how-to block ads
|
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
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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.
 | |
| |
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
3 edits | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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 | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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 | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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 | |
| | | 
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| 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 | |
| | | | dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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. | |
| | | | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by dantz :So, when chkdsk starts running strangely or even fails, I would think that you might want to sit up and take notice. I don't think it is running strangely, nor has it failed.
This is just an educated guess but on my system the brief delay occurs prior to chkdsk reporting the percentage complete for that stage. My guess is that it is just taking a little longer to enumerate all the structures before it begins examining them. If chkdisk were finding inconsistencies Winlogon would report them in the application log but what I find upon examination is perfectly consistent with what one could expect on a system without KAV6.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus | |
| | | | | 
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by dantz :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. I agree. There are plenty of anti-virus programs out there, but only one CHKDSK. There was a time when there were a number of third party "disk doctor" applications available, but with NTFS, CHKDSK is the only game in town. Yes, there are others, but as far as I know, they are merely shells that run on top of CHKDSK. | |
| |
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
2 edits | 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?" | |
| | dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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 | |
| Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| 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 | |
| |
StraitShoot
Who Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak
Premium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
1 edit | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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?" | |
| | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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 | |
| 
Frydays
join:2005-10-21
USA | 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
| 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 | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. 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
| 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. | |
| | |
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by dantz :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. No, I'm not misinformed, the "standard" chkdsk built into Windows is not a thorough chkdsk as running it with the command line chkdsk /r. Read HERE about the different command line parameters, they differ quite a bit in what they do and how thorough they are.
| |
| | | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. So? What is your point? command line chkdsk /r has the Kaspersky problems. | |
| | | |
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Sorry but it's the same CHKDSK with the same command-line parameters available whether run from at boot after or from the recovery console. If run "normally" with the /f parameter on a partition that cannot be locked, it will run at boot. Same with the /r parameter which does a full scan of the disk.
You are implying that there is another version of CHKDSK with different options available which runs from the recovery console. There isn't. It's the same version that runs at boot when the /f or /r parameter is specified on a drive that cannot be locked.
And it's the same CHKDSK that pauses for 10 minutes before starting Stage 2 on my system which has been affected by KAV/AVS "NTSF-identifiers." This lag occurs on affected systems any time CHKDSK is run including when it runs at boot, from a command window, or from the recovery console.
If you care about the future of Kaspersky, I suggest using what influence you may have to get them to provide a removal tool for these unwanted NTFS-identifiers. It's time they step up to the plate and take proper care of their customers. I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. | |
| | | | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by jmorlan :If you care about the future of Kaspersky, I suggest using what influence you may have to get them to provide a removal tool for these unwanted NTFS-identifiers. It's time they step up to the plate and take proper care of their customers. I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. Kaspersky has known about the problem according to sasso's post on page 11 of the KAV thread since the early days of the 2006 beta. They believe the problem is Microsoft's responsibility to fix. Never mind that it is Kaspersky's NTFS-identifiers that cause the problem. It appears there is buck passing here and that may be why we haven't gotten a tool.
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by hpguru :said by jmorlan :I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. LOL!  What are they supposed to do? Read users minds? See through their eyes? And explain to me how they are supposed to fix an issue they cannot reproduce. Phooey.  "Read users minds" my foot...what do you call 18 pages of posts in the KAV forum where users are begging Kaspersky to do something about this?
Sorry, but Grnic was just doing damage control in that post. Kaspersky developers have known about the problem since the early days of 2006 beta testing. They have stated that they believe Microsoft should fix Chkdsk rather than Kaspersky having to come up with a different idea to speed up scanning so folks will buy KAV. That's known as "passing the buck". What Kaspersky may not have known about, or suspected, but chose to look the other way and hope their suspicions were wrong, is the purported corruption done to files and to chkdsk itself so that, eventually, in some cases it won't run at all.
But as for chkdsk hanging for a long period somewhere in stage two that they have known about for ages but cleverly claim it is a Microsoft problem. I fail to understand that reasoning at all. If a Microsoft OS program works as intended until Kaspersky comes along with some cockeyed notion about adding meta data to files to speed up Kaspersky's notorious slow scanning especially noticeable on less powerful computers and then that Microsoft program stops working properly, and in some case stops working altogether, and it happens to be an essential program then how is that Microsoft's fault?
