Is KAV working on chkdsk ?

[Bls440]

Hi,

I'd like to know if Kaspersky Labs are working on that issue, which is annoying many users right now.
I'm about to get a complete new setup, I don't wanna get any hard drive defects with it (at least, that early ;) ).
Also, does the feature causing the problem can be disabled right away before making any damage ?

If not, I guess I'd go for F-secure/Avira/Trustport ; haven't made my choice yet on these 3, since the best solution which fits my needs is Kaspersky, but I don't feel very confident now ....

Any help appreciated !
Thanks

[Blackcat]

Official Kaspersky response here. (http://support.kaspersky.com/kav7/error?qid=208279501).

LONG post over on the KAV Forum on chkdsk (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&hl=chkdsk) and KAV.

Very nice summation on the problem by BlueZannetti in this thread; posts 482 onwards;

Overall, those users with problems seem to be few, but they seem to be genuine. So it will be your call whether this issue will influence your buying decision on your next AV.

As you probably know KAV 8 will not depend upon these object-identifers and therefore should not show this same behaviour.

[Bls440]

Thank you so much. I've read it all already, but I'm kinda surprised Kav doesn't seem to care that much since only a minority of the users experience those troubles.

You're refering to Kav8, I guess I should wait for 2008 then ?

[Mele20]

The DEFINITIVE thread on this issue is not here and not at Kaspersky forums. It is at dslreports. If you have not read it, I strongly recommend that you do so before making your decision.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift

F-Secure uses the Kaspersky engine so stay away from it also and stay away from Zone Alarm as it also uses the Kaspersky engine. Both of these will have the same effect on chkdsk that using Kaspersky 2006/2007 will have.

KAV 8 will not use the ISwift technology but I would not trust it either. I say that because Kaspersky used Alternate Data Streams in KAV 2005 to make scanning faster. When KAV 5 (even just a short trial) was removed all the ADS tags on all files on the computer remained. They were not removed. There were complaints and finally after the complaints reached critical mass Kaspersky issued a tool to remove the ADS tags after KAV was uninstalled. This caused a huge mess and again the DEFINITIVE thread was at dslreports (Kaspersky engineers participated).

What did Kaspersky do after the KAV/KIS 2005 mess? They came up with ISwift for KAV 2006 to make it faster since IStreams (the ADS tagging) had been dropped for the 2006 version. There was a thread started almost immediately after 2006 went Gold in the KAV forums and that thread is still going. Kaspersky paid no attention to what users were reporting and even went ahead and put the same ISwift technology that users were saying was causing chkdsk problems into the 2007 versions of KAV/KIS. It was not until Straitshoot started the dslreports thread and way, way into it when the publicity got so bad that Kaspersky finally contacted Microsoft about the issue and got slapped down for misusing object identifiers.

Kaspersky has shown no effort to help those of us with computers damaged by their software. They have finally stated after Microsoft's response that they will abandon ISwift and Object Identifiers in the 2008 products. I suggest being extremely cautious though even with their 2008 products because of their history. They caused a big problem on many computers with System Restore and severe, very rapid fragmentation in XP because of the ADS tagging used in KAV 2005 and the fact that all the tags remained on the computer after KAV was removed. Finally under great pressure from users and former users they issued a tool to remove the ADS tags. Then they turned around and did something even worse in terms of damage by using ISwift in 2006, stonawalling all complaints and being arrogant enough to add ISwift technology and the object identifiers to KAV/KIS 2007. So, I would be extremely cautious about using 2008 also as Kaspersky is an arrogant company that cannot be trusted.

[Kerodo]

I used to like KAV and KIS, but after reading and hearing about all this I now won't go near it. There are just too many good alternatives to take any chances...

[Sjoeii]

{QUOTE-> The DEFINITIVE thread on this issue is not here and not at Kaspersky forums. It is at dslreports. If you have not read it, I strongly recommend that you do so before making your decision.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift

F-Secure uses the Kaspersky engine so stay away from it also and stay away from Zone Alarm as it also uses the Kaspersky engine. Both of these will have the same effect on chkdsk that using Kaspersky 2006/2007 will have.

KAV 8 will not use the ISwift technology but I would not trust it either. I say that because Kaspersky used Alternate Data Streams in KAV 2005 to make scanning faster. When KAV 5 (even just a short trial) was removed all the ADS tags on all files on the computer remained. They were not removed. There were complaints and finally after the complaints reached critical mass Kaspersky issued a tool to remove the ADS tags after KAV was uninstalled. This caused a huge mess and again the DEFINITIVE thread was at dslreports (Kaspersky engineers participated).

What did Kaspersky do after the KAV/KIS 2005 mess? They came up with ISwift for KAV 2006 to make it faster since IStreams (the ADS tagging) had been dropped for the 2006 version. There was a thread started almost immediately after 2006 went Gold in the KAV forums and that thread is still going. Kaspersky paid no attention to what users were reporting and even went ahead and put the same ISwift technology that users were saying was causing chkdsk problems into the 2007 versions of KAV/KIS. It was not until Straitshoot started the dslreports thread and way, way into it when the publicity got so bad that Kaspersky finally contacted Microsoft about the issue and got slapped down for misusing object identifiers.

Kaspersky has shown no effort to help those of us with computers damaged by their software. They have finally stated after Microsoft's response that they will abandon ISwift and Object Identifiers in the 2008 products. I suggest being extremely cautious though even with their 2008 products because of their history. They caused a big problem on many computers with System Restore and severe, very rapid fragmentation in XP because of the ADS tagging used in KAV 2005 and the fact that all the tags remained on the computer after KAV was removed. Finally under great pressure from users and former users they issued a tool to remove the ADS tags. Then they turned around and did something even worse in terms of damage by using ISwift in 2006, stonawalling all complaints and being arrogant enough to add ISwift technology and the object identifiers to KAV/KIS 2007. So, I would be extremely cautious about using 2008 also as Kaspersky is an arrogant company that cannot be trusted. <-QUOTE}
Mele20

Grow up!
You are talking about one simple issue you had with this product. And now |Kaspersky can't be trusted? Sounds to me you have very large toes.
Offcourse this chkdsk issue is something some people are having probs with but majority don't!!!
When looking at your posts across the internet where you are cracking Kaspersky I believe there must be more than this issue involved. Because everywhere i read you are trying to influence innocent people.
Let's give people a free choice


Sjoeii

[btman]

{QUOTE-> I used to like KAV and KIS, but after reading and hearing about all this I now won't go near it. There are just too many good alternatives to take any chances... <-QUOTE}

He's ranting. I've used Kaspersky since early version 6 and I've never had the problem he's describing. Kaspersky is the best product I've used to this date.

[King Grub]

Same here. There is obviously a group of users who are experiencing real problems, but they are a minority, but a very vocal one, and more often than not vocal in the worst way (ranting, fanatic).

[Stephen2_Aus]

Agreed with King Grub and btman.

KAV is the best anti virus I've used, and I was an AVID NOD32 fan for a long while.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Mele20

Grow up!
You are talking about one simple issue you had with this product. And now |Kaspersky can't be trusted? Sounds to me you have very large toes.
Offcourse this chkdsk issue is something some people are having probs with but majority don't!!!
When looking at your posts across the internet where you are cracking Kaspersky I believe there must be more than this issue involved. Because everywhere i read you are trying to influence innocent people.
Let's give people a free choice


Sjoeii <-QUOTE}


One simple issue! I submit that maybe you should do what you told me to do. I would also suggest that you actually read the threads. It is obvious that you have not or you would not say "one simple issue". What was the chkdsk time on your computer before you installed KAV? What is now? Every single KAV user has this problem. You just may not have had it surface enough yet to realize you have the problem also. There are several factors that determine how long it takes for the problem to become obvious on a given computer.

I ask all of you: what is the current time for chkdsk to complete at boot as opposed to what it was before you installed Kaspersky? I don't understand how anyone could be thrilled to have to wait over one hour to use their computer after booting when before they installed KAV they only had to wait two minutes. How could you claim that is not a problem?

[King Grub]

{QUOTE-> I ask all of you: what is the current time for chkdsk to complete at boot <-QUOTE}

A 6-8 second delay at stage two, after, compared to... what? 1-2 seconds, perhaps, before. With a very large hard drive and lotsa lotsa files. This on Vista. I had the same issue on XP before buying a new computer. Non-issue, that is. No slowdowns at any other stage with KAV/KIS; those chkdsk times are similar.

[Bls440]

Does it mean that disabling iSwift can prevent from getting this issue?

[Antarctica]

@Mele20,
I agree that it is not funny when you have problem with Software. But they are only Software after all and they are plenty to choose from Internet if they are not compatible with your system.

I was one of those who was affected with the chkdsk problem when I used KIS last year. What did I do? Just reformat my PC after my Kaspersky licence ended and now I am a happy user with another AV.

I think life is too short to struggle with your AV.;) Just my 0.02$ anyway, no offense.:)

[kinwolf]

I do have the problem on the system where KIS 7 is installed. Brand new system too. The delay for stage 2 isn't 6-8 seconds in my case, it's hours. As far as I can see, Chkdsk is simply inoperable on that system now.

[Banshee]

{QUOTE-> I do have the problem on the system where KIS 7 is installed. Brand new system too. The delay for stage 2 isn't 6-8 seconds in my case, it's hours. As far as I can see, Chkdsk is simply inoperable on that system now. <-QUOTE}


I had that delay problem when using kis 6. Not with Kis 7.Kis 7 runs as smooth as silk and no chkdsk pain either.

[fax]

{QUOTE-> Does it mean that disabling iSwift can prevent from getting this issue? <-QUOTE}

No, regardless the setting you may have the problem.
BUT you will not know up to when you try it.
Not all users are experiencing this problem. I don't.

KAV/KIS 8 will remove this feature and implement iswift/ichecker differently without affecting chkdsk.

You should ask to KAV forum about the foreseen release plan for KAV/KIS 8.
For sure not before the end of the year.

