NAV 2003 Rescue Disks

Late last July, NAV 2003 began refusing to update my Rescue Disk set properly. It complained that "Some of the files needed for the Rescue Disk set cannot be copied. . ." and identified VIRSCAN9.DAT as the file that would not be copied to the set.

Symantec's response was to the effect that I should uninstall and re-install NAV Rescue. I noted that VIRSCAN9.DAT was then 1,466,772 bytes in size, which is a little too large to fit on a floppy. I asked for confirmation that the Rescue Disk process would deal with a file that was too large for a floppy disk in some fashion, but after some waffling, they gave me only a reply to the effect that my query had been referred to "the development team". A month later, I had still heard nothing further.

VIRSCAN9.DAT has since grown to 1,564,663 bytes. Has anyone out there successfully built a set of Rescue Disks for NAV 2003 that includes a version of VIRSCAN9.DAT dated July 21 or later? Or was the guy right in telling me that I should re-install NAV Rescue?

 

Rob. If you search through MG you will find lots of recommendations to dump Norton AV programs. I may as well start it off. I suggest that you install either

AVG http://www.majorgeeks.com/ download886.html

or

Avast download http://www.majorgeeks.com/download1968.html

when your subscription to Norton's runs out. In fact, I would advise you to cut your losses and install either, right now.

I used to use AVG but now use Avast. Both are good, both are free, both work.

Current wisdom is to run one or the other when you are on the net.
Run them both, separately, when you off the net to see which one you prefer. I like Avast because of it's update procedure, automatic, often and unobtrusive. Bazza

===

 

I'm not really a fan of Symantec either -- but right now, NAV is more consistent in passing the Virus Bulletin scanner tests. That's my first consideration in a virus scanner. Ease of use is also up there -- and when NAV works, you can almost forget it's there. (But you're right -- tech support is awful.)

You can check out the Virus Bulletin results at <http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml>.

 

Verrry interesting (as they used to say in Laugh In, before your time probably). I checked out the link. Norton had 25 passes 6 fails, Avast 9/19, AVG 5/20, Kaspersky 23/13 and Panda 1 pass, 3 fails. All on different OS's and at different times. One thing it showed me, is that AV programs get better. Programs that failed a check on an OS, passed the test when a later version of the AV program was used, again on the same OS.

Don't know what to make of this as I haven't checked out the links/site thoroughly but the Anti Norton AV thoughts are ingrained in most of us. It is easier to remember the bad thoughts than change your thinking and prejudices (sp?). Thanks for the prod. Bazza

===

 

Don't count on it.

If I recall correctly, that was Henry Gibson's schtik....

I was mildly surprised to see the indication that AVG may be improving its product. It had been a while since I checked the Virus Bulletin, and the last time I looked, AVG wasn't doing well by the Virus Bulletin standards.

I use Symantec products, but I do understand! NAV is resource-intensive (a hog, in other words) and the tech support has annoyed me intensely on several occasions by their refusal to answer the questions put to them. You might enjoy an article recently posted by ZDNet's "AnchorDesk" at <http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-3000_16-5449291.html>.

You make a good point. Guilty as charged -- I need to keep a closer eye on AVG. I had been inclined to dump on AVG as an unreliable scanner.