Jump to content

Best/Any working 5308 AntiVirus solution?

xgman

By xgman
in Windows Vista

 Share

Recommended Posts

Daemonforce

Daemonforce

Posted
Posted (edited)
emotwords5xk.gif

No! O_o

I am talking about Build 5308. This build is feature complete. This means that everything you see working in this build will work in the RTM builds. Unfortunately, I can agree with all Longhorn builds that I've touched since PDC03.

I have never had a driver, emulation or even an AntiVirus problem when running Whistler. Ever since Longhorn, nothing I rely on has ever worked right. Expect an OS without a fixed Corporate Antivirus when it's on shelves. I'm done with it. If the virtual hardware problem is ever fixed, I'll consider Vista. Right now I don't believe there will be a change.

I don't believe what's on that Symantec page either. =/

Edited by Daemonforce

gunsmokingman

gunsmokingman

Posted
Posted

emotwords5xk.gif

No! O_o

I am talking about Build 5308. This build is feature complete. This means that everything you see working in this build will work in the RTM builds. Unfortunately, I can agree with all Longhorn builds that I've touched since PDC03.

I have never had a driver, emulation or even an AntiVirus problem when running Whistler. Ever since Longhorn, nothing I rely on has ever worked right. Expect an OS without a fixed Corporate Antivirus when it's on shelves. I'm done with it. If the virtual hardware problem is ever fixed, I'll consider Vista. Right now I don't believe there will be a change.

I don't believe what's on that Symantec page either. =/

Is reading a lost art to you, feature complete is not code complete there is a vast difference between the two. fizban2 and I both understand the differences, I will try and explain it to you in a somple matter so it does not hurt your brain.

Since things like UAP is not completed, the new IPv6 stack, plus a variety of other things means 5308 is

not finished or the RTM version. This means they will be fixing all these things and more. Improving the code so it runs faster etc.

Whistler

I will try and explain this again Vista has nothing in common with any previous MS OS, Whistler that was based on nt code not sure which version but it had been around for some time, so that is why you where able to run those things.

Daemonforce

Daemonforce

Posted
Posted
Since things like UAP is not completed, the new IPv6 stack, plus a variety of other things

I have had temporary fixes for all of these and doing so is annoying me. I want to see them all fixed now. The development team has been dragging Longhorn this far, they could at least fix the things that I can. :angry:

I will try and explain this again Vista has nothing in common with any previous MS OS

That's exactly the point I'm making. It's an entirely new generation of operating system.

Whistler was based on nt code not sure which version

Uhmmm....5? :blink:

but it had been around for some time, so that is why you where able to run those things.

Are you telling me that I would be likely to see the exact kind of OS behavior from XP to Longhorn if it were 1999 when everyone was using NT 4 and I started messing with betas of Windows 2000?

gunsmokingman

gunsmokingman

Posted
Posted

I am not to sure but i believe the NT line started at 3.5 I could be wrong on that.

I have had temporary fixes for all of these and doing so is annoying me. I want to see them all fixed now. The development team has been dragging Longhorn this far, they could at least fix the things that I can.
Are you telling me that I would be likely to see the exact kind of OS behavior from XP to Longhorn if it were 1999 when everyone was using NT 4 and I started messing with betas of Windows 2000?

Vista is completly different then XP, just look in the shell32.dll of both with resource hacker and you will

see the difference.

Where as NT 4 is closer to W2K if there was that much of a change in 1999 then yes you would have the same type of problems.

In this image you can see how different the Vista shell32 is from XP shell32 and W2K shell32

Shell32_Compare.png

XP and W2K uses Ipv4 where as Vista uses Ipv6 that is new.

The way Vista installs is completely different also.

Daemonforce

Daemonforce

Posted
Posted (edited)
I am not to sure but i believe the NT line started at 3.5 I could be wrong on that.

3.1 sounds about right to me. ;)

Vista is completly different then XP, just look in the shell32.dll of both with resource hacker and you will

see the difference.

Yes...Vista takes a gross advantage of XML and independent references...I get it! :wacko:

In this image you can see how different the Vista shell32 is from XP shell32 and W2K shell32

Shell32 is probably the biggest file in Vista right now.

XP and W2K uses Ipv4 where as Vista uses Ipv6 that is new.

Mhm. :)

The way Vista installs is completely different also.

Now that I have to disagree with. NT6 uses the same installation pattern as everything after Windows 2000. XP/03 goes through the BSOI for partitioning and file expanding/copying. The whole point to this zone is extracting the Windows Preinstallation Environment to a writable media. You could do what Longhorn demonstrated since the release of XP. NT6 on the other hand, reads a compressed File-Based Windows image to boot from. The result is a loader that just flies to the Win32 environment. Now that Vista is the new title, the file-based image is mounted as a system directory and a write filter is used to make temporary writes to WinPE. The only miraculous thing NT6 has done is get rid of that horrible BSOI that can cause severe overheating and the I386 design that has been used since Windows 3.11. I like the new File-based image packing for maximum portability, but I've never been able to get Ximage to manipulate these things. I guess I'll have to wait for the RTM release. =/

Edited by Daemonforce
  • 2 weeks later...
Paraglider

Paraglider

Posted
Posted

Problems with anti virus software and beta versions of Microsoft OS's is not new to Vista. Exactly the same sort of problems happened with beta versions of XP.

gunsmokingman

gunsmokingman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Truthfully I would not run a anti virus on a beta OS because it not code complete.

It has not had it code optimized so the speed of the Beta OS would be slow, adding

a anti virus to it would only slow it down more. Also Vista seems to like to run with

30 plus services and adding the anti vitus only adds to that number. In much later

version of Vista when the code is more optimized I might try a Anti Virus on it.

Edited by gunsmokingman

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...