Cheers,
Fax

[mike21]

I never had any chkdsk problems with KIS and I am using it since v6 in 2 PCs

[Bls440]

Thanks for all your answers.
I guess using some backup software like Acronis True Image I should be able to give Kaspersky a try without risking anything.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I do have the problem on the system where KIS 7 is installed. Brand new system too. The delay for stage 2 isn't 6-8 seconds in my case, it's hours. As far as I can see, Chkdsk is simply inoperable on that system now. <-QUOTE}If it is hours for stage 2 (i.e. verifying indexes) only, then that is a problem. What I'd recommend, regardless of your future decision on KIS 7, would be to: Fully uininstall KIS and try to run chkdsk after the uninstall reboot. Do you still see the very extended stage 2? Note - with any reasonably sized system, stage 2 after KIS/KAV should take minutes to run, not seconds. By reasonably sized, I talking upwards of a million files with a heavily nested directory structure. On a very lean system, it will take seconds and stay under a minute.
If you are still in the hours domain after the step above, run the command line invocation to remove file object ID's. To do this, open the Command Prompt window (Start>Accessories>Command Prompt). Navigate to the root directory of the drive in question (that would be typically C:, so execute
the command cd\ at the command prompt. Following this, execute the commandFOR /R %a IN (*.*) DO @ECHO. && @ECHO - %a && @FSUTIL ObjectID Delete "%a" at the command prompt. For large file systems, this could take a few hours. After this command completes, try to rerun chkdsk.As for the chkdsk issue in general, my personal opinion is that the polarized opinion on both sides are equally unproductive and uninformed. KL has soft pedaled this issue and handled it in a completely pathetic manner. I really don't believe their handling of it has improved to this date either.

On the other side, the hyperbole has ratcheted up to levels that strains credulity. Every KAV/KIS owner is not impacted by the "problem" since the "problem" occurs when chkdsk cannot complete and a cascade of file system corruption can, in principle, follow. This is distinct from the lengthening of a successful stage 2 scan and completion of chkdsk that every KAV/KIS user will experience.

The two issues have not been unambiguously tied together. However, I can see where constant manipulation of the file system via creation of file object ID's may be an inherently unstable situation on a system prone to crashing for any reason (beta testing, software compatibility issues, a bad install, power issues, etc.).

Blue

[kinwolf]

@ BlueZanetti: I'll try that tonight, thanks.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE->
The two issues have not been unambiguously tied together. However, I can see where constant manipulation of the file system via creation of file object ID's may be an inherently unstable situation on a system prone to crashing for any reason (beta testing, software compatibility issues, a bad install, power issues, etc.).

Blue <-QUOTE}

I guess one reason I've never taken the problem to seriously is one of the biggest ways to thrash the file system is running chkdsk. I never run it. One my machines has a set of nvidia drivers that causes anything run at that point like chkdsk,offline defrag etc not to display. When I was talking about this with the support folks at velocity micro, they didn't even know what blue screen I was talking about for two reasons. First if they ran chkdsk they ran it from the windows CD, and secondly they almost never ran it. There advice to me was run it as little as possible. My solution is if I have a hard crash and suspect it might have impacted the disks, I just restored an image, and any damage to the file system if any was fixed.

As to instablity from crashing, with the beta testing I've done, my machines have been thru crash after crash, and both had KAV 6.0 and 7.0 on them, and I saw zero ill effect. I've taken KAV off but that wasn't because of the problem, but because I've decided not to run any AV's.

Also as to Microsofts response, I don't take that as any evidence of wrong doing on Kaspersky's part. They created the system, and while they didn't intend for it to be used that way, apparently they also neglected to warn people not to do it. I take it as a sign they didn't want to address it. Other examples of MS stuff. VistaPE, you can't run it with out it messing up your system clock. Nasty bug in the routines that access your partition table. All imaging and partitioning software use that. Hope you don't get it by that.

Point is yes some folks were bothered by the problem, so move on. The ranters, had problems for sure, but geesh, enough is enough.

Pete

[GrailVanGogh]

{QUOTE-> Thanks for all your answers.
I guess using some backup software like Acronis True Image I should be able to give Kaspersky a try without risking anything. <-QUOTE}

Now that makes perfectly good sense.

:thumb:

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Thanks for all your answers.
I guess using some backup software like Acronis True Image I should be able to give Kaspersky a try without risking anything. <-QUOTE}

I believe when you image the objectID's go with the image, and so would be restored. Personally I don't think there is much risk, but just be aware.

[Bls440]

let's say it doesn't work, can a Zero fill format fix that problem ?

[Zombini]

Kaspersky's issue talks about what appears to be a solution for the temporary hang during chkdsk,but there is no solution to the indexing errors I got when running chkdsk. Thats what caused me to get rid of it, not the temporary hang.

[Bls440]

{QUOTE-> If it is hours for stage 2 (i.e. verifying indexes) only, then that is a problem. What I'd recommend, regardless of your future decision on KIS 7, would be to: Fully uininstall KIS and try to run chkdsk after the uninstall reboot. Do you still see the very extended stage 2? Note - with any reasonably sized system, stage 2 after KIS/KAV should take minutes to run, not seconds. By reasonably sized, I talking upwards of a million files with a heavily nested directory structure. On a very lean system, it will take seconds and stay under a minute.
If you are still in the hours domain after the step above, run the command line invocation to remove file object ID's. To do this, open the Command Prompt window (Start>Accessories>Command Prompt). Navigate to the root directory of the drive in question (that would be typically C:, so execute
the command cd\ at the command prompt. Following this, execute the commandFOR /R %a IN (*.*) DO @ECHO. && @ECHO - %a && @FSUTIL ObjectID Delete "%a at the command prompt. For large file systems, this could take a few hours. After this command completes, try to rerun chkdsk.As for the chkdsk issue in general, my personal opinion is that the polarized opinion on both sides are equally unproductive and uninformed. KL has soft pedaled this issue and handled it in a completely pathetic manner. I really don't believe their handling of it has improved to this date either.

On the other side, the hyperbole has ratcheted up to levels that strains credulity. Every KAV/KIS owner is not impacted by the "problem" since the "problem" occurs when chkdsk cannot complete and a cascade of file system corruption can, in principle, follow. This is distinct from the lengthening of a successful stage 2 scan and completion of chkdsk that every KAV/KIS user will experience.

The two issues have not been unambiguously tied together. However, I can see where constant manipulation of the file system via creation of file object ID's may be an inherently unstable situation on a system prone to crashing for any reason (beta testing, software compatibility issues, a bad install, power issues, etc.).

Blue <-QUOTE}

Does this trick solve all the issues ?
Also, I get an access denied on half of the files. How can I fix this ?
Thanks for your help!

[larryb52]

I had a problem with it on my new laptop & it rebooted my machine. I had to recover lost clusters. Mind you I never had that problem with XP & I thought it was a vista issue?, you mean this is a kaspersky thing?, I replaced it with another AV I gotta read the forum more...

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Does this trick solve all the issues ?
Also, I get an access denied on half of the files. How can I fix this ?
Thanks for your help! <-QUOTE}Short answer - maybe on the solve. The real problem is one in which the filesystem becomes increasingly corrupted and remains unfix due to the inability of chkdsk to complete. Basically, it's a bad but fixable result that snowballs into a situation which ultimately requires a complete reinstall of everything (OS/apps) is necessary.

Did you completely uninstall KAV/KIS and restart? You shouldn't get an access denied on "half" of the files. A few that are locked by the system - sure. You could also redo it from safe mode.

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> let's say it doesn't work, can a Zero fill format fix that problem ? <-QUOTE}Of course. A format fixes any soft error, which this is. Terms like "damage" are used rather loosely in this topic. Yes, the file system becomes damaged, the hardware is fine.

Blue

[Bls440]

Thanks for the tips.
When I meant 'half of the files', that's mainly because I only have windows installed on my primary drive. So yeah, half of those files are 'system' files being locked.

Also, I have another question. When you say that the file system is truncated, does that mean that all sort of datas (not only system files, but also pics, mp3s & so on) suffer from the same problem ? In that case, I can't believe nothing can be done to solve that matter!

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Also, I have another question. When you say that the file system is truncated, does that mean that all sort of datas (not only system files, but also pics, mp3s & so on) suffer from the same problem ? In that case, I can't believe nothing can be done to solve that matter! <-QUOTE}Not truncated, corrupted.

If the file system develops logical inconsistencies, they can be readily repaired under some circumstances. Casually speaking, likelihood of repair is best if the inconsistencies are low in number.

The following analogy is not that precise, but think of a completed puzzle in which a few pieces have been dislodged - if it's just a few pieces, repair is quite easy for anyone. However, as the number of dislodged pieces becomes large, the problem quickly morphs into reassembling the puzzle from scratch. It's a similar issue here. The puzzle pieces are sections of a file on the disk. The file system contains the map of how these pieces are logically related to one another to yield a given complete file. If that map is destroyed, you don't know how to reconstitute the pieces to yield the original file. So, while the data is there, you might not be able to reconstitute it into a useable form. For all intents and purposes, the data is lost (I'm ignoring the "in principle" brute force reconstruction as not practical).

Blue

[Mele20]

What I got from M0d (and others) in the dslr thread, and in private conversations, is that this is a time bomb that will eventually hit anyone with Kaspersky. Granted, the severity will vary due to several things such as the number, or lack of, small files, how large the drive is, etc.

No one can tell me that it is normal, and acceptable, for me to go from 2-3 minutes for chkdsk on my new computer to OVER ONE HOUR six months later when Kaspersky had been installed for several months. No one has a right to accuse me of ranting either. If you had a new computer, expensive one, and this happened? You'd be posting repeatedly about it too. Stupid me, I actually did not believe, nor take the advice, of Frode, the original poster, at Kaspersky forums. I didn't want to believe that what had happened to him could be beginning to happen to me. Chkdsk was still ok when I read his first post. He told me to get Kaspersky off my new computer immediately. I said but I turned off ISwift, I have never done or will do a full scan, I should be ok...and maybe your conclusions are wrong anyhow. He still said get Kaspersky off your computer...it is JUST A MATTER OF TIME before you see the damage. He was right. It took a lot longer because of my precautions, but it happened anyway. I bent over backwards to believe the fanboys at Kaspersky forum. You better believe I am now very bitter and no way I am going to shut up. None of you have any right to characterize my righteous, and long over due posts, as being rants.

