Kaspersky 2009

what's this got to do with the original thread,re his problem with chkdsk?seems to be turning into a "kasperky bashing" exercise!

 

Maybe it's showing the story of problems that are never fixed ? who knows. as I see your post has nothing to do with the OP ether

 

aahh those well known kaspersky bashers as usual again, don't worry my friend

 

Hi steve, I am the OP and agree with you about bashing thats not was what the thread was about and is was in hope of some other experience's and logical suggestions.I like the product it just did not work out for me.If the bashing gets out of hand then I in advance ask Admins to close it if they see fit to do so.I thank every one for there input cheers.

 

I have my own views on product bashing:-Its normally carried out by users of other product who are not 100% sure they made the right choice in using that product,they then try to justify their choice or choices to themselves by constantly trying to "have a go" at the products they rejected,especially if the product they did reject seems to be better than their choice!(either that or they just get a bee in their bonnet!:-a British saying)

 

Pretty good view.

 

Folks,

It's time to close out this discussion. It's simply going in circles and based on what's being posted, that is unlikely to change.

It would be nice if some of you actually tried to scratch a little deeper into the subject, that might yield a thread with decent technical content. To summarize....

• Yes, file object identifiers are still used by KAV/KIS 2009. They seemed to have pulled back on their use somewhat, but they are still used.
• With respect to the comment above that
  Technically, I have no idea what this means. File object ID's are an NTFS feature. This is MS technology. KAV/KIS used it and still uses it. There are no magic "other" or third party file object identifiers. What KL has mentioned is that
  Aside from the stilted translation, it would be nice, now that version 8.0 has been released, to move from a statement employing a future tense to one set in present tense, perhaps with a bit of a technical description of precisely how the "issues" were finessed (particularly if it is actually something beyond simple and appropriate parsimonious usage of the technique)
• There are a couple of perspectives on KL's use of file object identifiers and it seems that they involve immovable sentiment - some are viscerally opposed to it while it really doesn't matter at all to some, and there are a scant few of us in the middle who have mixed feelings. Given that the bulk of the audience appears immovable on this topic, continued discussion, particularly in the absence of additional technical developments or analysis, seems pretty pointless. Vote with your wallet, that is the ultimate way to influence a commercial operation.
• I still believe that the reality check I noted here is worthwhile to reflect on. You don't need to fully understand the technical details to take a measure of field use response and behavior. Perhaps I'm missing a lot, but I don't believe that's the case.
• Regardless of the product, if one finds that anomalous behavior (BSOD's, other strange events) is reversibly introduced/removed on the installation/deinstallation of that product, this is telling you that you are playing with fire. It really doesn't matter how great that product is - tread lightly when this occurs and be absolutely prepared for a worst case outcome - which means a bare metal reinstall of everything.

With that, thread closed.

Blue