But can anyone say more about Dave Korn's comment that it could "horribly
frag your heap and bork
your maximum allocatable memory limit"? Can I test this somehow?
Guess I'll just go with it then... :)
In the interim I've tried out a few other "leading" AV products: Avria,
Nod32, and Kaspersky
"Michael Kairys" wrote in message
news:h7j7ha$47...@ger.gmane.org...
Or you can go the easy route, and follow the instructions they have
provided to rebase cygwin.dll.
I shall try their instructions and report back. (There must be other
BitDefender users similarily inconvenienced by version
Or you can go the easy route, and follow the instructions they have
provided to rebase cygwin.dll.
I shall try their instructions and report back. (There must be other
BitDefender users similarily inconvenienced by version 2010 :)
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
F
"Michael Kairys" wrote in message
news:h73co7$tt...@ger.gmane.org...
Thanks for the replies...
the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x3500 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
"Michael Kairys" wrote:
> > (3) http://www.f-prot.com
>
> Thanks for the suggestion... Seems some reviews give them low marks on
> detection rates:
> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Feb-Aug09.jpg
> http://www.virus-centre.com/
>
> ... and some low marks on features (19 out of 20
(3) http://www.f-prot.com
Thanks for the suggestion... Seems some reviews give them low marks on
detection rates:
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Feb-Aug09.jpg
http://www.virus-centre.com/
... and some low marks on features (19 out of 20):
http://anti-virus-software-review.topt
"Michael Kairys" wrote:
> Thanks for the replies...
>
> > the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x3500 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 wou
Thanks for the replies...
the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x3500 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
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:09:52PM -0400, Michael Kairys wrote:
>> BitDefender AntiVirus 2009 and Cygwin got along fine, but when I upgraded to
>> 2010 all my Cygwin-based apps started crashing. If I turn off their "Active
>> Virus Control" the problem goes away.
>>
>>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:09:52PM -0400, Michael Kairys wrote:
>BitDefender AntiVirus 2009 and Cygwin got along fine, but when I upgraded to
>2010 all my Cygwin-based apps started crashing. If I turn off their "Active
>Virus Control" the problem goes away.
>
>They offer this advice:
>
>=
BitDefender AntiVirus 2009 and Cygwin got along fine, but when I upgraded to
2010 all my Cygwin-based apps started crashing. If I turn off their "Active
Virus Control" the problem goes away.
They offer this advice:
=
There is an incompatibility between cygwi
11 matches
Mail list logo