Note the JUST A MATTER OF TIME comment. I refused to believe Frode and I went from 2-3 minute chkdsk at boot to over one hour even with my precautions. It's gonna bite most of you if not all of you. I don't have a True Image from before Kaspersky. My images have the object identifiers so that is not a viable solution. I have been advised of highly complex (at least for me) procedures I can try when I install my new hard drive and move everything from the smaller one to the new, much larger one to get rid of the object identifiers, but I am scared to try those things. I've never even installed a new hard drive...that alone and moving everything is going to be daunting enough for me. Blue gets tiresome. I'm terrified of the simple, easy solution he posts. If it was so damn simple, with no risks, and it actually works don't you think Kaspersky would have long ago published it?! When I tried to remove the ADS tags from a mere ONE WEEK TRIAL of KAV 2005, I suffered BSODs, all sorts of problems and NOTHING ACTUALLY REMOVED THEM. Kaspersky finally gave us a tool to remove them and I was the first person they sent the tool to. The tool promptly removed my nVidia driver and caused a BSOD on boot and didn't remove a single ADS tag although it ran for over SIX HOURS and got my computer extremely hot and I had to abort it at that point. Others promptly posted at dslreports with the same problems I had. This was a tool developed by the vendor, yet it caused all sorts of serious problems and didn't work either (until Kaspersky revised it and issued it again and even then it worked only partially)! Yet, I am supposed to trust and use the method Blue keeps posting and telling everyone that folks like me should just shutup and use that unproven removal? Geez. :(

[19monty64]

{QUOTE-> No one can tell me that it is normal, and acceptable, for me to go from 2-3 minutes for chkdsk on my new computer to OVER ONE HOUR six months later when Kaspersky had been installed for several months. No one has a right to accuse me of ranting either. If you had a new computer, expensive one, and this happened? You'd be posting repeatedly about it too.:( <-QUOTE}
I have a new computer, expensive one, and spent less time reformatting than you have posting about this subject! You have made your point, now give the readers a chance to let the message sink-in. Repeating the message over and over causes the reader to "zone you out" and ignore the point.

[C.S.J]

i thought KAV7 was an improvement for chkdsk errors compared to KIS6 which it used to happen all the time.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> What I got from M0d (and others) in the dslr thread, and in private conversations, is that this is a time bomb that will eventually hit anyone with Kaspersky. Granted, the severity will vary due to several things such as the number, or lack of, small files, how large the drive is, etc. <-QUOTE}Is there any empirical evidence to support the contention that this is an inevitable result? How about a theoretical analysis?

At this point I don't see a growing wave of genuine problems being reported. Given that the integrated exposure is going through the roof and new problem reports are not, the implication is that this is not a general issue, i.e. that it simply won't hit just anyone with Kaspersky issue.

{QUOTE-> No one can tell me that it is normal, and acceptable, for me to go from 2-3 minutes for chkdsk on my new computer to OVER ONE HOUR six months later when Kaspersky had been installed for several months. <-QUOTE}I don't believe that anyone productively commenting on this topic would maintain that going from 2-3 minutes to more than an hour is normal - all other things being equal - it's not, and I specifically haven't made that comment.

You state that
{QUOTE-> No one has a right to accuse me of ranting either. <-QUOTE} then point out that
{QUOTE-> You better believe I am now very bitter and no way I am going to shut up. None of you have any right to characterize my righteous, and long over due posts, as being rants. <-QUOTE}which is pretty much the classical definition of a rant.

{QUOTE-> Blue gets tiresome. I'm terrified of the simple, easy solution he posts. <-QUOTE}Does that terror have any basis in known fact? If so, please provide it.


{QUOTE-> Yet, I am supposed to trust and use the the method Blue keeps posting and telling everyone that folks like me should just shutup <-QUOTE}Could you please point me to any specific post cached anywhere on the entire collected content of the Internet where I've told any poster to shutup?
{QUOTE-> and use that unproven removal? Geez. :( <-QUOTE}Unproven? How so?

Blue

[dawgg]

You lot are still reading ranting posts? Wow! You lot have alot of time on your hands!... I automatically filter out some users posts... yes, I read a few of them, but if they're constantly the same arguments/rantings, I get bored of them and begin to swish to the next post without waisting my time and ignore the certain posters :)

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE->
No one has a right to accuse me of ranting either.

<snip>

Note the JUST A MATTER OF TIME comment. I refused to believe Frode and I went from 2-3 minute chkdsk at boot to over one hour even with my precautions. It's gonna bite most of you if not all of you. ( <-QUOTE}

Whether one accuses you or not, that sure qualified as a rant.

As to the matter of time. I don't have a clue who Frode is or what makes him the last word on this. I had KAV 6.0 on my computers since the mid point of the beta, and Kav 7.0 all the way thru release. My computers run perfectly fine. As to chkdsk time, don't know, don't care, don't run it.

Fact is both my machines are running at peak efficiency because I keep them clean, and defragged. It's hard to take seriously a warning that is posted mid rant, with absolutely not a shredd of evidence supporting the theory. Sorry.

[Bluenile]

Has anyone managed to find anything in common for all the users that experience the Chkdsk problem, EG- some program or utility they all have installed?

I have been using AOL AVS and now KAV 7 for over a year with XP Home and have had no problems whatsoever.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Has anyone managed to find anything in common for all the users that experience the Chkdsk problem, EG- some program or utility they all have installed? <-QUOTE}Not to my knowledge, but the primary opportunities to do precisely that were squandered by Kaspersky Labs from the outset.

Blue

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> It's hard to take seriously a warning that is posted mid rant, with absolutely not a shredd of evidence supporting the theory. Sorry. <-QUOTE}

Oh, there is plenty of evidence, but you first have to open your eyes.
:thumbd:

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Oh, there is plenty of evidence, but you first have to open your eyes. <-QUOTE}Well, first you have to qualify what constitutes evidence.

Lengthening of stage 2 of chkdsk has to happen if file object ID's are created. The extent of that lengthening is machine dependent, so at the very least you need to have a pre-KAV/KIS value. From what I've observed, the anomalous cases are where the post-KAV/KIS stage 2 time exceeds 10-20 minutes and/or the ratio of stage 2 times (post/pre) is a reasonably large integer (say 25 for lack of firm data).

You can disagree on that metric, but by that metric, there appears to be less than a 1 or 2 dozen reported and confirmed cases. I happen to believe that each of those cases are important, but it's a long way from 10's of thousands to millions of cases.

If you have another view, I'd be happy to hear it, along with the data. I am familiar with the data presented the following threads: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift.. (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift) and KAV causing chkdsk errors (http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995&hl=) as well as threads referenced therein.

Blue

[C.S.J]

Blue - my system never runs chkdsk automatically on reboots, yet it did this quite a few times with KIS6 installed, regardless of what it does when chkdsk is ran by yourself (the reports of slow downs or hangs), it got me wondering about my HD, to make windows keep running them automatically on reboots.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Blue - my system never runs chkdsk automatically on reboots, yet it did this quite a few times with KIS6 installed, regardless of what it does when chkdsk is ran by yourself (the reports of slow downs or hangs), it got me wondering about my HD, to make windows keep running them automatically on reboots. <-QUOTE}I've never experienced that myself on any machine on which KAV is installed, but it's those types of behavioral changes to which one has to pay particular attention. In isolation, it hard to assess whether it is a direct issue or arises from a secondary effect (i.e. KAV/second program conflict). Either way, those situations bear watching.

Blue

[kinwolf]

Well, I finally got time to try the steps that Blue posted and I can happilly report that it helped alot.

I uninstalled KIS, ran the command(took some time) re-ran chkdsk, all seemed fine by then. Reinstalled KIS, re-ran chkdsk and while it seems stuck at 10% for about 2 mins(this might be normal), it sure isn't taking an hour like before. ;D

Edit:change 40-50 seconds to 2 minutes after actually timing it.

[kinwolf]

I'd also like to add that even if some someone doesn't use chkdsk personally, many apps do. I use O&O defrag and it use windows chkdsk when you ask it to analyse the disks before defragmentation, that's how I first noticed the problem.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Oh, there is plenty of evidence, but you first have to open your eyes.
:thumbd: <-QUOTE}

I am not talking about chkdsk issues, but the fact that because I had KAV on my systems I am eventually going to have problems with them. KAV has been off my system for a while now(not because of this), so when do these problems start and what are the symptoms, again excluding chkdsk.

[trjam]

then I owe you an apologie.:thumb:

[GrailVanGogh]

@ Mele20

{QUOTE-> You better believe I am now very bitter and no way I am going to shut up. None of you have any right to characterize my righteous, and long over due posts, as being rants. <-QUOTE}

You mean self-righteous and yes anyone can call you on your ranting.
Long overdue? Your joking again right?? You have been on this anti-Kaspersky crusade for weeks and for want of proof just head on over to BBR.

{QUOTE-> If you had a new computer, expensive one, and this happened? You'd be posting repeatedly about it too. <-QUOTE}

Be it a 1 day old computer or 10 year old computer for all those claims you have made over the years of being a beta testing, self-taught computer user a software issue should not even have raised an eye brow. You do make backups or Images don't you?

Report the issue - follow the issue - use a different program.

I would not tell you to shut up but the more you rant the weaker your argument gets and at this point your argument and credibility is at a low point.

[19monty64]

{QUOTE-> You lot are still reading ranting posts? Wow! You lot have alot of time on your hands!... I automatically filter out some users posts... yes, I read a few of them, but if they're constantly the same arguments/rantings, I get bored of them and begin to swish to the next post without waisting my time and ignore the certain posters :) <-QUOTE}
Fitering some users causes other problems though. Like a thread full of.... This message is hidden because Everyone is on your ignore list.

[dawgg]

{QUOTE-> Fitering some users causes other problems though. Like a thread full of.... This message is hidden because Everyone is on your ignore list. <-QUOTE}
lol, only a veryyy small minority filtered though!... still like to hear/read other users opinions, thoughts and feelings :)

[19monty64]

Some days....the minority, well....ain't so small!!! Opinions, thoughts and feelings are important.....when shared in moderation!

[Mele20]

{QUOTE->
Be it a 1 day old computer or 10 year old computer for all those claims you have made over the years of being a beta testing, self-taught computer user a software issue should not even have raised an eye brow. You do make backups or Images don't you?

<-QUOTE}

I guess that you don't know anything about the chkdsk problem or you would not have brought up the Image issue. Yes, I have an image but it is infected with Kaspersky Object Identifers. So, it is worthless. I had an image from before I installed KAV but I had to remove it to make a new image as my external drive is only 80GB and one full image is about 40GB so the drive will only hold one image. All images except the very first one made are tainted and cannot be used to rid myself of the damage from Kaspersky.

You really shouldn't blather on and criticize when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

[fax]

As I always says in this type of thread:

"....I really see no reason for the user to defame the vendor so stridently. Fact is, when one screams like this they are merely considered some sort of fanatic, and their views should be suspect...."

We all understand the issues some posters are having but their tone and sometimes rudeness will not help to channel their concern. On the contrary, they are just seriously underscoring their credibility.

Fax

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I guess that you don't know anything about the chkdsk problem or you would not have brought up the Image issue. Yes, I have an image but it is infected with Kaspersky Object Identifers. So, it is worthless. I had an image from before I installed KAV but I had to remove it to make a new image as my external drive is only 80GB and one full image is about 40GB so the drive will only hold one image. All images except the very first one made are tainted and cannot be used to rid myself of the damage from Kaspersky.

