This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: BitDefender again
"Michael Kairys" <email@example.com> 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? :)
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
- 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.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple