StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
1 edit | Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Forever... and I mean it...
I think it's a terrible shame what they did and how they are now choosing to respond to the situation. I decided to start another thread because I don't want to see this thread here get "hijacked"...
»The Best Free Antivirus Program?
No answers or solutions yet, eh, Kaspersky?
I will, in the next two weeks, have to revert back to a previous image on three computers. It will probably take me two weeks with my work schedule to get them all done. If Kaspersky had a removal tool for their "problem" I wouldn't be so upset.
I can't believe these clowns. Anyone who installs AOL Active Shield is equally at risk, but AOL probably doesn't care.
I never thought I'd say it, but Hello, AVG Free, or Avira!
And I don't need my intelligence insulted by a KAV rep implying I am making too much out of nothing; Chekdsk is ruined for me. It hangs like crazy at Stage 2. For two weeks I couldn't figure it out. Never thought it would be my AV.
Kaspersky, I bought your KIS6,for $11, but with this crap, if I knew then what I know now, even that amount of money is too much.. Security is a wonderful thing, but not at the expense of ruining and or altering a basic function of the computer. You guys at Kaaspersky can argue all you want, but you know you're wrong.
Never again.
Jim 
--
"Who Loves Ya Baby?" |
|
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| Just uncheck ISwift, why is that so hard?
To add a note... I'm a Kaspersky reseller and have been installing KL products on machines since version 4, hundreds of installs, and have never seen this issue once. I can't help but to think it is a conflict with another installed application on the computer.
I'm not saying it is or isn't, just making the observation that with as many installs as I have done never has this problem occurred.
 |
|
NanDog
The Pup Was Female, I'M Not
Premium
join:2003-12-28
Tacoma, WA
 ·Rainier Connect fr..
| reply to StraitShoot
And just in case anyone else was scratching their head over StraitShoot's post, here's a description of ISwift from the Kaspersky site: »support.kaspersky.com/faq/?qid=193239261
--
See ya across the Rainbow Bridge, my good and faithful friend! |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
3 edits | reply to Dr Tweak
Respectfully, why are there soooo many others complaininng about the same issue I am having, too?
Why is Chkdsk now soooo dreadfully slow at stage 2 and it was fine before I installed the software?
Why is my problem still there after I totally uninstalled KIS6?
I along with others, need a solution, perhaps in the form of a cleanup tool. I read through all the forum posts of both the KAV forum and the DSL Reports forum.
It isn't another software, it's Kaspersky, you know it and I know it.
Sorry you're a reseller, but frankly, that's your problem. My problem is getting rid of what ISWift installed.. Many others have the same problem too.. I'm looking to solve my problem, not get involved with KAV and KIS6 users and resellers who will stop at nothing to defend KAV-KIS6.
PS.. The damage is done. I already installed KIS 6. Too late now to uncheck ISwift.
Jim
--
"Who Loves Ya Baby?" |
|
norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
·WestNet Broadband
| Just curious about this issue.
I have not seen an issue with chkdsk, and wonder why. Not that I'm trying to say it doesn't exsist, nor trying to sell this topic short. It does seem to be an issue with some I'll admit going by the long thread there, but I can't for the life of me understand why some do and some don't.
You would almost be forgiven to think it is a conflict with hardware drivers, maybe certain HDD's and the way they operate.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
1 edit | said by norwegian  :Just curious about this issue. I have not seen an issue with chkdsk, and wonder why. Not that I'm trying to say it doesn't exsist, nor trying to sell this topic short. It does seem to be an issue with some I'll admit going by the long thread there, but I can't for the life of me understand why some do and some don't. You would almost be forgiven to think it is a conflict with hardware drivers, maybe certain HDD's and the way they operate. The issue I have with KAV-KIS6 is that, after uninstalling it, those "ISWift Hooks" are still attached to files. Pardon me but uninstalling means just that. I didn't start the complaints, I just recently joined them. KAV should put a warning label on it's boxed software and on it's website. That way, I would have unchecked Iswift and whatever the hell else it superglued to my files and system.
I am NOT going to spend energy on anything else except this;
HOW DO I GET RID OF THESE "File Thetans!" LOL..
