AOL AVS (Kaspersky): Scan new and changed files only

As the OP of the previously quoted thread over on Kaspersky's forums, I feel obliged to point out that in my testing the issue was not linked to iSwift/iCheck being activated or not. It occured either way.

 

My apologies, I should have specifically said "my computer use" with AVS. My system use involves working with large files. I do lots of graphic design work (working with large, high resolution images) and work with large video files. I also download many large files (Linux distros and such) through BitTorrent protocol. Therefore, my computer use is quite heavy compared to the average home computer user. AntiVir does make quite a noticeable difference with my computer use when compared to AVS.

 

I agree with you Peter2150.

I think the issues and concern here from the KAV users that are experiencing issues is that no-one except Don has stepped up to the plate to ease these concerns or try to work with these users to find out what's going on.

 

In regards to the alleged corruption using KAV, has anyone actually experienced any actual 'data-loss' ? or just the lag/hang of chkdsk.

I've been using KAV beta MP1, and just today updated to the 403 RC1 build, and its working real well for me. I've not run a chkdsk as I see nothing really to be gained.

Will chkdsk find 'nasties' on your system ? I rather doubt it will, all it does is 'clean up' broken links/chains and those are only created to the best of what little knowledge I have when you 'hard' crash/close the PC without closing all programs first.

Feel free to shoot-me-down, as I'm learning here...

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061018 Minefield/3.0a1 Firefox ID:2006101804 [cairo]

 

I read on the Kaspersky forums that around 9-10 folks are reporting the chkdsk lag/hang. I checked on my system last night and observed no problem with chkdsk. Nonetheless, I switched off iCheck and iSwift, as this talk of corruption does make me slightly nervous. I will be following developments closely - this could be a deal-breaker for me as far as my decision on which product to license. I think it does warrant a considered response from the developers.

 

All I can say is my CHKDSK takes at least 5 minutes or more to begin Phase Two, but I don't know if it ever did this before AVS was installed, or if it is normal for my PC, as I never tried it until I heard about this. My sons computer however, which never had AVS installed,has only a slight delay at Phase Two.

 

Well, this is what is so unfortunate about that chkdsk thread in the forum because read it closely and see exactly how many is seeing any issue's beyond a phase two starting slower than it would "normally" would?

My best advice to those of you who follow this thread is to use your BS detector and trust what you see/experience.........do you actually see a problem beyong the slow start to phase two?

 

Don, thanks - my BS detector is on high alert, as I understand that it is easy to lose sight of the issues. I am not that technical when it comes to this stuff, so I try to absorb what I can on these forums and elsewhere. Sometimes it's hard to sift the wheat from the chaff, and that's where an authoritative voice could step in and clear up some confusion.

As I mentioned, last night I ran chkdsk and it seemed OK to me. I found that Step 2 of the process did take a good 10-20 seconds to start, but there was a lot of disk activity during those seconds, and I assumed this was normal. I thought the problematic issue was that some people were getting a hang of this process part way through... Anyway, whatever it is, it would be good to get some clarity re what is "normal" and what is problematic. We could all start getting neurotic about file corruption, but I don't think anyone has actually experienced that...

 

For me, that's more than enough, and that's not BS nor FUD. Any program that causes effects like what I experienced, effects that persist even after uninstalling the program, does not get a second chance. If chkdsk starts crashing after a while of using a piece of software (which it did in my case), something is just not right, and I'd rather remove the cause of the issue rather than take the chance on nothing worse happening down the road. For example XP flagging drive as dirty, but never being able to complete a chkdsk scan due to it crashing would render the system unbootable (assuming it won't reset the dirty flag until after chkdsk has completed successfully).

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I recommend people considering KAV to make an image of their drive, install KAV, run a full scan, run chkdsk. If there's no slowdown, congratulations. If there is, ignore the warning sign at your own risk.

What I was most disappointed in was KL ignoring the issue. I would happily have experimented with debug builds or whatever, but there seemed to be no official recognition of the issue at all.

 

what happened when you run chkdisk? did it just take along to to get past phase two or what?

its only happening to a few people so its not really that big deal. if it was happening to everyone that would get on the case. there is alot of factors with chkdisk errors you would have to check all your software. the best way to check is to get a test machine fresh install of xp then test it for a while run chkdisk and see if the chkdisk errors happern and if they dont it ws other software on your pc.

my advise is dont play the blame game and get all the facts before you try to ruin a company's reputation.
as i said the fresh install of xp with nothing but kav is like the only way to check.
any of the osftware on your pc could be causing it since its only happerning to a small number where you using any beta software at the time? or just before it?
it could take ages to find out.

 

I like to try the different free AV's for awhile and then switch. I also realize this is not a good practice. I have however, after doing this for some time, decided to use and stick with AVG Free 7.5. Why? Because AVG as far as I can find isn't creating even a hint of the kind of potential problem like I read about here and in the Kaspersky Forums. My CHKDSK takes about 14 minutes to complete 4 Phases. 5 minutes of that is waiting for Phase Two to begin. Maybe this is normal for my PC, I don't know. What I do know, is that even though the other Free AV's I have used in the past (Antivir PE, and Avast) have had there share of small problems. Those along with AVG Free have not had something like CHKDSK delays and errors reported. Maybe this isn't a big deal to some people, but remember there are many people that simply never run CHKDSK, and I'm not talking about just the average users, but the Computer Literate users as well. My point is, that in light of only 9 or ten people saying they have some kind of problem, it still bothers me enough to not use a product that even has a 1% chance of causing this kind of potential, if not eventual problem. Especially when AVG Free, Antivir, and Avast Home, offer enough protection for most users and in there own right are fine AV's. Lord knows I have tried each one enough to at least come to that conclusion.

