Anyone been able to get any 3rd party anti virus solution working properly on 5308?

mcafee has a beta that you can get from them, runs soso, kinda slows down the machine though....

Avast will run kinda, but I was having problems with the shields locking up the OS, so i guess they are still working on it. They are supposed to have a beta by the end of March early April from what I hear. In the mean time no downloading pr0n

don't see it on the beta list at mcafee. you have a link?

I had Avast installed on Vista 5308, and i had no problem with it.

It kinda of a waste to put a anti virus on Vista, as this is not even Beta 2 yet.

not so nessecarily a waster, for corperate is is nice to see how beta versions of AV that they use now will work in there current environment and what changes they have made, allows them to see bugs coming and such, also allows for input to the AV companies on things that they would like to see in the next version, just like with MS betas.

@xgman
sadly i do not have one yet got the program from my manager, i can check with him to see what kind of deal we have going on with mcafee on it though

No it still to early to worry about Anti Virus, as this is still a beta 1 if it was beta 2 I might agree. Beta 1 they are still trying to get out the main bugs in the builds code, beta 2 the code is more stable, or that is the theroy.

On the first release of Vista Beta I could install Alcohol 120 but on later builds it does not install.

PSP9 on 5270 I could not get it to work I could install it then when I tried to open it it did not work on this build it works, and builds before 5270 PSP9 worked.

Now since anti virus is a software we can assume that it may have some problems like the above. On some builds it may worked and on others it wont work.

you are right there, many things are still changing but on the same note 5308 is now feature complete so we should just be seeing bug fixes and the like, on the same note with all these changes AV companies have alot to change with too, they have to build an new AV agent for based on a beta product, so there programs may or maynot work but by testing them you can get feedbacl to those companies to help them get them working on vista. not that nessicarly that you need AV to prevent against virii and such but more to get it working/runnning smoothly with vista itself. Providing different environment and the like for AV companies to get experience and input from will help them plan and avoid headaches in future builds, again GSM you are right, installing a AV just to deal with viruses doesn't serve much purpose but to help the development of those AV products is another case

I agree with this

Vista 5308 maybe feature complete, that does not mean it code completed. UAP is not completed, some people are having network problems these may also affect the way software interacts with Vista. As any fixes in the code may affect other areas. That why I say when it Beta 2 then maybe it would be better to run a AV as the code is more completed.

defiantly agree with you here, it would be better to wait for beta 2 to deal with a more reliable and less bug ridden code, but i know alot of early adopters and such will be testing it as soon they can to get the most jump on implementation. I know we have a test domain for vista/longhorn and test the mcafee vista AV agent there, because eventually when we ahve to migrate 4000+ pcs to vista, we want to have as much advanced time working with it to knock as many bugs/problems that we can out of it, not to mention just to have the face time with the programs to see how they act/react. but i will agree, for most people an AV makes little sense, it is a beta anyway blow it away and reinstall if it gets mucked up

hahahahahah that the way to look at it.

The only AntiVirus you'll find that should be able to work on Vista is Symantec Antivirus 2005. It's mediocre at best and you're better off just using a write filter. You will not find a decent Antivirus that will work on Vista. This is the critical flaw of the entire NT6 platform and the reason I refuse to move to it.

This is Beta 1 and it is not even finished yet, if you took the time to read what fizban2 and I have discuss,
you would know we both agree at this point AV just do not work correct yet. The code for this is not finished.
So why would you expect it not to change as the build matures. Your statement does not make sence. If this was the final build and it was completed your statement would make sence.

sence indeed, also remeber alot of things were rewritten TCP/IP comes to mind and the way that hooks are placed, not so much an issue with AV as it is with firewall software but for scanning mapped drives and across computers it makes for a problem. now why do you consider that it is a critical flaw that no currently running AV will run on vista? i would think this means the MS is trying to revamp things and make them better (hopefully) which means that AV groups will have to rewrite their code to work with vista in the process making it better,

anywho just for kicks
Symantec AV Vista Client


Mcafee AV Vista Client

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.

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.

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.

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

Uhmmm....5?

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?

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

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

XP and W2K uses Ipv4 where as Vista uses Ipv6 that is new.
The way Vista installs is completely different also.

3.1 sounds about right to me.

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

Shell32 is probably the biggest file in Vista right now.

Mhm.

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. =/

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.

ran kaspersky antivirus ok. bit of a problem when starting up (quite slow).

i tested and noticed that Avast! Home Edition run smooth in Vista 5308..

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.