The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

What I done with Shadow defender is find a version that works great in my computers, keep it and don't upgrade from it. When I first started using SD, version 1.2.0.346 had recently been released, that's the version that I installed in both of my computers (XP and W7). This version has been so nice that I have never tried another version in XP.

But in W7, I have tried a couple of the versions that have been released afterward. After trying them, I have gone back to .346. One reason is that I found one of the times that I upgraded that if I cut and pasted a file, that file would be lost if I did not commit the file. And in another version, I found Disk errors after rebooting. I had never seen this Windows log errors while using Wondershare time freeze, Toolwiz Time freeze or Shadow defender version 1.2.0.346. They kind of scared me so I went back to .346 and I aint moving.

The improvements to Shadow defender that people were talking about a year and a half ago were not attractive to me when Tony was being asked to implement them, I kind of figured that this changes to the program could bring problems and they have.

Pete, like I said, 1.2.0.346 works great in XP. I cant find nothing to complain about it. If you like, I ll upload the installer for you or send it to you in an email.

Bo

 

The installer is in your mail.

Bo

 

Well I don't want to suggest not keeping up with upgrades but I returned to that version here on Win 8 x64 and it's as flawless as it always is been! My new system didn't seem to want to coexist in harmony with these newest versions but as I see it i'm only missing out on a few new advancements but getting absolute SOLID protection with no hiccups in the least (that is so long as you don't over apply too much memory and end up with screen freeze LoL

Nice to see you too Pat

 

Hi Bo,
I'm following your lead and going back to 1.2.0.346
I was never really happy about the extra knobs and whistles on these latest versions. I was a 1.1.0.325 user for a long time and that was my favourite version because because of it's stability and classic simple clean feel and usage.
I think though, that now it is safer for me to use the version that you suggest. Although I backup to two drives very regularly, this latest one has caused me a lot of problems. I don't mind the occasional little glitch in the development of a program but this was as bad as a virus. That's why I don't like those rollback snapshot apps...they always screw you up sooner or later.
Two other things that I forgot to mention with these latest versions; On install there was a big laboured pause and a virus warning from Avast.
I've just installed the 1.2.0.346 just now and it went on smooth as butter. No virus warning.
I must just say though that for anyone with solid state drives these older versions won't work as far as I know.

Patrick

 

Patrick:
I have sent PM about version 1.2.0.346.
Strangely I only kept a copy of 1.2.0.376.

best regards,
feandur

 

I have exactly the same opinion especially after my adventures with the lates build 1.4.0.558...after the long time of using "325" version I decided to install the newest build for permanent using, not only to test. After installation I disabled options like automatic update, cache encryption and hibernation in SM (my laptop with Vista is not strong but to this time SD worked smooth and without issue for more than 4 years) to have less issues. Then I switched to SM and it was the end of my job...everything on desktop was like in "slooowww moootiiioooonnnn" mode...the cursor of mouse was still 3-4 seconds after my moves...any opened earlier app's windows could not be active...there was no way to close normaly system. I was surprised, confused and disappointed.
I reverted to the previous system state with stable 325 version...and I still don't know if is the younger build the same stable, light and safe.

This is still not the end of story I have info from my forum mate that probably already 519 version brought another issue connected with Emsi AM. He described such situation:
- temporary system files are in folder TEMP on disk D
- disks C and D are shadowed
- after each restart to the next shadow mode EAM creates on disk D new folder called tmp0000"+ 4 random signs...you can see on screenshot that user was logged on at 17:41 and then it was two reboots (17:58 and 18:01)

- it's not possible to delete such folders while EAM is working - folder is locked...if you want to delete it you have to disable EAM
- but even if you do it in one sesion, EAM reverts such folder in next one and creates new folder
- folders can be removed only when system and disk D are in normal mode.
It looks like SD can not virtualise system and working EAM because of blocking some particular folders

 

Hi Peter, Just pm me with your email and I'll send it.

Patrick

 

can you upload all older version of sd here
http://www.oldversion.com/

 

Still at 519 because I noticed Tony optimized for SSD use in some version after 346. If that were not the case, I think I would definitely stay with 346 and I will use it probably when dealing with a regular HDD.