You really shouldn't blather on and criticize when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. <-QUOTE}

You are 100% correct. Your critics are attempting to obfuscate the real issue, and that issue is that Kaspersky does have a chkdsk problem, and I had it on my computers. It is common knowledge verifiable by empirical data and testing. The attempt to discredit you because you are adamant about this issue is meaningless. We are both adamant about this issue, and I have been in the computer industry since 1967.

Btw, I use Windows XP SP2 firewall and NOD32 2.7, and have never had a virus or malware infection on any of our 89 computers.

[fax]

{QUOTE-> Your critics are attempting to obfuscate the real issue, and that issue is that Kaspersky does have a chkdsk problem, and I had it on my computers. <-QUOTE}

No one here is denying the chkdsk issue... but this does not mean that all Kaspersky software should be flushed into the toilet...

Its very simple... (sorry for the non elegant example)

Kaspersky is aware of the problem that will fixed in the new version 8. You are free to use Kaspersky or any other software you feel confortable with.

I have used KAV and had no problems... other have/had issues with it. But its not a good justification to defame the vendor like it has been done here and on other forum by some of the posters... it is simply suspicious and not very professional.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Fax

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> No one here is denying the chkdsk issue... but this does not mean that all Kaspersky software should be flushed into the toilet...

Its very simple... (sorry for the non elegant example)

Kaspersky is aware of the problem that will fixed in the new version 8. You are free to use Kaspersky or any other software you feel confortable with.

I have used KAV and had no problems... other have/had issues with it. But its not a good justification to defame the vendor like it has been done here and on other forum by some of the posters... it is simply suspicious and not very professional.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Fax <-QUOTE}

I did not state that the software should be flushed-I like their suite but they need to fix the chkdsk as we know they will (or must). My agreement with Mele is that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. We took Kaspersky off the machines we tested it on for the chkdsk issue.

Cheers

BB

[fax]

{QUOTE-> I did not state that the software should be flushed-I like their suite but they need to fix the chkdsk as we know they will (or must). My agreement with Mele is that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. We took Kaspersky off the machines we tested it on for the chkdsk issue.

Cheers

BB <-QUOTE}

Yes, no problem with that but....

{QUOTE-> Kaspersky is an arrogant company that cannot be trusted. <-QUOTE}

This is something more than a call to fix chkdsk issues (IMO)

Fax

[Diver]

I am a bit confused. What exactly is KAV 7 adding to the disk or files. Is it a NT alternative stream or some tag attached to the file or what?

[GrailVanGogh]

{QUOTE-> @ Mele20

I guess that you don't know anything about the chkdsk problem or you would not have brought up the Image issue.

You really shouldn't blather on and criticize when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. <-QUOTE}

Your guessing is wrong again.

Your computer was not damaged. There is a big difference between damage and corruption. Does the computer start? Process data? CD/DVD drive(s) work? If so then it is not damaged.

Like I said before had you really been testing software over the years a bug which is all this is should not be such a big deal.

Report it - Reinstall Windows if needed - Find a different AV to use.

End of story.

{QUOTE-> Kaspersky is an arrogant company that cannot be trusted. <-QUOTE}

Wow like they are the only one with a CS issue?

Edit* Added more

[larryb52]

you know I find it funny. If this was an issue that Norton came up with everyone would be screaming for somebodies head at Norton but because it's Kaspersky we have the supporterss saying this is not an issue. If software does anything other than what it was designed to do in a fashion that one interprets as harm to a backup (takes time) or puts his sytem in a compromising postion than I think he has a right to protest. You don't have to get testy with Mele. He is entitled to his opinion, he paid for that right...

[dawgg]

There's nothing wrong with giving opinions... there's only a problem (and its reallllyyyyy annoying) the way certain users keep hammering the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

[larryb52]

can't agrue with your opinion as your intitled to it. But from a user perspective (you do use security software?) it's very annoying to have a AV product take your machine apart & have to reformat than put everything back when you find you have a corupt backup. I know from experience as I've been there done that. These forums are for informative conversations & unfortunately some of us (me included) carry on too much. But since we all care, pay money & put our time into it are intitled to it. If it's something I'd rather not reread I pass but I understand where people are coming from, I'd like to think we can come in to share but also vent at those times somebodies software didn't work as expected...

[Peter2150]

Interesting morning which leads to additional thoughts on the subject. But first:

1. If kaspersky is proven to be causing to chkdsk to run, then read no further, that is a real problem

2. If kaspersky some how broke chkdsk and it won't run, then 1. also applies.

THis morning during a long over due update on my big laptop, it BSODed. I rolled back the update and then as I do I ran an offline defrag. On this rare occasion it wouldn't run and told me to run chkdsk. (Yes KAV has been on this machine). So with interest I ran it. Did I see a delay at the start of stage 2. Yes. Was I concerned, no, it was obvious there was disk activity.

Do I consider the delay a big deal. Nope, it was maybe 10 minutes, which was small compared even to the time of stage 5 which is the check on free space. This delay to me is a non issue. It's still small compared to the time chkdsk takes to run. Also, I honestly don't see the point of running chkdsk that frequently, that it should matter.


On a totally side note, there was another important lesson in this thread. Imaging is very important, but to only have the space for one image is short sighted considering how cheap disks are. I would keep enough space to keep 4 to 5 images. Many times the current image hasn't been that valuable in tracking down a problem, but going back in time to look at previous images, can help isolate when something started, and give you valuble clues. Yes this does mean you have to restore.:D

Pete

[Kapiti]

{QUOTE-> Do I consider the delay a big deal. Nope, it was maybe 10 minutes, which was small compared even to the time of stage 5 which is the check on free space. This delay to me is a non issue. It's still small compared to the time chkdsk takes to run. Also, I honestly don't see the point of running chkdsk that frequently, that it should matter.


On a totally side note, there was another important lesson in this thread. Imaging is very important, but to only have the space for one image is short sighted considering how cheap disks are. I would keep enough space to keep 4 to 5 images. Many times the current image hasn't been that valuable in tracking down a problem, but going back in time to look at previous images, can help isolate when something started, and give you valuble clues. Yes this does mean you have to restore.:D

Pete <-QUOTE}

The delay on stage 2 is only an indication that a user might have chkdsk problems with Kaspersky. For me the delay wasn't a major problem, I could easily live with the delay for a few minutes. No, the problem for me *and others* is that chkdsk keeps starting and indicates that problems exist that need to be fixed. This happened frequently to me and if you read the many forum threads scattered over the web you'll notice that others had/have the same problem.

I agree that keeping only two images is short-sighted but even keeping 4 or 5 images as you suggest might not be enough. For many users the problem with Kaspersky isn't apparent until months after installing and using the software. In my case I was lucky that I had a pre Kaspersky image that was months old that I could recover from.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> The delay on stage 2 is only an indication that a user might have chkdsk problems with Kaspersky. For me the delay wasn't a major problem, I could easily live with the delay for a few minutes. No, the problem for me *and others* is that chkdsk keeps starting and indicates that problems exist that need to be fixed. This happened frequently to me and if you read the many forum threads scattered over the web you'll notice that others had/have the same problem. <-QUOTE}

Note, I did in my post indicate I was aware of that, and addressed in the beginning of my post.

{QUOTE-> I agree that keeping only two images is short-sighted but even keeping 4 or 5 images as you suggest might not be enough. For many users the problem with Kaspersky isn't apparent until months after installing and using the software. In my case I was lucky that I had a pre Kaspersky image that was months old that I could recover from. <-QUOTE}


Question just occured to me. Supposedly those ID's go away with a copy. Has anyone tried to see if they are lost when you do a copy/update to an archive with FDISR. If they do, that would be an easy way to clean the system. Blue, or anyone know

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> you know I find it funny. If this was an issue that Norton came up with everyone would be screaming for somebodies head at Norton but because it's Kaspersky we have the supporterss saying this is not an issue. If software does anything other than what it was designed to do in a fashion that one interprets as harm to a backup (takes time) or puts his sytem in a compromising postion than I think he has a right to protest. You don't have to get testy with Mele. He is entitled to his opinion, he paid for that right... <-QUOTE}
Are you saying that if Norton was doing something fishy within the hard drive, then nobody would be defending them? :blink: My company uses Norton and if it "messed up" the drives, a ton of PCs would get "contaminated".:o This problem sort of reminds me about trying to "optimize" a program and generating a "side effect" from doing so.

[larryb52]

{QUOTE-> Are you saying that if Norton was doing something fishy within the hard drive, then nobody would be defending them? :blink: My company uses Norton and if it "messed up" the drives, a ton of PCs would get "contaminated".:o This problem sort of reminds me about trying to "optimize" a program and generating a "side effect" from doing so. <-QUOTE}


I just think there are more Kaspersky defenders during bad times than those that defend Norton during bad times. I like both & have had problem with both , I just think there are more people that will stand by Kaspersky in bad times than Norton. BTW I am not saying one is right or one is wrong. I have Kaspersky & chkdsk runs fine. However that does not mean that the problem does not exist. I respect most of the posters here as they are vets at the game of keeping the nasties off machines. I'm just making a statement at what I preceive. Also If I had Norton do as you described I would be up in arms too...

[Macstorm]

{QUOTE-> I have Kaspersky & chkdsk runs fine. However that does not mean that the problem does not exist. <-QUOTE}
I strongly disagree here. I do not believe in ghosts. ;)
.

[Straight Shooter]

Hello,

It all comes down to these points...

1. KAV is the winner (with Avira and NOD32) in detection...

2. KAV's NTFS identifiers issue is real, and the general public HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW..

3. Due to #2, I, along with a vast majority of NON FANBOYS, have decided to NOT to use KAV ever again. To me, it's a matter of trust...

Thanks
Jim

To the moron who said I am ranting, when My computer is altered and it cannot be corrected except by a complete disk wipe, then I reserve the right to rant...LOL

[larryb52]

well said. It's funny how well everyone talks about Kaspersky positives but rare will admit the short comings & this is a pretty serious issue IMO...

{QUOTE-> Hello,

It all comes down to these points...

1. KAV is the winner (with Avira and NOD32) in detection...

2. KAV's NTFS identifiers issue is real, and the general public HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW..

3. Due to #2, I, along with a vast majority of NON FANBOYS, have decided to NOT to use KAV ever again. To me, it's a matter of trust...

