BitDefender again

Wilfried wh_ng@gmx.de
Wed Aug 26 15:29:00 GMT 2009


"Michael Kairys" <kairys@comcast.net> wrote:

> Thanks for the replies...
> 
> > the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x35000000 area (or indeed
> > any of the others they mentioned) is going to horribly frag your heap and 
> > bork
> > your maximum allocatable memory limit, isn't it?
> 
> I don't know. How would I tell?
> 
> >  Wonder if it wouldn't work just as well to rebase /their/ DLL?
> 
> I don't know. Sounds scary given the liberties an AV program seems to take 
> with the operating system... Should I try? How would I?
> 
> That aside, it sounds like my options are:
> 
> (1)  Try what they said and see what happens
> (2)  Run with their "active virus scan" turned off
> (3)  Change to another AV product (any suggestions? :)

(3) http://www.f-prot.com 
Works flawlessly with cygwin and any other software we have, on 
- a tower PC with XP Pro SP3 (Pentium 4)
- a laptop with Vista home premium SP1 (core 2 duo) however with UAC
disabled
- and two other laptops
I can even leave the scanning engine running while installing other
software. Never had conflicts with it. Tech Support is very responsive.
Disadvantage: F-Prot slows down startup of a few programs (most
significant: Opera browser). Slowdown is much less on Vista. F-Prot are
working on it and already had some success.


--
Wilfried Hennings


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple



More information about the Cygwin mailing list