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by Mele20 :Phooey. "Read users minds" my foot...what do you call 18 pages of posts in the KAV forum where users are begging Kaspersky to do something about this? Mele perhaps if you'll read my comment again you will see I was responding to a specific comment made by jmorlan . Then again, probably not. 
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus | |
| | | | | | | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. Yes, I realize the specific comment you were responding to...but I don't see what that has to do with my response to you...how does your pointing out that you were responding to jmorlan's comment invalidate my observation? I assume you have read the Kaspersky thread where jmorlan says the same but elaborates...but then again maybe you haven't.
--
"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 | |
| | | | | | | | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by Mele20 :Yes, I realize the specific comment you were responding to...but I don't see what that has to do with my response to you... Not surprising.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus | |
| | | | | | bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| said by hpguru :
LOL! What are they supposed to do? Read users minds? See through their eyes? And explain to me how they are supposed to fix an issue they cannot reproduce.
The larger design philosophy question is whether they should be approaching the problem in the way they have in the past few versions.
Personally, I'd vastly prefer an approach that does not leave extensive system changes after removal of the product, even if they are supposedly benign. There's enough anecdotal information about to speculate that there are some combinations of circumstances in which problems arise, that should be enough to give them pause.
For the record, I have KAV WKS installed on a number of machines, iSwift/iChecker is enabled, and I have not noted problems. However, if i remove KAV at some future date, it would be nice to know that the product does not leave residual footprints with an uncertain impact. This is basic courtesy to the customer base.
Blue | |
| | | | |
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| Did you even read what I posted? I didn't imply what so ever that there is another version of chkdsk, just that running it with the /r command is much more thorough. And again, I have installed KAV hundreds of times and when a client brings their computer to my shop for a "tune up" a full chkdsk /r is run from the Recovery Console and NEVER have I seen a slow down or problem with it.
| |
| | | | | | 
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
 ·Cogeco Voip
1 edit | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. I bumped into this thread quite by accident (I think it must be one of the featured news stories).
Anyway, I recently started using AVS, and a few days ago, my system indicated that a CHKDSK was being run immediately after a reboot.
When the process began, I walked away from my computer and returned a few minutes later only to see Stage 2 at 0% completion. I thought it was strange (actually thought my computer was hung), and I forced a reboot.
When the system started up again, I again saw it get stuck at Stage 2. This time, I just walked away from the machine, and when I returned 30 minutes later, the CHKDSK had already completed.
I had no idea this could have been linked to AVS, and now I am wondering whether I've caused harm to the computers of friends to whom I've recommended this product!
Edit: I also am using System Restore, although I never had a slow CHKDSK before installing AVS. | |
| | | | |
See 16 replies to this post | |
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| OK, after reading through the thread on KL forum I think I might have more insight on the cause..... system restore. I ALWAYS disable system restore on all the computers I work on and have never seen this issue. Personally I think system restore is useless and a waste of system resources, just my opinion. In any case I think it's directly related to having system restore enabled.... those of you who have seen this issue, was system restore enabled? And for those of you who think MS is always right.... there is a glitch I have seen with system restore MANY times. If you only disable system restore by right clicking on My Computer - system restore - and checking the option to disable it, many times it will not complete disable. You must disable the system restore service as well, if you don't I have seen system restore continue to make restore points and never delete the old ones, it then fills up the entire drive with restore points and there is no disk space left. To fix it you must enable system restore then reboot then disable it and reboot again to delete all of the restore points, the hard is then clear and back to normal. This is a MS problem that has never been addressed.
| |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| I've installed Active Virus Shield and have noticed only minimal problems with Chkdsk thus far. Since it was free, I've been willing to put up with slow Kaspersky responses to any technical issues. But the long-term effects of this issue does concern me, and what is more troubling is the way Kaspersky responds to (ignores) such issues.
I didn't agree to have them make ANY permanent changes to my system, and if such changes were to be made, A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE POTENTIAL RISKS IN DOING SO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, just as one receives drug interaction precautions that DOES NOT say you will experience problems but at least averts you that is a distinct possibility, allowing you to make an informed decision.