Thanks
Jim

To the moron who said I am ranting, when My computer is altered and it cannot be corrected except by a complete disk wipe, then I reserve the right to rant...LOL <-QUOTE}

[Zombini]

{QUOTE-> you know I find it funny. If this was an issue that Norton came up with everyone would be screaming for somebodies head at Norton but because it's Kaspersky we have the supporterss saying this is not an issue. If software does anything other than what it was designed to do in a fashion that one interprets as harm to a backup (takes time) or puts his sytem in a compromising postion than I think he has a right to protest. You don't have to get testy with Mele. He is entitled to his opinion, he paid for that right... <-QUOTE}


I couldn't have said it better. And customer of Kaspersky have every right to scream and complain, unless they are getting a full refund, which they are not.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I couldn't have said it better. And customer of Kaspersky have every right to scream and complain, unless they are getting a full refund, which they are not. <-QUOTE}

Have you considered that some of the KAV apologists in this forum may be shills and/or work for Kaspersky? That is a logical conclusion given the evasion of the clear problem with chkdsk.

Having owned three major computer firms, I can tell you that one of the primary things computer companies do (as do other industries) is to sweep major problems under the rug if a quick and inexpensive solution is not at hand.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> I couldn't have said it better. And customer of Kaspersky have every right to scream and complain, unless they are getting a full refund, which they are not. <-QUOTE}

Sure, and people have the right to rant also. BUT. screaming and complaining here the wrong people are hearing you. But after a while the folks here just get tired of the ranting and stop taking it seriously.

[larryb52]

{QUOTE-> Sure, and people have the right to rant also. BUT. screaming and complaining here the wrong people are hearing you. But after a while the folks here just get tired of the ranting and stop taking it seriously. <-QUOTE}


Kaspersky is the right place , granted. But sometimes telling your friends here in a so called rant makes you feel better & you can get past it. I had problems with kaspersky said something & while I still have a copy of the program I don't use it but it did make me feel better. Also people not as knowledgeable about AV's come here to see what's what. If a rant stops one person from paying 80 bucks to buy problems is a service not provided?

[Kapiti]

{QUOTE-> Sure, and people have the right to rant also. BUT. screaming and complaining here the wrong people are hearing you. But after a while the folks here just get tired of the ranting and stop taking it seriously. <-QUOTE}

That surely would apply to a great many posting to Wilders Forum. In fact if one were to remove all posting containing complaints on the Wilders Forum there would be very few messages left to read.

In my own case I have been in touch with Kaspersky Support Staff numerous times but I still feel I have the right to express my opinion in the Wilders Forum also.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Kaspersky is the right place , granted. But sometimes telling your friends here in a so called rant makes you feel better & you can get past it. I had problems with kaspersky said something & while I still have a copy of the program I don't use it but it did make me feel better. Also people not as knowledgeable about AV's come here to see what's what. If a rant stops one person from paying 80 bucks to buy problems is a service not provided? <-QUOTE}

I don't disagree. And certainly when something happens you are upset about it post it. What I am talking about is constantly posting the same rant, day after day, week after week. That becomes self defeating, because no one pays attention after a while.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> That surely would apply to a great many posting to Wilders Forum. In fact if one were to remove all posting containing complaints on the Wilders Forum there would be very few messages left to read.

In my own case I have been in touch with Kaspersky Support Staff numerous times but I still feel I have the right to express my opinion in the Wilders Forum also. <-QUOTE}

Agreed.
Personally I like to hear about problems others are having with different software.
Does it stop me from using it: No!
It does make one aware of possible problems and I also know that it may not affect me cause all systems are different.
Rants carried overboard are another story.
There is no reason to tear apart vendors or other posters for expressing their opinions.
Hey, we're all different and have different ideas.
That's what makes these forums so interesting.8)

[Defcon]

Here is my take on the whole matter - it doesn't matter if a vanishingly small percentage of users are affected. As a user, I have no idea if using KAV is going to cause this problem for me and I am not willing to take the chance, since the effects are quite extreme - messing with data structures on the file system is a pretty serious offense IMO, and I speak as a developer.

This is not a trivial programming error, its clear they knew about this in the previous versions but went ahead and wrote sloppy code and took a long time owning up to their mistake. Its quite bizzare since the actual scanning engine is top notch.

Frankly, there are many many security products with maybe a few % difference in actual performance. I'd rather choose one which is not going to have issues like this. Security is a set of practices not just choosing a single product and I don't want to take the risk.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> Here is my take on the whole matter - it doesn't matter if a vanishingly small percentage of users are affected. As a user, I have no idea if using KAV is going to cause this problem for me and I am not willing to take the chance, since the effects are quite extreme - messing with data structures on the file system is a pretty serious offense IMO, and I speak as a developer.

This is not a trivial programming error, its clear they knew about this in the previous versions but went ahead and wrote sloppy code and took a long time owning up to their mistake. Its quite bizzare since the actual scanning engine is top notch.

Frankly, there are many many security products with maybe a few % difference in actual performance. I'd rather choose one which is not going to have issues like this. Security is a set of practices not just choosing a single product and I don't want to take the risk. <-QUOTE}

Well stated.
It is a shame. I was using KIS7 and it did work very well until...
I had to do a reformat. Nice to have a computer that runs so well again.
I didn't realize that previous problems existed till all this came out.
For me the trust is gone no matter what they do from this point on.
I think the percentage is alot higher then they are saying at this point.
As time goes on this ugly problem will start rearing it's head more and more.
Users who are having problems now and don't know why and others who will develop these symtoms down the road will begin popping up.
This is just the beginning! 8)

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> Having owned three major computer firms, I can tell you that one of the primary things computer companies do (as do other industries) is to sweep major problems under the rug if a quick and inexpensive solution is not at hand. <-QUOTE}
Having worked in the IT business and doing a lot of troubleshooting in my job, I can tell you that there are two standard responses when an answer to a reported problem cannot be found: 1) No trouble found and 2) Cannot duplicate problem. ;) 8) :D :P :shifty:

[BlueZannetti]

Just some comments that seem in order....

{QUOTE-> My agreement with Mele is that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. We took Kaspersky off the machines we tested it on for the chkdsk issue. <-QUOTE}I don't believe that there is any debate on problems being present, and serious ones at that. What remains in question is: Whether all KAV/KIS users will inexorably suffer the fate of a corrupted disk. People continually saying that this will happen doesn't make it so and from a distance I simply don't see a surge in what I'd call real problems. I don't know that it won't happen. However, I wouldn't expect it at this point based on the empirical evidence that I've seen.
A connection between the stage 2 chkdsk slowdown and severe issues of disk corruption. Everyone see the former, that doesn't mean all will experience the latter. Technically, I don't see a direct correlation.
Are the reports of what I'd call genuine problems directly caused by KAV/KIS or is it a secondary relationship. I realize, if you're disk is corrupted, it doesn't matter. However, this speaks to the magnitude of the potential issue. It may be significant, or on the same order as the usual software conflicts seen daily.Where I start to have a significant problem in this whole discussion, are comments such as:{QUOTE-> To the moron who said I am ranting, when My computer is altered and it cannot be corrected except by a complete disk wipe, then I reserve the right to rant...LOL <-QUOTE}To be completely fair, this statement was fairly accurate when Straight Shooter experienced his problem. A complete wipe was potentially the safe solution and no others had been proposed. KL support was, and remain, all too quiet on the subject as well. However, this approach is clearly no longer the sole solution and arguably wasn't the best solution for many people who have and continue to go by this route. Whether a wipe is required depends on a lot of factors. It is not the sole solution. I realize that if you have wholesale disk corruption, it does remain the solution.

or
{QUOTE-> Have you considered that some of the KAV apologists in this forum may be shills and/or work for Kaspersky? <-QUOTE}I've already been singled out in this thread by Mele20, so I suppose that you referring to me as a shill for, or employee of, Kaspersky. For the record, I'm neither (employee definitely, as for shill, I try not to be that for anyone). I do try to be balanced in my comments, and I expect the same from others. You might read some of the comments on this subject that I have posted to the KL forum or DSLReports, they're not the comments of a shill.

Of course, I also seem to elicit comments such as:{QUOTE-> Yet, I am supposed to trust and use the method Blue keeps posting and telling everyone that folks like me should just shutup and use that unproven removal? Geez. :( <-QUOTE}I'm still waiting for an example in which my comments have played out in this fashion in any thread on this or any other topic cached anywhere on the Internet. So far, none have been offered.

The fact of the matter is that this is gratuitous and, to be perfectly blunt, abusive hyperbole which underminds the credibility of those who are currently experiencing or have experienced genuine problems and are attempting to articulate their situation and describe their symptoms. The Internet is already a noisy place. It needs less noise, not more.

Mele20 then notes that{QUOTE-> Yes, I have an image but it is infected with Kaspersky Object Identifers. So, it is worthless. <-QUOTE}Let's think about this for a second. If you have an image, or even better, have the capability to create an image today, you can at your leisure try out that command line approach that I have apparently been carpet bombing the Internet with and actually see if it works, and if it doesn't, simply roll back the image. Of course, you'd only do that if you have a problem that you wish to resolve. If one actually believes that an inexorable corruption of a disk is in the offing, trying what's available would seem a reasonable course of action to me, but that's just me.

People can reasonably disagree with what I, or others, say, but it doesn't need to be fueled with gratuitous invective flying across the net.

Blue

[Defcon]

{QUOTE-> I don't believe that there is any debate on problems being present, and serious ones at that. What remains in question is:

* Whether all KAV/KIS users will inexorably suffer the fate of a corrupted disk. People continually saying that this will happen doesn't make it so and from a distance I simply don't see a surge in what I'd call real problems. I don't know that it won't happen. However, I wouldn't expect it at this point based on the empirical evidence that I've seen.
* A connection between the stage 2 chkdsk slowdown and severe issues of disk corruption. Everyone see the former, that doesn't mean all will experience the latter. Technically, I don't see a direct correlation.
* Are the reports of what I'd call genuine problems directly caused by KAV/KIS or is it a secondary relationship. I realize, if you're disk is corrupted, it doesn't matter. However, this speaks to the magnitude of the potential issue. It may be significant, or on the same order as the usual software conflicts seen daily. <-QUOTE}

Basically you're saying that a very serious problem exists but its not known when or if it will manifest itself. How do you define a 'real problem'? In your opinion if I just experience chkdsk slowdowns is it ok for me to keep using Kaspersky knowing one day my entire filesystem could be corrupted, but taking comfort in the fact that it doesn't happen too often?

{QUOTE-> It may be significant, or on the same order as the usual software conflicts seen daily. <-QUOTE}

I think requiring a reformat makes this a little bit more serious than that.

Why would anyone install a product which can cause disk corruption ?! Even if it was 10 times better (which its not) and if there were no alternatives (which there are plenty), I'd still hesitate to recommend it.