Gary

 

Sorry to read about the problem you had, Pete. I never had a BSOD in my XP or W7 (in shadow mode or not) but a couple of times while in Shadow mode, I had to force shutdown the XP, probably my fault for doing too many things at the same time. I know for sure, after starting the PC back, all activity done in Shadow mode was gone.

Bo

 

Hi Peter, It's hard to know what to do for the best in these types of situations. If we go too far back we lose some of the refinements and bug fixes if we come to far forward we enter the 'test zone'. It is difficult , even to follow others because everyone's useage, system, configuration etc is pretty much unique to themselves. So what might suit one person perfectly can wreck another person's system and a happy consensus is hard to come to. When we do reach a consensus like that it is something to celebrate and the software version is regarded as a 'classic'. 1.1.0.325 was that to me in it's time.
I do like to test things but I have an awful lot of data on my pc and a complex and extensive software relationship and configuration and a quick 'format and start again', isn't an option for me. I thought that I was well backed up this time as I have two clones of my main drive. The problem being that if you are inputting a lot of data regulary (and some of that data isn't static} and need to back up regularly then if you put a new version of a program and the bug doesn't show up for a couple of days then you have backed up the bugged out system. If it is something that is effecting the system at a deep level then you have real problems, particularly if you are not used to deep re-configuration. I suspect that this has effected my wan miniport, although no errors are showing.
These miniports are a bit tricky if you get problems and the usual fixes and driver resets, uninstall re-install does not apply to them. they are not as accessible to the 'layman'.
What my particular problem is (I haven't tried this on the Shadow Defender version I am using)
Connecting to the internet is ok until I go into Shadow Mode then I get ras 668 errors and when I come out of Shadow mode those errors remain on the unshadowed.
Resetting uninstalling and re-installing network adapters, resetting the winsock and resetting the TCP/IP stack seems to be only a tempory fix in this situation, that's why I am suspecting the miniport PPOE or something around there.
I have not had such a deep disruption to my system outside a virus...and Shadow Defender has always been one of the main tools in my armoury against that.
It has switched a lot of my system to default settings, over-riding my preferences.
I don't like that. When I make a selection or push a button for 'off' or 'on' then I want it to stay that way.
that is my main pc useage, that is why I have security apps on my system in the first place. So that what I say. goes, on my own system. that's why I don't like 'call homes' or 'automatic updates'. It's really shaken me up this time.
I think that this is a result of the commercially driven operating systems galloping on regardless of people's need for stability and consistancy. You have a good program like Shadow Defender 1.1.0.325 and the next minute they are moving the goalposts once again. I know that systems have to meet the demands of security and a constant stream of changing attack but I would love to see a modularized system that at a core level would host the apps (any apps) but be able to defend itself without having to change it's core structure all the time. These new operating systems do a lot of 'ducking and diving and 'shapeshifting' to meet the demands but the app users and developers don't know if they are coming or going. Stability goes out of the window, consistancy of useage is destroyed, we end up living in a state of constant 'flight or fight' and living on our wits rather than enjoying the experience of our pc. I always hoped that Linux would be that system, it seemed to embody that philosophy years ago. I hoped that it would evolve into a 'peoples' system that 'Joe Bloggs' could use but that has not turned out to be the case.

I don't want to have to go out and buy and beta test a new operating system every five minutes and constantly re-assess my security. That should be part of what we pay for in these systems in the first place.

Personally, I must develop a better backup stategy for system and data.
Sorry for the moan.

Patrick

 

Pete, if I was you, since .519 works great for you, that's the one that I would keep for a while.

Bo

 

Patrick -
received your PM... thank you.

Forum fellows -
Were people using 1.1.0.325 successfully on Windows 7 x 64 bit.?

If so, that will be good enough for me to use.

Thanks,
cheers
feandur

 

Hi Pete,
Just to note When I installed .558 I turned off hibernation immediately on install. I also had hibernation turned off in my XP sp3 system at the time of my problems. If you do come across any problems of a similar nature to my own, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Patrick

 

Has anyone here had experience of using SD in a system with a TPM (W7x64 TPM 1.2)? With the references to MBR protection, this has me concerned, and I can't find any references to it generally or here.

 

Could you explain in more detail what do you mean?