Howard Schwartz <howardbschwartz4.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Franklin <no_thanks.TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote in news:96376341F26CA71F3M4@
> 204.153.244.156:
>
> > Is it possible to run the free "F-Prot for DOS" in the DOS-emulation
> > window of XP?
> >
> > I want to use "F-Prot for DOS" as an on-demand scanner to supplement
> > my existing anti-virus software.
>
> There seems to be some agreement that, successfully running F-Prot
> depends more on the OS you are running, rather than the file system.
Not "more", but uniquely.
> Presumably the Dos emulation of win 2k or XP knows how to read
> filenames in the NTFS format and deliver them to dos programs?
There is no filename "standard" that is special to NTFS only. Long filenames
were introduced with the advent of 32 bit operating systems and are not bound to
the file system. The LFN standard also sets the conventions how long filenames
are to be represented under older OS that do not support LFN and how to assure
compatibility between the two.
> I converted my win 2K to fat-32 anyway so I could have some decent
> freeware tools to handle the disk and some compatibility with
> prior programs and versions of windows.
>
> I wonder if using the Dos-Box emulation under XP would help
> F-prot?
It was already explained in several posts of this thread that it will not help.
The DOS box under ALL Windows versions, including those that still have DOS in
the basement (Win 9x AND Me, although the latter pretends as if there is no DOS
in its cellar) is not true DOS. Under NT / W2K and XP, it's even less "true"
DOS than under 9x/Me.
> Other dos programs that do not run correctly under
> XP's shell, command.com, or cmd.exe -- seem to run OK under
> the better Dos-Box emulation.
I now do a lot of the work that I previously did under Win 98, for the reason
that you mention, under XP's 4NT shell (the same as 4DOS, but for W2K/XP). The
only real difference between the two DOS shells is direct disk access, which is
not allowed under NT/W2K/XP. Antivirus software need that service to inspect
boot and partition sectors.
> If you have a fat-32 file system, I do not see why you
> can not simply start your PC with a floppy running
> some version of real mode dos 7x, and use F-Prot with
> no problems: The program should have no problem with
> filenames in this case.
FYI, a boot disk for Windows 98 is DOS 7x. Besides of being pointless (you can
always use the Windows version of the scanner from safe mode with command
prompt), scanning from DOS boot is limited to a path length of 64 characters,
which is exceeded on many PCs.
> Is it that the dos version of F-Prot does not know
> the virus signatures of programs that run only under
> XP? No - that could not be true, since the data
> tables are the same as for the shareware version, yes?
F-Prot for DOS and Windows use exactly the same virus definition files.
In case you didn't see it, then here is advice from the horse's mouth (Frisk):
Under XP / W2K and NT, rather use the command line scanner FPCMD.EXE, available
from the Windows version instead of F-PROT.EXE.
Regards, Zvi
--
NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL
www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
The BIOS provides no file services
Computer Security