Jim
--
"Who Loves Ya Baby?" |
|
norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
·WestNet Broadband
1 edit | Presently I have no answer, but seeing as this topic has started, maybe we can bring it to the devs attention, as long as we are specific to the needs required
Doing a google finds this
»webtools.live2support.com/windows/fsutil.php
quote:
Sparse files provide a method of saving disk space for files that contain meaningful data as well as large sections of data composed of zeros. If an NTFS file is marked as sparse, then disk clusters are allocated only for the data explicitly specified by the application.
e.g. The Indexing Service, stores it's catalogs as sparse files.
With 8.3 filennames disabled you'll notice a performance improvement only with a large number of files (over 300,000) in relatively few folders where a lot of the filenames start with similar names. Not having 8.3 filenames available will prevent the use of old applications such as Word 2.0 and Excel 4.0
FSUTIL behavior query disable8dot3 1
If you have a lot of small files, you may need a larger Master File Table to avoid MFT fragmentation:
FSUTIL behavior set mftzone 2 will reserve 25 % of the volume for the MFT.
1 = 12.5 %(default), 3 = 37.5%, 4 = 50%
The last access time attribute of NTFS can really slow performance, if you disable it, the time set will simply be the Creation Time.
FSUTIL behavior set Sparse files provide a method of saving disk space for files that contain meaningful data as well as large sections of data composed of zeros. If an NTFS file is marked as sparse, then disk clusters are allocated only for the data explicitly specified by the application.
e.g. The Indexing Service, stores it's catalogs as sparse files.
With 8.3 filennames disabled you'll notice a performance improvement only with a large number of files (over 300,000) in relatively few folders where a lot of the filenames start with similar names. Not having 8.3 filenames available will prevent the use of old applications such as Word 2.0 and Excel 4.0
FSUTIL behavior query disable8dot3 1
If you have a lot of small files, you may need a larger Master File Table to avoid MFT fragmentation:
FSUTIL behavior set mftzone 2 will reserve 25 % of the volume for the MFT.
1 = 12.5 %(default), 3 = 37.5%, 4 = 50%
The last access time attribute of NTFS can really slow performance, if you disable it, the time set will simply be the Creation Time.
FSUTIL behavior set disablelastaccess 1
Particularly the last comment
Edit: this has been linked at the topic for this issue, which can be found here -
»forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?sh···ic=14995
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
2 edits | reply to StraitShoot
Another note;
I have restored images using Acronis before. Usually in 30 seconds it finishes analyzing the partition C:. Now it's over 7 minutes and it's still analyzing.
I don't want KAV-KIS6, I only want to get rid of my File "Body Thetans" »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_Thetans
--
"Who Loves Ya Baby?" |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to StraitShoot
Hi StraitShoot...long time no see!
I'm sorry to hear that you too got caught up in the Kaspersky Chkdsk mess.
I never enabled ICheck or ISwift when I had KAV 2006 because I was very wary of them due to the mess I had with KAV 2005 trial. What a horror that experience was so I wasn't at all convinced that Kaspersky had actually fixed the earlier problem (with IStreams and ADS attached to all files) in the 2006 version. I figured they fixed it somewhat and swept the rest under the rug and hoped no one would notice.
Even with those two NEVER enabled, I too experienced the Chkdsk problem as you know from reading the KAV thread. I think the only reason the damage to my computer, which is permanent unless I reformat, was not greater was because I did two things when I installed KAV 2006: set it to never use Icheck or ISwift and I NEVER ran a FULL scan of the computer. Thank goodness, I did those two things or I would have had to reformat after removing KAV. Nevertheless, I had damage but it took four months to show up.
I don't think anyone should use KAV because the risk is too high for this damage. If someone just has to use it, don't do full scans ever and don't use ISwift and Icheck. However, having just now read pages 14-18 of the thread at Kaspersky forums (when I last read the thread stopped on page 13), I see someone claiming that a user can NOT stop the file checker from using ISwift. That statement was later questioned by another poster and then Lucian questions if you set in the registry to not use ISwift if that works. I simply set it in the GUI. I had no idea I had to go in the registry and set it there!