This is a MUCH more serious issue than a software crash. At worse buggy software can cause a BSOD which just needs a restart, it doesn't require me to reformat my disk. Thats the definition of malware!

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Basically you're saying that a very serious problem exists but its not known when or if it will manifest itself. How do you define a 'real problem'? <-QUOTE}No, I didn't say that. I said that there are specific cases present and that some of them are serious. If a person can't boot their system, that's serious. If a partition is questionable and chkdsk cannot complete, that's serious. If chkdsk takes hours to complete, that's serious.

My personal read of the reports are that they are low in number. Are these specific problems directly tied to KAV/KIS? I don't know. Now, you can obviously point to "all those time bombs" waiting to blow, but do you actually have a technically sound basis on which to make that statement? I don't and I've also been explicit in stating that I don't know if the converse holds.

Why don't you take a moment to read all my posts on this topic before jumping to conclusions? KL had not done their homework in creating iSwift, they have not performed what I'd call sufficient due diligence in investigating it from the start, and their support statement (http://support.kaspersky.com/kav7/error?qid=208279501) suffered from amateurish execution. Basically, they don't know how to manage this type of situation. That's clear.

At this point a number of systems that could have shone light of the issue have been wiped clean, and I don't blame the owners for doing so.

{QUOTE-> In your opinion if I just experience chkdsk slowdowns is it ok for me to keep using Kaspersky knowing one day my entire filesystem could be corrupted, but taking comfort in the fact that it doesn't happen too often? <-QUOTE}In a nutshell, this comment is representative of the primary issue I have. Stage 2 of chkdsk slows down, it has to, there is more information to process. Jumping from that behavior immediately to disk corruption is where I part company. Your filesystem could be corrupted any day by almost piece of software that touches it at a low level.

I've experienced a number of cases in which I installed program X, problem Y follows, and program X was not the direct cause of problem Y. It was program X interacting with program Z and program Z was the direct cause of the problem. Depending on who does what, without any other information, either X or Z or both could be the cause of Y, and it's the detail oriented investigation that is missing in this case. A specific example of this that I recently experienced is provided by ShadowDefender (SD) and Acronis True Image. I installed SD and was experiencing spontaneous reboots. The cause was a conflict with the Acronis TI snapshot manager - as for who is responsible for the conflict, that's up in the air at the moment.

{QUOTE-> I think requiring a reformat makes this a little bit more serious than that. <-QUOTE}and what makes you believe that a format is required?
{QUOTE-> Why would anyone install a product which can cause disk corruption ?! Even if it was 10 times better (which its not) and if there were no alternatives (which there are plenty), I'd still hesitate to recommend it. <-QUOTE}You've now made that leap, this particular piece of software can cause (i.e. be the direct agent of) disk corruption. End of story. Can you please provide some definitive technical evidence of this? Not time based anecdotal time correlated suspicion as I mentioned above with SD/Acronis TI - something firm - as I did in that case - a minidump that pointed directly to snapman.sys.
{QUOTE-> This is a MUCH more serious issue than a software crash. At worse buggy software can cause a BSOD which just needs a restart, it doesn't require me to reformat my disk. Thats the definition of malware! <-QUOTE}Actually, any program that causes a crash while performing operations like a disk write are problematic. You should know this. If a system is crashing, the likelihood of soft corruption of the disk goes through the roof. If you think BSOD's are definitively more benign than iSwift, you have a lot to learn. The only times I've ever had to reformat were immediately following hard BSOD's.....

Regards,

Blue

[larryb52]

I have always been leary of Kaspersky as a v5 Kav did take my last laptop down with a hard BSOD & yes I had to do a reformat & no I didn't have a backup but not my business machine tho I still was not happy. On the point at hand I like kaspersky's detection #'s they cannot be doubted as tests prove them to be at the top. However with that said be leary of test results, they don't always prove to be the bottom line in selection of AV protection, yes important. But itsn't the execution of the program just as important?, how well written it is, how it effects you over all performance?. What's the point of great detection if you machine moves like a slug?. The bottom line is the program really protecting your machine or making you think that it is. Companies produce what they think people will buy. So they cut a few corners corrupt a few disks, over all the % is low. Those few people can't really hurt kaspersky I think that's why it's fair to hear from those few. If 5% have the program & it causes a corrupt disk is that really acceptable?, I think not...




{QUOTE-> No, I didn't say that. I said that there are specific cases present and that some of them are serious. If a person can't boot their system, that's serious. If a partition is questionable and chkdsk cannot complete, that's serious. If chkdsk takes hours to complete, that's serious.

My personal read of the reports are that they are low in number. Are these specific problems directly tied to KAV/KIS? I don't know. Now, you can obviously point to "all those time bombs" waiting to blow, but do you actually have a technically sound basis on which to make that statement? I don't and I've also been explicit in stating that I don't know if the converse holds.

Why don't you take a moment to read all my posts on this topic before jumping to conclusions? KL had not done their homework in creating iSwift, they have not performed what I'd call sufficient due diligence in investigating it from the start, and their support statement (http://support.kaspersky.com/kav7/error?qid=208279501) suffered from amateurish execution. Basically, they don't know how to manage this type of situation. That's clear.

At this point a number of systems that could have shone light of the issue have been wiped clean, and I don't blame the owners for doing so.

In a nutshell, this comment is representative of the primary issue I have. Stage 2 of chkdsk slows down, it has to, there is more information to process. Jumping from that behavior immediately to disk corruption is where I part company. Your filesystem could be corrupted any day by almost piece of software that touches it at a low level.

I've experienced a number of cases in which I installed program X, problem Y follows, and program X was not the direct cause of problem Y. It was program X interacting with program Z and program Z was the direct cause of the problem. Depending on who does what, without any other information, either X or Z or both could be the cause of Y, and it's the detail oriented investigation that is missing in this case. A specific example of this that I recently experienced is provided by ShadowDefender (SD) and Acronis True Image. I installed SD and was experiencing spontaneous reboots. The cause was a conflict with the Acronis TI snapshot manager - as for who is responsible for the conflict, that's up in the air at the moment.

and what makes you believe that a format is required?
You've now made that leap, this particular piece of software can cause (i.e. be the direct agent of) disk corruption. End of story. Can you please provide some definitive technical evidence of this? Not time based anecdotal time correlated suspicion as I mentioned above with SD/Acronis TI - something firm - as I did in that case - a minidump that pointed directly to snapman.sys.
Actually, any program that causes a crash while performing operations like a disk write are problematic. You should know this. If a system is crashing, the likelihood of soft corruption of the disk goes through the roof. If you think BSOD's are definitively more benign than iSwift, you have a lot to learn. The only times I've ever had to reformat were immediately following hard BSOD's.....

Regards,

Blue <-QUOTE}

[Defcon]

{QUOTE-> You've now made that leap, this particular piece of software can cause (i.e. be the direct agent of) disk corruption. End of story. Can you please provide some definitive technical evidence of this? <-QUOTE}

No, I cannot, since I don't own Kaspersky products.

{QUOTE-> Actually, any program that causes a crash while performing operations like a disk write are problematic. You should know this. If a system is crashing, the likelihood of soft corruption of the disk goes through the roof. If you think BSOD's are definitively more benign than iSwift, you have a lot to learn. The only times I've ever had to reformat were immediately following hard BSOD's..... <-QUOTE}

I disagree. NTFS is quite resistant to failure and is transactional (even more so in Vista). I've suffered thru my fair share of crashes and none of them have resulted in disk corruption.

{QUOTE-> Jumping from that behavior immediately to disk corruption is where I part company <-QUOTE}
{QUOTE-> and what makes you believe that a format is required? <-QUOTE}

My point is there is a possibility of corruption and a format may be required as a result. Its not a 100% certainty but a chance, however small. And that is enough to stop me from using it.

You may argue that any low level disk operation carries the same risk (such as your example with TI) and I agree completely. But a virus scanner has no business doing low level disk operations, and that too in a buggy way. Thats the crux of the problem.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE->
I disagree. NTFS is quite resistant to failure and is transactional (even more so in Vista). I've suffered thru my fair share of crashes and none of them have resulted in disk corruption.
<-QUOTE}

I agree, I've had some terrible crashes, and have never had an issue with NTFS.


{QUOTE->
My point is there is a possibility of corruption and a format may be required as a result. Its not a 100% certainty but a chance, however small. And that is enough to stop me from using it.
<-QUOTE}

I am not sure why everyone thinks corruption = format. Actually the worst I've done to one of my disks, I'd have given anything to have been able to format. I couldn't. Corruption may be restore, reinstall, but not necessarily format.

Pete

[fce]

{QUOTE-> Having worked in the IT business and doing a lot of troubleshooting in my job, I can tell you that there are two standard responses when an answer to a reported problem cannot be found: 1) No trouble found and 2) Cannot duplicate problem. ;) 8) :D :P :shifty: <-QUOTE}

correct.

before i pay for my KIS yearly subscription, i run a lot of chkdsk to verify that chkdsk/KIS problem....negative!

i bet user who experience this chkdsk/kasp problem is less than 100user, compare to 200Million user of Kaspersky.

goodluck guys for you never ending insecurity.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> My point is there is a possibility of corruption and a format may be required as a result. Its not a 100% certainty but a chance, however small. And that is enough to stop me from using it. <-QUOTE}If I had a decent sense that KAV/KIS was the determinant cause, I'd absolutely agree. However, I don't, nor do I have an obvious pathway based on a sound fundamental breakdown of the situation. On the other hand, if someone makes a determination that the possibilities are too fluid on the down side for them, that's a valid personal factor, just like many others a person weighs in rendering a product purchase decision.

{QUOTE-> But a virus scanner has no business doing low level disk operations, and that too in a buggy way. Thats the crux of the problem. <-QUOTE}How do you know their implementation is buggy? Do you even know their implementation?

To me, there are simply too many unknowns floating around and the discussion participants simply refuse to acknowledge this on either side. Separating objective facts, from reasonable speculation, from idle conjecture, and finally from technically unsound hysteria is what this discussion is all about. If you were to tally what's out there, I'd rank hysteria at the top and objective facts at the bottom with the other two rounding out the middle.

For example, in one case out there the user described what I (and I think anyone else) would term genuine issues, the user also noted frequent power drops that resulted in unplanned system shutdowns. Is KAV/KIS the cause here?

Well, iSwift comes a whole slew of file object ID creation events. Does this make a system more prone to file system corruption in the event of power drops? I'd hazard to guess probably, although it will likely depend on KAV/KIS settings and how that user runs their PC. Again, is KAV/KIS the direct cause? Clearly, one could posit a heightened sensitivity to problems in this particular case.