 

i agree not many people do run chkdisk. i only run it the other day because diskeeper warned me windows wanted to run it and till it was done it couldnt defrag. so i let it run.

i have tryed all av's as well. payed and free.

 

To quote myself

It's a big deal to those with the symptoms I experienced. And it's a potentially big deal to those that so far only have the slowdown. It might even be a latent big issue for everybody, for all we know. As I said, my main complaint is that KL hasn't even officially acknowledged the issue exists at all, resulting in the only thing we can as end-users. Deduction and guesswork.

If you check the thread linked to the KL forums, you'll see I already verified beyond a doubt the issue arises upon installing KAV, and increases in severity upon scanning. The fact I could readily reproduce it in a very clean vmware session is a strong indication it's not a software incompatability.

I opened a thread in the company's own support forum. I also responded to a thread on the topic here. Claiming I'm trying to ruin KL's reputation is plain ludicrous. Especially considering I even state in a post that I would've picked KAV over NOD32 if it wasn't for this one issue. The complete facts are only obtainable if KL involves themselves. So I can only say what I've experienced, and that I do. I can't in good conscience recommend anybody wanting to test KAV to do so without making sure they have an image to revert to if the problem manifests, now can I.

Already answered above.

Already answered above.

 

I was just saying it could ruin there reputation.

from what i have read only about 8 people are having this issue out of the thousands of users use kaspersky its a very small number if you put it that way.
sure they should find out what is the problem and probably will fix it.

 

Not to imply a failed computer is equal to physical injuries, but this is the analogy that popped to mind. Car manufacturers don't wait until a sufficient number of cars have driven off cliffs due to failed breaks before analyzing them. Nor do they wait until a certain number of cars have crashed before recalling the rest to the workshop to fix the issue.

Of the thousands of KAV users, how many even run chkdsk? And how many of those that do are likely to notice a slowdown. And how many of those that do are likely to connect it to KAV and check the KAV support forums?

Whatever the issue is, it's guaranteed to affect more than the handful that have spoken up about it in the forum thread. And for those with the issue, it's a potentially serious one. See my previous example for a possible scenario rendering the average user unable to even start the OS.

Considering the bad publicity if it should turn out to be an issue for many, and one that escalates over time, I'm rather surprised they haven't wanted to look at it. It's not a risk I would have taken had I been them.

 

I agree they should check it out and thats about the only thing putting me off kav as well. I wanna know before I get it.

 

To run chkdsk always has taken a long time no matter what AV I used. I am not concerned if it takes a few minutes longer as long as it does work.

I ran one to see if there was a problem on my machine. I did not time anything, but the time was not excessive in comparison with past experiences with other AVs.

If I understand the complaints, and I have not read them in detail, it is that it takes several minutes to begin phase 2. If that is it, I am not concerned as long as it goes ahead and does the checking.

For me it is a non-issue.

Best,
Jerry

 

In my case, it started out as a 30 or something second delay (currently it's less than 2 seconds) that increased with each KAV scan. Eventually (after a day or two) chkdsk ended up bombing out with an generic error message instead of finishing. At the same time Acronis True Image became unable to analyze the partition for backup, presumably for the same reason chkdsk exploded.

With that in mind, I can't help feeling obligated to recommend the prudent course of action if the delays manifest on a given machine.

 

If this is such a big problem as you with your amazing story like to imply in your many posts about this.....then i would think hordes of users would be asking for their money back or at the very least complaining loudly because of the pc meltdowns after a day or two, i mean this happens after a few days according to you (for those experiencing it) and Kaspersky 6.0 has been out 5 months already.

I, unlike you do not think the average user would not complain quickly about this, in my experience users will single out their AV's as the culprit of most issue's they experience (whether true or not) and i'm very sure that pc's grinding to a halt after 2-3 days after the install of an AV would be very notiable in the forum!

When i used "BS detector", i meant users should not only listen to scaremongers telling stories of pc's becoming inoperable after a couple days, but also listen to what those that have actually had it installed for months without incident have to say about it.

 

Well said Don!
In the past i used to single out my av when i knew alot less than I do now.
when my old pc didnt work because it had tons of spyware on it and we didnt know me and my dad used to blame the av we used at that time but now i have learned. also i have learned to not make a mountain out of a mud pile.
i used to say stuff here that i heard on kaspersky forums but i quickly learned it wasnt a good idea.

 

I edited my post, and really will stick with one AV now, which is AVG Free 7.5. It seems 7.1 has been in the past the least troublesome of all the free ones, and I think 7.5 will suffice. It is very low on memory usage and currently three processes (didn't install E-Mail canner) are running under 2MB on my PC at the moment. I know this is an AVS thread, but I am pleased with this AV, and not worried about unfound problems popping up like what has been mentioned here.

 

I fail to see what's amazing about it. I describe what I experienced, and reproduced repeatedly on both my physical machine, as well as in a vmware session. I'm not making some insane claim.

Based on the worst case symptoms (assuming mine are it), they'd not notice anything wrong unless they 1) run chkdsk, or 2) ATI or some other tool that makes the same sort of analyzis as chkdsk and/or ATI. Which limits it to a fairly select crowd. Until, of course, something happens that actually requires that form of analysis, or it goes even further.

Please quote where I claim the computer ground to a halt after 2-3 days.

I'm not scaremongering, I'm pointing out a very real issue, that people should be aware of. IF it applies to their system, using KAV is a bad idea.

 

thats where you said it came to a grinding half in a few days