I set KAV to NOT use ISwift or Icheck and I set that for the File checker as well as the on demand scanner. Since I sustained damage to Chkdsk even though I NEVER ran a full scan and told the file scanner to not use ISwift or Icheck, I now am thinking that I just THOUGHT I had ISwift and Icheck turned off for the real time scanner. If this is the case, then Kaspersky should be sued by all of us with permanent damage to our computers. I TRUSTED that I was turning off ISwift and ICheck TOTALLY. It now appears that is not possible. Unbelieveable.
It is unconscionable that Kaspersky has stonewalled for this long and refuses to provide a tool to remove the crap that ISwift attaches to files. I recall what HELL some of us, and I was in the thick of it and was one of the MAJOR hell raisers, had to raise to get Kaspersky to provide a tool to remove the ADS tags after we had uninstalled KAV 5. I was the FIRST person that Kaspersky sent the removal tool to ...probably because I yelled all over the internet about it...and the tool promptly removed my nVidia drivers. The tool was revised and did work eventually work properly.
I've been twice burned now by Kaspersky. I can't believe that I was such an utter fool to trust them at all after the KAV 5 fiasco. Based on Kaspersky's behavior with ADS mess, I believe that the only way to get them to provide a tool is to warn all current Kaspersky users that they too may have ruined chkdsks and refuse to recommend Kaspersky to any potential new users. I cannot in good conscience ever recommend Kaspersky again ...not after being burned twice. I was willing to trust again after the first fiasco but burn me a second time (especially if it is true that I was unable to stop Iswift from being used by the file monitor) and you have lost my trust, my goodwill forever.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
norky
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Lithia, FL | reply to StraitShoot
I guess you've used »downloads2.kaspersky-labs.com/ut···remover/ ? |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| The ADS tags were a problem on KAV 2005. This current Chkdsk corruption problem is not helped by removing ADS file tags that don't exist on the 2006 version of Kaspersky. So far, Kaspersky has refused to issue a tool to remove the data that ISwift evidently adds to files and that evidently is a/the cause of the Chkdsk corruption (that assumes that Kaspersky has lied to everyone by saying we can turn off ISwift because I had it turned off and I had damage anyhow). So, ISwift adding data to files may not be the (or only) cause of the Chkdsk damage and so a tool to remove that might or might not help. In any case, the tool you refer to will NOT help.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to StraitShoot
said by StraitShoot :Another note; I have restored images using Acronis before. Usually in 30 seconds it finishes analyzing the partition C:. Now it's over 7 minutes and it's still analyzing. Hmmm. I had also noticed that about Acronis True Image, but I didn't know whether or not it was related to KAV, since nobody else with the chkdsk problem seemed to be complaining about it.
What I experienced was this: Partition analysis took longer, and in fact ATI froze solid twice during that stage and had to be shut down and restarted. However, once I cleaned Kaspersky's extra data out of my indexes everything went back to normal. I thought the ATI issue might just have been a coincidence, but now that you mention it as well I guess I'll have to give it a closer look. Thus, for my next series of tests I will compare Acronis True Image operations both before and after allowing KAV to add the NTFS identifiers.
One has to wonder what other seemingly unrelated software glitches these little-known "NTFS identifiers" may be responsible for. |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to StraitShoot
said by StraitShoot :Why is Chkdsk now soooo dreadfully slow at stage 2 and it was fine before I installed the software? Why do you sit and watch it?? Why would you even watch it if there is no delay? I think intelligent people ought to be able to tear themselves away from the PC long enough for a freakin diagnostic to complete.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to dantz
said by dantz :said by StraitShoot :Another note; I have restored images using Acronis before. Usually in 30 seconds it finishes analyzing the partition C:. Now it's over 7 minutes and it's still analyzing. Hmmm. I had also noticed that about Acronis True Image, but I didn't know whether or not it was related to KAV, since nobody else with the chkdsk problem seemed to be complaining about it. I am also an ATI user. No change in analysis time, backup or restore.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
Frydays
join:2005-10-21
USA | reply to StraitShoot
kav is meesed up it completely damages the hard drive now after my subscription to kav was up i got nod32 i hope that antivirus is ok to use
and btw i always did uncheck the iswift stuff |
|
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| reply to StraitShoot
Are you people using the standard chkdsk that you enable within Windows and runs upon the next reboot?