Kaspersky has had more than enough complaints about this issue and have been IRRESPONSIBLE in both not fixing it and in hiding this issue from new users.
It seems to me that ALL software manufacturers' should follow the simple rule that one learns when hiking: if you bring it on the trail with you, you take it out with you when you leave. NO software manufacturer should be allowed to get away with ANY product that makes changes that aren't removed when the product is removed. Maybe Kaspersky will need to face a class action lawsuit to make them understand that there can be financial consequences for such decisions. | |
| technovert
Premium
join:2007-06-14
Canada
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I'm probably going against the flow here, but Kaspersky has never done wrong by me, I had KAV and now use AOL AVS to save money. Chkdsk is a tool for repairing the ntfs/fat32 file system correct? Something like fsck on *nix based platforms? Am I understanding that Kaspersky is modifying the file system to add these identifiers in and that causes chkdsk to be slower? I don't really have a benchmark to test it against but I can run chkdsk, as for me and my systems, they stay with Kaspersky. | |
| 
salzan
Experienced Optimist
Premium
join:2004-01-08
WA State | If I understand this correctly, the identifiers are not copied by Acronis TI. What happens if you uninstall KAV, take an image and restore the image?
I would do this using the recovery CD, not from within Windows. | |
| | dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
1 edit | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by salzan :If I understand this correctly, the identifiers are not copied by Acronis TI. What happens if you uninstall KAV, take an image and restore the image? I would do this using the recovery CD, not from within Windows. Both ATI and Ghost 2003 will copy the chkdsk problem as a part of the image, and will restore it when you restore the image. I have done this many times as a part of my testing procedure.
However, if you use ATI to backup data (as opposed to making an image) the NTFS identifiers will be discarded and will not be present when you restore the data. Of couse, this is not normally the way a person would back up and restore their OS.
(edit: Hmmm, I forgot to mention that for this to work you have to either delete the data from the partition, or leave it there and instruct ATI to overwrite existing data during the restore. ) | |
| | |
See 58 replies to this post | |
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| I like Active Virus Shield, even though I have a key for Kaspersky 6.0. I was impressed by the scanning engine, and have no hidden agenda. But I still call things as I see them: Kaspersky has lots to learn about customer support and respectful answers to its client base would be a good start. Let me cite three specific examples:
1. When I had slow manual file scans, AOL referred to Kaspersky, who asked me to install a data collection tool to diagnose the problem. That done, Kaspersky indicated to AOL that the issue was "fixed" in the new release. So I went back to the website, uninstalled the "old" version, installed the "new" release, and re-configured it. Two hours later I found out that it was the very same release. While I realize that AVS was free, Kaspersky's misleading response lead to two hours of my time wasted (not free). Unprofessional.
2. Then security vulnerabilities were reported in KAV. I immediately asked if they were also to be found in AVS, and if so when would a fix be available. It took weeks to get an answer to this basic question so I could decide how protected my systems were. Finally, I was pointed to an update. Kaspersky considered this an AOL "customer service" issue. I saw this as a product security issue, requiring a two minute reply, and one that only Kaspersky could answer. A vulnerable security product is an oxymoron. Not being direct in how or when it would be handled was unprofessional.
3. Now the NTSF object identifier issue. Fanatical "the sky is falling" ranters? Hardly. How about a group of fellow professionals, who don't like having every issue discredited as a rant. MS gets cited for antitrust, Sony for DRM, but Kaspersky is above acknowledging that anything can ever be wrong. An unfounded complaint is a rant. When many users complain, one returns to the adage "where there's smoke, there's fire." Unprofessional of Kaspersky to not investigate further and alleviate consumer fears.
Like I said, I have no agenda other than to be treated, like every customer, with a little respect. That's the least I expect (no, make that demand) from a manufacturer, colleague, restaurant, client...and I see no reason why Kaspersky should be an exception. | |
| The Snowman
Premium
join:2007-05-20
·Verizon Online DSL
|
As a Users of KAV 6 I have never experienced the problem mentioned in this topic....frankly I do not know if I enabled ISwift or not..
