Do u use AntiCrash?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by sweater, Jul 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
  2. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,046
    Location:
    USA
    Reminds me of Norton Crashguard that they used to sell many years ago. Caused more crashes than it stopped. My machines are stable, so I would really have no interest in such a things.
     
  3. ellison64

    ellison64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Posts:
    2,499
    I tried it when i had windows 98se.I had so many crashes then i couldnt tell whether it worked or not.I notice it hasnt been updated in a decade so probably no much good these days.If i remember correctly it was very similar to antifreeze http://www.resplendence.com/antifreeze
     
  4. tipo

    tipo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Posts:
    408
    Location:
    romania
    it worked ok on my xp..
     
  5. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,235
    I'ts a scam, it does nothing! When it says it a fixed a crashed program, this is simply not true - the program never actually crashed (you just messages at random about supossedly fixed crashes).

    The following is a post I made @ Zeropaid a few years back:

     
  6. Exploits can be prevented in running programs, but this is usually done by forcing the program to crash. Preventing crashes in running programs is, to the best of my knowledge, impossible. Crash-inducing bugs could be caught by a compiler at build time, but having the compiler actually correct them would be a terrible idea; it would just lead to more bugs.

    Anyway this Dachshund Software is a fraud, a pyramid scheme, and a gratutous insult to dachshunds. Don't try it, don't use it, don't get involved in it.
     
  7. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    With each application having a protected memory space in a modern Windows OS, its impossible for an application to interact with the address space of another application.
    Something at a system level would have to be installed (like how a realtime virus scanners and rootkits work) to be able read memory of different applications.
    Actually having the logic to determin an application is about to crash, has a memory leak that works generically for any application and be able to rectify is without affecting the running operation of the application would be an amazing feat. Windows itself can't fix memory leaks and preempty crashes, all it can do is kill the processes.
    All in all it is highly improbable, that AntiCrash can do all it claims reliably.

    All the above info is pretty mute as Roger_M confirms that this app does not do anything real.

    Cheers, Nick
     
  8. ellison64

    ellison64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Posts:
    2,499
    My impression of it at the time ,was that it didnt fix crashes in the sense that it could fix inherent bugs ,but that it would monitor programes memory usage,cpu usage and shut down/restart those programes if it thought they were going to "crash" freeze the OS.Windows 98se didnt take a lot to freeze and at that time memory was hugely expensive and limited .The resources issue on those fat32 OS also could freeze or "crash" windows.It was developed when most of the OS were fat32 systems and were more prone to crashing due to limited memory/resources.I dont think the software was a scam but i dont think it did all that it claimed either.
     
  9. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,694
    Morever, if your setup is fine, nothing will crash.
    So no need to fix that doesn't need fixing.
    Mrk
     
  10. That's a bit simplistic IMO. If software contains crash-inducing bugs, it can crash, regardless of how the rest of your system is set up. You can put a lot of effort into making sure your hardware doesn't have driver problems on whatever OS, but if Firefox dereferences a null pointer, then Firefox is going down.

    That said, I rarely see program crashes these days, and when I do it's usually the fault of bad driver support on Linux (i.e. my fault for buying rubbish hardware); so I see where you're coming from.
     
  11. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    Simplistic but accurate. An operating system shouldn't be expected to compensate for bad coding. I run a dual boot XP and modified 98SE unit for play and work respectively. Neither OS crashes under any normal usage.

    A lot of the problems attributed to 98 were actually hardware limitations. A lot of them ran on 64MB of RAM. XP would look just as bad or worse on hardware like that. 98 did have problems managing the extremely limited resources that were available to it. MS could have fixed the problem but chose not to in order to make the NT systems appear superior. Fortunately for those of us who like 98, others did address the resource handling problems, and many others.

    Years back when I first started messing with the inner workings of 98, I tried an anti-crash like application. It was of no value. At most, it did no good and may have made things worse. For me, the "anti-crash" that worked the best on 98 was IEradicator. Internet Explorer was 98s biggest problem. Removing it raised the stable uptime from a few hours to many days.

    Even if someone could make a real "anti-crash" app that worked as claimed, it's still a bandaid approach that hides the real problem instead of fixing it.
     
  12. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    I see. :D

    Tnx for the techno responses...:cool:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.