is indeed a small bootable
live linux system with busybox, midnight commander, AVG antivirus,
and some recovery/repair tools.
So it is equivalent to putting the disk into another system to scan
it.
The windows system it'll be scanning isn't running when the computer
is booted up from the live CD/USBstick.

Disadvantage - I can't really think of any, other than false sense of
security (never have that, whatever scanning method you use!), and
having to get used to a different user interface while using it.

Basic functions like updating virus definitions and scanning are run
from a simple text menu system.

--
http://rr.www.cistron.nl/ -!- http://www.rr.dds.nl/
http://www.dread.demon.nl/

On 2010-04-09, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Question
writes:
Rasta Robert wrote in
:

AVG now has a freware virus scan and rescue live CD / USB
stick system, which can be useful for PCs with windows 98.

http://www.avg.com/us-en/226386


Is there any inherent advantage or disadvantage or scanning for viruses
with a separte system?

If the above is truly a "live" system, i. e. bootable, then the
advantage is that it can run independently of _anything_ - including the
(possibly corrupted) OS - on the system being scanned. That is, assuming
you are _sure_ (from BIOS settings and so on) that the system in
question is truly _booting_ from the whatever. (I'd also be inclined to
say the CD version is more likely to be safe as it can't be written to.)


The AVG Rescue Linux CD/USBkey system is indeed a small bootable
live linux system with busybox, midnight commander, AVG antivirus,
and some recovery/repair tools.
So it is equivalent to putting the disk into another system to scan
it.
The windows system it'll be scanning isn't running when the computer
is booted up from the live CD/USBstick.

Disadvantage - I can't really think of any, other than false sense of
security (never have that, whatever scanning method you use!), and
having to get used to a different user interface while using it.

Basic functions like updating virus definitions and scanning are run
from a simple text menu system.

--
http://rr.www.cistron.nl/ -!- http://www.rr.dds.nl/
http://www.dread.demon.nl/

"PCR" wrote in message
...

Someone here who comunicated with them said the definitions will no
longer be supplied after January 1, 2011 -- which date also shows up as
the "updates expiration" date shown in avast!'s About box in the
Registration Key section. (Normally, when the registration key expires,
one just clicks for a new one.) However the program suposedly continues
to function with the last updates taken. I'll personally start to get
worried around October or so!

Avast Home Edition 4.8.1229.80723 -
http://download.cnet.com/Avast-Home-...-10867956.html

Be sure to click the small "Download" button in the page body, NOT the
unrelated download in the ad at the top.


Hello:

I think that you were referring to my earlier post relaying the response
below that I received from Avast tech support on March 4, 2010.

Also, while CNET Download.com has the older 1229 build of v4.8, you can
download the last build of v4.8 - which is 1368 IIRC - directly from the
Avast web site at: http://www.avast.com/free-antivirus-download#tab4 and
look at the lower section of the page for "avast! 4.8 Home Edition (old
product)". The older build 1229 should update to build 1368 when you perform
an update, but you'll save yourself a bit of download and install time by
starting with build 1368. IIRC build 1368 was issued in late 2009 and was to
be the final build of v4.8.

Cheers,
Jerry

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,

..... We will be updating avast! 4.8 virus definitions till end of 2010, but
we do not plan to release any further program update for avast! 4.8.

Best regards,
Jakub Vanous
ALWIL Software a.s.

Ticket Details
===================
Ticket ID: ZFU-618246
Department: [ENG] Technical support
Priority: Default
Status: On Hold

"square/circ" wrote in message
...

Someone here who comunicated with them said the definitions will no
longer be supplied after January 1, 2011 --


yes, you are correct. (what a kind person he/she was.)

s/c

Thanks. Just trying to pass on some useful info - even if it is sad news for
Win 98/ME users.

Cheers,
Jerry

"square/circ" wrote in message
...

Someone here who comunicated with them said the definitions will no
longer be supplied after January 1, 2011 --


yes, you are correct. (what a kind person he/she was.)

s/c

Thanks. Just trying to pass on some useful info - even if it is sad news for
Win 98/ME users.

Cheers,
Jerry