However, I was just wondering....if a re-install of KAV on top of the previous install...disabling the ISwift during the re-install...would revert things back to normal.......this is just a random thought but it may be worth someone trying.
| |
| | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. Iswift and ICheck are enabled by default. You can disable one or both in the GUI for the on demand scanner before you run a full scan. You cannot disable them in the GUI for the file scanner though. According to Lucian in the KAV forums (he's the resident expert in the official forums on KAV if you didn't know) you have to disable ISwift in the registry, first disabling KAV's self protection, so you can disable them. He says even that may not disable ISwift. This applies to KAV7.
It appears that there is NO way to disable the KAV6 realtime monitor from using ISwift and thus doing exactly what so many were so angry about with KAV5 in putting crap on all your files without clear disclosure in the Eula, or on the download page for trials, that this will occur and that the crap is there forever even after you uninstall KAV. If there had been clear disclosure that ISwift is, in a sense, the horrible IStreams from KAV5 redone then the user could make an informed choice and those who don't mind having their files forever altered by KAV6 and 7 would happily install KAV and everyone else who does object to such unnecessary, especially permanent, invasion of our files could simply walk away and get another AV that doesn't do this sort of thing.
--
"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 | |
| | | The Snowman
Premium
join:2007-05-20 | Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
Mele
Thanks for that info...appreciated | |
| Graystoke
join:2006-03-24
Stockton, CA
1 edit | Never mind. Much ado about nothing. | |
| | | 
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. said by Kill DRM :
Can somebody say FUDDDD ???
If you want to attack Kaspersky, there are enough legitimate reasons for doing so without making yerself look like an idiot.
While I am not a KAV user, I have taken note of the many documented complaints regarding this issue over the past year and of Kaspersky's apparent lack of concern for their customers. That blatant disregard bothers me much more than the issue and pretty much ensures I won't be trying the product any time soon. I'd say it's Kaspersky that comes of as the idiot in this issue.
--
Team Discovery
| |
| | m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
| FUD = marketing term .. not a technical one ..
I ditched KIS 6(paid) and AOL AVS free from multiple PCs (home/work) because of this issue.. I was a fan .. I am NOT no more. This lead to data loss when chkdisk scrolls for an eternity.
Do you really think this is some "FUD" or "conspiracy"?
Try with MULTIPLE drives .. some FAT.. some NTFS .. some SATA/IDE mixed in .. add huge numbers of files + directory depth.. you will see your "FUD" then.
Also.. there are conflicting explanations here:
1) "we cant recreate it".. and with access to src code .. I sincerely doubt that one. Simple to recreate here on multiple comps. Even FRESH installs.. just one SATA drive.
2) "Its NTFS and Microsoft must fix.." you used an UNDOCUMENTED API .. therefore its your problem and very lame.
Read your code.. what is it doing to NTFS? Release a tool to reverse that.. because even an uninstall does NOT fix it.
That is reality.. to bury your head in the sand on this is your loss not ours. | |
| | dantz
join:2005-05-09
Honolulu, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by Kill DRM :
Files themselves are not modified. MD5 checksums remain the same before and after Kaspersky install. It's each file's NTFS index entry that is modified. MD5 checksums won't show that. | |
| | | | | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
Bobbb
@comcast.net
| Why are you guys talking about kaspersky... it sucks.
Half the people I know, including a C++ programmer such as myself, cannot install kaspersky.
I use AVG Anti-Virus now, because it's lightweight, FREE, and does the job well without overloading my computer or using up my resources.
I have seen articles where Kaspersky and nod32 = #1 and #2, but I think those companies just paid those magazines really well.
I try to install kaspersky, and I get an error instantly saying "Kaspersky 6.0 cannot install to this folder, because you have an invalid file name, try not to use 'symbols'... bla bla bla". Their SETUP is even bugged.
I installed Kaspersky, to a friends computer though, and it basically didn't find any viruses, and took me like 7 days to scan his computer, for some reason kaspersky is the slowest anti-virus i've ever seen. His HD is not even close to 20 GB.
nod32, yeah try installing that, you'll get Drive Access errors all over... it sucks as well. | |
| | | | (topic locked) | |
|