If so I have to ask why? It doesn't really work worth a hoot anyways. You should always boot to the Recovery Console and use the command chkdsk /r this will ensure a proper disk check and repair, I have never seen a slow down using this method with KAV installed.
|
|
HA Nut
Premium
join:2004-05-13
USA
2 edits | said by Dr Tweak :Are you people using the standard chkdsk that you enable within Windows and runs upon the next reboot? If so I have to ask why? It doesn't really work worth a hoot anyways. You should always boot to the Recovery Console and use the command chkdsk /r this will ensure a proper disk check and repair, I have never seen a slow down using this method with KAV installed. You may be right that that the Recovery Console would be a better method but...
(A) If KAV is somehow messing with the standard CHKDSK, they should offer a way to recover from it.
(B) Most PCs purchased by most users no longer have a true Windows disk. So they may not have the option to get to the Recovery Console. (Many have the insanely useless recovery partition.) |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to hpguru
said by hpguru :said by StraitShoot :Why is Chkdsk now soooo dreadfully slow at stage 2 and it was fine before I installed the software? Why do you sit and watch it?? Why would you even watch it if there is no delay? I think intelligent people ought to be able to tear themselves away from the PC long enough for a freakin diagnostic to complete. The point is not just the delay itself, but what it might signify.
Suppose you bring home and install a new, very highly regarded home appliance. Somebody casually mentions to you that a few people have had problems with smoke and/or overheating, and some people have even said that theirs caught fire, but you choose to ignore this apparent rumor because the consumer reviews and the magazine articles were almost universally favorable and you really like the way this appliance works. Not long afterwards, you begin to smell smoke in your house. What's your reaction? Do you say "Hmmm, that's funny, I smell a little smoke. Oh well, whatever, it probably doesn't mean anything, I'll just open the window", or do you go in there and check it out?
The chkdsk delay is the smoke, in case you didn't quite follow my little analogy.
I consider chkdsk to be a rather important little program, since it is a built-in tool that is capable of both examining and repairing the NTFS filesystem. Sometimes this little utility can be incredibly useful, especially when the chips are down and you really need it to work. So, when chkdsk starts running strangely or even fails, I would think that you might want to sit up and take notice. |
|
dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to Dr Tweak
said by Dr Tweak :Are you people using the standard chkdsk that you enable within Windows and runs upon the next reboot? If so I have to ask why? It doesn't really work worth a hoot anyways. You should always boot to the Recovery Console and use the command chkdsk /r this will ensure a proper disk check and repair, I have never seen a slow down using this method with KAV installed. You are misinformed. Scheduling chkdsk to run after a reboot is a perfectly valid way of using that utility, and if you aren't getting good results when you do that then there is something wrong with your filesystem or your hardware. |
|
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
1 edit | reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :Hi StraitShoot...long time no see! Nice to see you too, Mele, although I was never really gone...
said by Mele20 :I've been twice burned now by Kaspersky. I can't believe that I was such an utter fool to trust them at all after the KAV 5 fiasco. Based on Kaspersky's behavior with ADS mess, I believe that the only way to get them to provide a tool is to warn all current Kaspersky users that they too may have ruined chkdsks and refuse to recommend Kaspersky to any potential new users. I cannot in good conscience ever recommend Kaspersky again ...not after being burned twice. I was willing to trust again after the first fiasco but burn me a second time (especially if it is true that I was unable to stop Iswift from being used by the file monitor) and you have lost my trust, my goodwill forever. I totally agree and I guess I had the same experience, except I did in fact turn the ISwift Tech on. Presently I am working on restoring an image on the desktop and then I PROMISE NEVER TO EVER INSTALL KASPERSKY OR ANY KAV BASED AV'S EVER AGAIN! Ignorance earns my wrath, and I think you probably remember what a "hell raiser" I can be, and why not? All they have to do is release a removal tool and folks like you and I'll go away. I personally am on a mission, I WILL WARN AS MANY PEOPLE AS I CAN NEVER TO USE ANY WITH KASPERSKY AGAIN UNLESS THEY GIVE ME REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE... ONLY IN TERMS OF FIXING THEIR MORONIC MISTAKES!
Thank God for Acronis True Image.. I think the reason you and I fell for the KAV -KIS BS is because of the detection rates. Well, now I realize that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I probably will go with Avast, Avira, or AVG. No more KAV anything.
--
"Who Loves Ya Baby?" |
|