As I've stated explicitly elsewhere (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift~start=500):{QUOTE-> the handling of this whole episode is about as amateurish as the initial decision to to down the iSwift path - which was a sophomoric and amateurish exhibition of pure programming hubris when you get down to it. <-QUOTE}My own reasoning behind that statement is embedded in comments in various threads. If I thought any of my systems were in danger of a compromise, I'd pull the program in a heartbeat, but I simply don't see that as yet. But it's an issue I watch, it's why I comment on these threads, and I'll adjust my position in the future if warranted.

Blue

[Firecat]

OK, I gave this a "field test"...:)

I ran ZoneAlarm AV for two weeks, allowed it to do a full system scan, including all hard disks, including one partition I had kept as a "test subject" for the impact of iSwift technology. After two weeks, I have reformatted every partition except my "test subject" partition, and now, whenever I scan it with chkdsk, I do notice a 12-second delay before stage 2 begins, but everything sails smoothly after that. Of course, 12 seconds may very well be normal :)

I have heard rumours of KAV/clones causing MFT fragmentation, is this true? I do not know. As of right now I have not had any conclusive evidence of the issue causing MAJOR problems with chkdsk (the delay is indeed there, but 12 seconds is more than OK for me). Does this mean I should keep using ZoneAlarm Security Suite? I am not sure at this point. Any advice? :-\

[Defcon]

BlueZanetti, you have obviously investigated the issue in detail and know much more about the risks involved. My reactions are not based on first hand experience (like I said I haven't used Kaspersky beyond the free trial) but on what others have reported.

So in your opinion :-

1. Do you think there is a negligible risk of serious disk problems with KAV7?
2. Would you recommend it?

[Mele20]

{QUOTE->

Do I consider the delay a big deal. Nope, it was maybe 10 minutes, which was small compared even to the time of stage 5 which is the check on free space. This delay to me is a non issue. It's still small compared to the time chkdsk takes to run. Also, I honestly don't see the point of running chkdsk that frequently, that it should matter.


On a totally side note, there was another important lesson in this thread. Imaging is very important, but to only have the space for one image is short sighted considering how cheap disks are. I would keep enough space to keep 4 to 5 images. Many times the current image hasn't been that valuable in tracking down a problem, but going back in time to look at previous images, can help isolate when something started, and give you valuble clues. Yes this does mean you have to restore.:D

Pete <-QUOTE}

To go from 2-3 minutes to run chkdsk to over one hour IS a big deal to me.

As for hard drives being cheap...I don't think so. The external hard drive I bought about two years ago is 80GB (largest I could get here at the time) and it cost $100. I just bought a SATA-II 3GB/s 300GB internal drive with Native Command Queuing and 16MB cache for $120. I don't consider that cheap but maybe its because I live on a fixed income.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Just some comments that seem in order....

Mele20 then notes thatLet's think about this for a second. If you have an image, or even better, have the capability to create an image today, you can at your leisure try out that command line approach that I have apparently been carpet bombing the Internet with and actually see if it works, and if it doesn't, simply roll back the image. Of course, you'd only do that if you have a problem that you wish to resolve. If one actually believes that an inexorable corruption of a disk is in the offing, trying what's available would seem a reasonable course of action to me, but that's just me.
Blue <-QUOTE}

I can't boot to the TI boot disk on this computer. I could on my computer that this one is a replacement for. Acronis says the reason is because I have TI8 and was using XP Pro SP1 on the other computer. This computer came with XP Pro SP2 and TI8 won't work on SP2. I was told to buy TI 10. I haven't had the money. So, I can make an image but I can't restore. I can only use the image for copying files.

So, as I mentioned in my post above this one, one reason I bought a new Seagate drive instead of some other brand was because SeaDisk now has TI 10 (not the full version, but from reading the manual, it appears the only missing is the ability to do incremental images which I think are "iffy" anyway).

Yes, I can try your command line method if I ever get this drive installed...I have never installed a hard drive before and I want to dual boot so I have to know how to set that up and it appears I also need a floppy boot disk. I have a floppy drive but most Dells don't so why a floppy is required to install this new hard drive puzzles me. Then there is problem that in order to use Native Command Queuing, I have to use the RAID drivers but I am not usng RAID. I don't how this will affect installing a second hard drive.

It is a shame that using SeaDisc's TI 10 to clone everything on the current drive to the new one won't get rid of the Object Identifiers. I have been given information on other methods of moving the contents of the current drive to the new one that would remove the object identifiers but it seems complicated and I don't need any more complications than I may have just from installing a drive after moving the current one (I don't even understand why I have to move the current drive to a different bay).

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> 1. Do you think there is a negligible risk of serious disk problems with KAV7? <-QUOTE}Currently, absolutely yes. Now, my main basis for that is the observation that initial problem reports emerged immediately during beta testing with another few on release. If this were a general problem there should be a growing surge of reports emerging. There are not. Let's keep in mind that AOL AVS (last years version) was KAV based. There is a huge installed base due to the engine licensing. All V6/V7 engines are impacted. Where is the surge in problems relative to any other AV?

{QUOTE-> 2. Would you recommend it? <-QUOTE}If it fit your requirements, yes, but I believe that people fixate too heavily on the absolute highest level of detection as indicated by on-demand tests. As you've noted, there are plenty of options to choose from and I believe people should examine all of them. For the record, my own machines run one of the following options: KAV WKS V6, NOD32, F-Prot, or Dr Web

I do have it (KAV WKS V6 version) installed on multiple machines now. I do run it on my more sensitive machines which hold banking and tax records, i.e. PC's that are the last I would want to inflict disk problems. I do not use a default install or configuration (the web AV, antispy, and antibanner modules are not installed and/or disabled, all else is default or lower, I don't scan endlessly, and there is no scheduled regular system scan).

I believe V6 or V7 of KAV/KIS is an excellent option for anyone with the current V7 preferred.

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> I can't boot to the TI boot disk on this computer. I could on my computer that this one is a replacement for. Acronis says the reason is because I have TI8 and was using XP Pro SP1 on the other computer. This computer came with XP Pro SP2 and TI8 won't work on SP2. <-QUOTE}Huh? TI8 works fine with XP SP2. There may be a SATA issue, but it's not an SP2 issue.
{QUOTE-> Yes, I can try your command line method if I ever get this drive installed...I have never installed a hard drive before and I want to dual boot so I have to know how to set that up and it appears I also need a floppy boot disk. I have a floppy drive but most Dells don't so why a floppy is required to install this new hard drive puzzles me. Then there is problem that in order to use Native Command Queuing, I have to use the RAID drivers but I am not usng RAID. I don't how this will affect installing a second hard drive. <-QUOTE}Just a comment - you seem to be planning to change multiple items at once, in areas where you're inexperienced. This is not a good combination.

Why do you think you need a floppy? I never have.
{QUOTE-> It is a shame that using SeaDisc's TI 10 to clone everything on the current drive to the new one won't get rid of the Object Identifiers. <-QUOTE}But that clone allows you the luxury of fiddling around to you hearts content without touching your primary source drive. Let's say you clone and really muck up handling the new drive. Format it and you are where you are today.

{QUOTE-> (I don't even understand why I have to move the current drive to a different bay). <-QUOTE}Well, if you have master/slave determined by cable select (CS), that would be one reason.

Blue

[larryb52]

here's an interesting answer on Kaspersky chkdsk problem & suggests using chkdsk/l option: see this link to kaspersky...It also explains how Istreams & I swift work. I'm not sure if you should take their word for it but thought I'd post this anyway...

http://www.kaspersky.com/support/kav7/error?qid=208279501

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> I don't disagree. And certainly when something happens you are upset about it post it. What I am talking about is constantly posting the same rant, day after day, week after week. That becomes self defeating, because no one pays attention after a while. <-QUOTE}


Could you provide me with proof that I have been posting "day after day", "week after week"? That statement really puzzles me. There has been NO interest at Wilders for a long while in the KAV chdsk problem until this thread. The REAL interest has continued at dslreports...not here. Now, if I was posting "day after day", "week after week" here about this then where are all threads I must have started?

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> here's an interesting answer on Kaspersky chkdsk problem & suggests using chkdsk/l option: see this link to kaspersky...It also explains how Istreams & I swift work. I'm not sure if you should take their word for it but thought I'd post this anyway...

http://www.kaspersky.com/support/kav7/error?qid=208279501 <-QUOTE}

That is the infamous "hidden" report where Kaspersky admits that Microsoft slapped them down over their reckless use of Object Identifers. That is Kaspersky's pathetic "attempt" to offer a tiny bone to those of us with the problem rather than produce a tool to get rid of the object identifiers. It was that report and admission that Microsoft had officially stated that Kaspersky was wrong to do what they did (and they knew they were wrong but continued the wrong in the 2007 version) that restarted Straitshoot's thread at dslr. It also got the KAV fanboys saying really nasty stuff about dslreports security forum at the KAV fanclub forum and me and Straitshoot. I don't mind. I am warning folks and if I can save one person from this mess then I don't care how many fanboys say nasty stuff about me.

[Antarctica]

{QUOTE-> That is the infamous "hidden" report where Kaspersky admits that Microsoft slapped them down over their reckless use of Object Identifers. That is Kaspersky's pathetic "attempt" to offer a tiny bone to those of us with the problem rather than produce a tool to get rid of the object identifiers. It was that report and admission that Microsoft had officially stated that Kaspersky was wrong to do what they did (and they knew they were wrong but continued the wrong in the 2007 version) that restarted Straitshoot's thread at dslr. It also got the KAV fanboys saying really nasty stuff about dslreports security forum at the KAV fanclub forum and me and Straitshoot. I don't mind. I am warning folks and if I can save one person from this mess then I don't care how many fanboys say nasty stuff about me. <-QUOTE}

Mele20, believe me,and i know because I was declared dead at the hospital a few years ago (luckily I survived!) life is too short to keep struggling over a piece of Software.
Have a nice day.:) :)

[larryb52]

sorry wasn't trying to refan the fire here...


