The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

Discussion in 'sandboxing & virtualization' started by Cutting_Edgetech, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590

    I believe the later or latest versions do protect the MBR
     
  2. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,828
    Location:
    UK
    I have an existing Windows 7 x64 whose MBR is already protected by TPM 1.2/EFI and bitlockered. If I use SD, I don't want it doing anything to the MBR as this would trigger those defences and have me scrabbling round for the recovery keys (yes, I do have them!).... So basically, wanted to understand if anyone was using SD in combination with TPM, and if there was any way of turning off the MBR protection it offers, or if it just worked ok?
     
  3. Robin A.

    Robin A. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Posts:
    2,546
    It´s not possible to turn off the MBR protection, AFAIK.
     
  4. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    413
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi bo elam:

    Back in post 3089 you mentiones 1.2.0.346 and 1.2.0.376.and intended at that time to install .376 on a Win 7 x32bit laptop.

    I have a Win 7 x32 bit desktop that I want to shadow for family use.... do you suggest starting off with the last version in 1.2.0 tree [1.2.0.376]?

    Or has subsequent experience lead you to favour 1.2.0.346?

    thanks
    feandur
     
  5. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,793
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Hi Feandur. All was well in my W7 32 bits laptop with 1.2.0.376. But then some time later after using it for a while, I found that if I cut and pasted a file while in Shadow mode, the file was gone after rebooting. I did not lose anything important but it could have happened so I decided to go back to version .346.

    I used .346 for most of the two years that I have used Shadow defender and to this day, I haven't found nothing wrong with it using it in the 2 W7 32 bits laptops that I had during this time or my XP. Since I am not interested in any of the new features that have been created for SD and LV is exactly what I want as it is in version .346, I am staying put with .346. Read about the error that I mention in post 3089, that kind of scared me a bit about upgrading anyway. So I am happy with this version.

    Bo
     
  6. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    413
    Location:
    Australia
    Thanks bo elam:

    Two years problem free is good enough for me, sir!

    One last question, if you have advice...
    I also have a Win 7 x64bit. Would 1.2.0.346, in its x64bit version, be good enough and stable like its x32bit brother, do you suppose?

    sdmon was kind enough to send me that also.

    thanks, bo elam, any opinion from you is valued.
    feandur
     
  7. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    5,793
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    Based on my experience using that version, I think it should be solid in 64 bits as well.

    Greetings

    Bo
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Note I tried installing 1.2.0.346 on my win 7 x64 system, and it didn't like it. I've actually gone back to 558 the latest version off and I uncheck hibernate, since I don't use hibernate on my system. It is working fine for me.

    Pete
     
  9. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,053
    New Release

    'Version 1.4.0.561 - November 8, 2014
    Fixed: Optimize system hibernation.
    Fixed: Command line parameter '/now' can't work.
    Fixed: Some minor bugs.'
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2014
  10. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,239
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Thanks. So far no problems on Win 8 (64 bit)
     
  11. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Yep I've installed it on my Win 7 x64 machine. So far so good.
     
  12. curin1989

    curin1989 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    7
    Since I have installed 1.4 versions include this one on WIN 8.1 with the newest updates , I couldn't hibernate my system, although I sticked the square "Enable hibernate in shadow mode". The system shot down instead of hibernating when I used hibernate button. Please fix it soon. Thank you!
     
  13. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,239
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    If you have "Turn on fast startup" on, uncheck it, this worked for me. See post #3608
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  14. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,053
    Could anyone explain to me the benefits of the new hibernate function? Why did it suddenly appear? Have people had problems prior to this new function in the hibernate area?

    Have members Shadow Defender users noticed any differences (positive or negative) (large or small) between the (recent) last version 1.4.0.558 and the new version Shadow Defender 1.4.0.561?
    As an xp user who likes the uncluttered classic style and structure, I worry that Shadow Defender is running away from me in some way. There are functions, now being included that I don't really understand.

    Could any xp users running the latest version please let me know if everything is well. I took such a hammering with 1.4.0.558 that I am scared to install the latest version.
    Loads of my chosen Windows system settings reverted to default, deeply destroyed my LAN and knocked out my cd/dvd drive.

    It's taken me up to last night to repair and patch everything. I've e-mailed Tony but not yet had a reply (on that matter anyway)
    I'm just hoping that I have covered everything in my attempts to fix my system.
    I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

    The one benefit to come out of this is that it has demonstrated to me the shortcomings of my own backup stategy. Don't backup too soon (in my case 'clone') after a new app is installed.