{QUOTE-> That is the infamous "hidden" report where Kaspersky admits that Microsoft slapped them down over their reckless use of Object Identifers. That is Kaspersky's pathetic "attempt" to offer a tiny bone to those of us with the problem rather than produce a tool to get rid of the object identifiers. It was that report and admission that Microsoft had officially stated that Kaspersky was wrong to do what they did (and they knew they were wrong but continued the wrong in the 2007 version) that restarted Straitshoot's thread at dslr. It also got the KAV fanboys saying really nasty stuff about dslreports security forum at the KAV fanclub forum and me and Straitshoot. I don't mind. I am warning folks and if I can save one person from this mess then I don't care how many fanboys say nasty stuff about me. <-QUOTE}

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> life is too short to keep struggling over a piece of Software. <-QUOTE}

I agree. :thumb: :thumb:

It becomes useless to keep ranting about something even if the rants have merit - because if the involved company clearly doesn't care, then they cannot be compelled/forced to change. In today's world it is sales and business and marketing that induces changes and drives companies, not the resolve or determination to do something good that will help a lot of people.....

In any case, it is clear that this chkdsk issue is indeed something worth raising an eyebrow at. Now whether Kaspersky wants to do something about it is their call.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Huh? TI8 works fine with XP SP2. There may be a SATA issue, but it's not an SP2 issue.
Just a comment - you seem to be planning to change multiple items at once, in areas where you're inexperienced. This is not a good combination.

Why do you think you need a floppy? I never have.
But that clone allows you the luxury of fiddling around to you hearts content without touching your primary source drive. Let's say you clone and really muck up handling the new drive. Format it and you are where you are today.

Well, if you have master/slave determined by cable select (CS), that would be one reason.

Blue <-QUOTE}

That is interesting that your TI 8 works with XP SP2. It was Acronis official support here in their forum who told me that I cannot use TI 8 with XP SP2 as the boot disk won't work. I wondered if that was possibly a facile answer with the notion of getting money from me for TI 10 as the real motivation for what was said. :D I don't know...I don't see how it could be a SATA issue because I had the world's first SATA drive on my older computer with XP Pro SP1 and no problems with booting to the TI disk. It possibly could be that this current computer has a nVidia chipset, whereas, the earlier computer had Intel. But if nVidia is the problem...that is a support issue and shouldn't be pawned off as my being required to upgrade to TI 10.

I realize I want to do several things at once that I am not experienced in but I don't want to make the mistake of not setting the drives up as I want them and then having problems. What worries me is the RAID drivers and the nVidia chip. I can find lots of help by googling but not for a specific config like what I have ...this is an nForce 4 mobo and there are lots of problems with it. I think Dell XPS support (which is in the USA and dedicated just to XPS machines with special training for the nVidia boards) will walk me through it but I probably should have bought the drive from them ...get better support that way.

The XPS 600 owner's manual (yes, a real paper manual :) ) states that if the drive installed is the primary one then a floppy boot disk is needed. Since the manual says I have to remove the current disk first, place the new disk in the lower bay where the current disk was and then put the current disk in the second bay, I would think the reason for that is that the new disk will be the primary one which is what I want because it is twice as large and has twice the cache size of the current disk so it needs to go in the first bay. But there is no master/slave with SATA disks at least as far as setting jumpers. I may be making a mountain out of a molehill....the SATA hard drives are supposed to be very easy to install. I wish I had one of the newer bioses that has the little drive choice popup at boot though as that would greatly simplify booting to more than one OS.

[ccsito]

{QUOTE-> Mele20, believe me,and i know because I was declared dead at the hospital a few years ago (luckily I survived!) <-QUOTE}
Hope you are feeling better. :gack:

[fredra]

Hi
Are you packing the K

Check this out, it is funny ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxyHlFZ778

I am not trying to minimize anybody's problem with chkdsk, so no flaming .. just smile ;D ;D

Cheers ::)

[SourMilk]

No, they aren't.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Hi
Are you packing the K

Check this out, it is funny ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxyHlFZ778

I am not trying to minimize anybody's problem with chkdsk, so no flaming .. just smile ;D ;D

Cheers ::) <-QUOTE}


I agree that was funny! I enjoyed it and thanks for posting it. I'd like to have the K ring...that was neat (I love rings).

[Straight Shooter]

The youtube video was ghastly; of course I was born in 1961 so this "KAV RAP" stuff made me borderline "barf" when I saw it LOL

I wish they took all their energy in making that video and just came out with a removal tool to their insidious CHKDSK corruption issue... Wishful thinking on my part...

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> The youtube video was ghastly; of course I was born in 1961 so this "KAV RAP" stuff made me borderline "barf" when I saw it LOL

I wish they took all their energy in making that video and just came out with a removal tool to their insidious CHKDSK corruption issue... Wishful thinking on my part... <-QUOTE}

Don't misunderstand, I agree Kaspersky has done a first class pr blooper, but why not just remove them yourself. As I type I am in a VM machine, that I just did a blanket removal. To have the disk in an idle state, I booted it to a bartpe disk and using the file manager within barte I opened a cmd window on the c: drive. Then did the FSutil command that was posted. Seems to have worked well. So far no issues. Image first, just in case.


Pete

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> Don't misunderstand, I agree Kaspersky has done a first class pr blooper, but why not just remove them yourself. As I type I am in a VM machine, that I just did a blanket removal. To have the disk in an idle state, I booted it to a bartpe disk and using the file manager within barte I opened a cmd window on the c: drive. Then did the FSutil command that was posted. Seems to have worked well. So far no issues. Image first, just in case.


Pete <-QUOTE}
Can't agree with you on this one Peter.
When I buy a product I expect it to work. If it doesn't, one takes it back for them to fix whether a car, tv or even software.
I am not interested in work arounds to fix the problems they caused.
KAV is not the only anti-virus out there.
I bought it, caused problems, they won't fix it so it's gone. >:(

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Can't agree with you on this one Peter.
When I buy a product I expect it to work. If it doesn't, one takes it back for them to fix whether a car, tv or even software.
I am not interested in work arounds to fix the problems they caused.
KAV is not the only anti-virus out there.
I bought it, caused problems, they won't fix it so it's gone. >:( <-QUOTE}

True, and I don't really have a problem with the objectid's being there, BUT, if you want them gone, then there is a problem with what you are saying. The reality is they are still there. Like it or not anyone who wants them gone, is going to most likely have to do it them selves. That is the current reality.

Pete

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Don't misunderstand, I agree Kaspersky has done a first class pr blooper, but why not just remove them yourself. As I type I am in a VM machine, that I just did a blanket removal. To have the disk in an idle state, I booted it to a bartpe disk and using the file manager within barte I opened a cmd window on the c: drive. Then did the FSutil command that was posted. Seems to have worked well. So far no issues. Image first, just in case.


Pete <-QUOTE}

See. Right there a problem. Dells can't use BartPE without going through contortions and reading a 500 post thread and then trying to apply a convoluted fix so that BartPE will work but still doesn't. I should not have to waste time farting around will all this. Kaspersky should issue a removal tool that works on all computers including Dells and that is simple and quick.

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> True, and I don't really have a problem with the objectid's being there, BUT, if you want them gone, then there is a problem with what you are saying. The reality is they are still there. Like it or not anyone who wants them gone, is going to most likely have to do it them selves. That is the current reality.

Pete <-QUOTE}
I understand what you are saying and I should have been more specific.
When I took kav off I did a reformat and went from there. Fresh.
What I don't understand is why some of the posters talk about alleviating the problem or are aware of it, but ignore it, and still continue to use kav.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> What I don't understand is why some of the posters talk about alleviating the problem or are aware of it, but ignore it, and still continue to use kav. <-QUOTE}danny9,

It could be that their experience is similar to mine, or perhaps you're speaking directly of me as an example.

I see an increase in the time to transit stage 2 of a chkdsk run of a couple of minutes. This isn't a problem, it's a physical consequence of file object ID's existing and the fact that they are being read by chkdsk. That's all I see on all my machines. No more, no less, and more importantly, this is a physical neccessity and not a problem. I'm not ignoring anything at the moment.

I view the small number of real problems that have appeared as equal to any other program incompatibility out their that has untoward consequences. You see it and you deal with it. Dealing with it has a number of possible paths including a complete reformat/reinstall, image restore, or wipe of the file object ID's and run of chkdsk or other utility to resolve any residual issues.

If I stopped using any program because a random user somewhere experienced and reported an operational problem, there wouldn't any (and I do mean any) software installed on my machine.

Blue

[19monty64]

{QUOTE-> I understand what you are saying and I should have been more specific.
When I took kav off I did a reformat and went from there. Fresh.
What I don't understand is why some of the posters talk about alleviating the problem or are aware of it, but ignore it, and still continue to use kav. <-QUOTE}
Because if it's not a problem for them why shouldn't they keep using it. Someday when they do a re4mat, they will have the opportunity to re-think their position. Frankly, after my last re4mat I decided to test the waters before re-installing any Kaspersky-product. For me, I decided upon Avast, so future issues are not my concern. Now, being KAV-less, I can't imagine going back. Version 8 may change that decision though???

[danny9]

{QUOTE-> danny9,

It could be that their experience is similar to mine, or perhaps you're speaking directly of me as an example.

If I stopped using any program because a random user somewhere experienced and reported an operational problem, there wouldn't any (and I do mean any) software installed on my machine.

Blue <-QUOTE}





My reference was general and not at you directly.
It's true that not all software works the same on everyone's computer.
I've tried some like that, uninstalled and that was the end of it.
No lasting consequences.
In the case of kav it's more then a random user.
A similiar problem existed several yrs. back and they came out with a fix.
A problem exists today, which they have admitted.
Will they have a fix? Who knows, but as I said before, I will never use it again.
No matter what they do they'll never be able to regain the trust I had in that product.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> I understand what you are saying and I should have been more specific.
When I took kav off I did a reformat and went from there. Fresh.
What I don't understand is why some of the posters talk about alleviating the problem or are aware of it, but ignore it, and still continue to use kav. <-QUOTE}

I kept using KAV when I became aware of it, because I don't care about chkdsk. I have since stop using KAV, but that had nothing to do with the problem. I just decided not to use any AV.

Pete

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> See. Right there a problem. Dells can't use BartPE without going through contortions and reading a 500 post thread and then trying to apply a convoluted fix so that BartPE will work but still doesn't. I should not have to waste time farting around will all this. Kaspersky should issue a removal tool that works on all computers including Dells and that is simple and quick. <-QUOTE}

I agree, that KAV adds the objectID's and I also agree it slows down Chkdsk. That hasn't been a problem for me. Yes Kaspersky should issue a fix, but apparently they aren't going to. That's reality. Also if they were to issue a fix, but it didn't work on Dell's whose problem is that. Personally I find the Dell thing more of an issue than KAV. Curious you don't have a Dell warning in your signature.

[Macstorm]

{QUOTE-> Will they have a fix? Who knows, but as I said before, I will never use it again.
No matter what they do they'll never be able to regain the trust I had in that product. <-QUOTE}
KL will miss you :'( ::)