    Patrick
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  15. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    See PM

    Pete
     
  16. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,053
    PMd you Pete :)
     
  17. huntnyc

    huntnyc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,014
    Location:
    Brooklyn, USA
    Still having to stay with 519 version on my laptop because editing BCD issue for me is not stable with any version beyond 519.

    Gary
     
  18. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,945
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Version 1.4.0.561 works without issue on Vista...no freezes, no conflicts and data leaking like mentioned earlier wirh EAM.
     
  19. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,458
    Location:
    Land of the Light
    I received again the message "Z: running low space etc. etc."
    :mad:

    I think v.558 was better...:confused:
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014
  20. BruzZzler

    BruzZzler Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Posts:
    30
  21. Stelica

    Stelica Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Posts:
    21
    Location:
    Romania
    As a windows xp user I had no problem with the versions 553, 558 and 561, but these versions do not bring anything new to XP users. In conclusion, I decided to stay with the 519 version.
    Many greetings!
     
  22. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,053
    Support@shadowdefender.com 1:43pm
    To Patrick


    Hi Patrick,

    Can 561 work?
    561 revert some changes to 519. It should work as 519.

    Best regards,
    Tony

    ">On 2014/11/9 10:36, Patrick wrote:


    Hi Tony, Yes I will ask him. I'm sorry I have not answered before but I have had a big problem with 1.4.0.558
    "> This is what happened. As you know I use XP sp3 and a wired ethernet broadband connection.
    "> As I mentioned
    "> When I installed 1.4.0.558 a lot of my system settings went back to Windows default, Sound, Themes, and other settings went to default too but the most important thing for me is that my network was broken and I found it difficult to connect to the Internet
    "> If I went into Shadow Mode I could not connect and got error 668 Hangup-RasHangup
    "> All the usual things to re-connect wouldn't work reset Winsock reset reset TCP/IP, uninstalling/re-installing my network adapter...nothing works. Soon as I go into shadow mode it breaks it.
    "> I've tried resetting the wan miniports using devcon.exe. I can get my internet to work but as soon as I log out and then connect to Shadow Defender in Shadow Mode and then try to re-connect to the Internet I get the ras 668 errors again and when I come out of Shadow Mode the connection is broken again. I've tried everything that I can think of and I can't get anything to work. I can't use Shadow Defender to go onto the Internet...and I can't fix it.


    "> best wishes

    "> Patrick
    .........................................................................
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  23. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,053
    I thought that I had overcome the problem that I have been having since last version. I had used 'repair LAN' from motherboard dvd and my connection seemed ok again. I ran it for about a day with frequent intentional disconnection and re-connection...and rebooted both restart and full close down and re-connected with no problems to test it and to see how robust the connection was...and...
    I then thought it safe to re-install Shadow Defender again. I installed 1.2.0.346 to be on the safe side.
    I went into Shadow Mode and connected to internet. Everything seemed ok. I disconnected from within Shadow Mode and re-connected to internet. Everything seemed ok.
    Then I went out of Shadow Mode and rebooted. On trying to connect I got the Hangup RasHangup error 668 again.
    A reboot didn't cure it.
    It seems that the damage that was done with the last version has carried through to any installation of Shadow Defender will now pull down my LAN if I go into Shadow Mode and make an internet connection.
    I have now uninstalled the LAN completely and done a complete re-install rather than a repair this time. I am up and running again in normal mode but I have taken Shadow Defender off for the moment until I decide what to do next. I'm baffled and would welcome any ideas, tips or tricks on this. Up to now , I've tried, re-setting winsock, re-setting TCP/IP stack uninstalling and re-installing miniports using devcon.exe, uninstalling and re-installing my network adapter, repairing the LAN and now a complete uninstall re-install of LAN.
    I would like to use Shadow Defender again but until I get to the bottom of this I won't be able to..
    What did that version do. It seems it took over at a low level and broke some fundamental settings or structure.

    Patrick

    .
     
  24. curin1989

    curin1989 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    7
    I had already turned it off, but it still doesn't work. T_T
     
  25. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    I got a quick question , what folders should i exclude in SD when in shadow mode in order to keep my current state in google chrome(x64) after restart ?

    i am using win 8.1 x64 and i exclude 2 folder and it doesnt help

    c:\Program Files (x86)\Google\
    c:\Users\demoneye\AppData\Local\Google\

    Thanks
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.