Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A455A6F1@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT daSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Command Error
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:31:25 +1000 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

You may be right ... just "covering all bases".  <g>

BTW, it's not just running .EXE and .COM's - don't forget boot
sector viruses! To quote McAfee : "MBR/Boot Sector viruses
are some of the most successful viruses". Obviously, VB Script
viruses are not a concern for DOS (unless perhaps M$ Word 6 for
DOS (or whatever) runs them, which I very much doubt). Not sure
about "Windoze" executables though - it's possible some of these
viruses will run under DOS???

Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark in Clinton TWP.  MI.  USA [SMTP:MarWar AT Provide DOT net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, September 04, 2001 5:24 AM
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	Re: Command Error
> 
> 
> I've used the F-prot frequently but realisticly if not windows how often
> are
> "dos" users running across any bugs any longer?  All of the windows bugs I
> am sent are fun to look at but there really nothing but a pile of code I
> don't understand and I've never come across a dos bug in 10 years plus.
>     Are they out there?
>     If so, they couldn't do any harm without the user running a .exe or
> .com
> program anyways.
>     Just wondering others view.
>       Mark
> 
> 
> On 2001-09-04 opendos AT delorie DOT com said:
>    -Unless you are using M$W 9X and LFN, why not use CHKDSK
>    -instead of SCANDISK. It's much more robust and might not have
>    -this problem. Also, check how much memory you have and if it's
>    -got any defects. Finally, get F-Prot (www.complex.is) and check
>    -for viruses.
>    -Joe.
>    -> -----Original Message-----
>    -> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 7:47 PM
>    -> Hi,
>    -> I run scandisk and defrag regularly. I always use the surface
>    ->scan option  in
>    -> scandisk. My hard drive is 540Mb.
>    -> On 2001-09-01 opendos AT delorie DOT com said:
>    ->    >On 1 Sep 01, at 1:57, . wrote:
>    ->    >> Hi all,
>    ->    >> I use MS-DOS 6.2. I have two hard disk (drive C and D:). I
>    ->have a     >>133 MHz.  processor with 32MB RAM.
>    ->    >> Since last week I have noticed that Scandisk has been taking
>    ->    >>incredibly long  to scan my D: drive. When I try to exit
>    ->Scandisk     >>at the end of the scan I  get a message which
>    ->states:     >> "Unable to load command interpreter".
>    ->    >> This only happens when I scan the D: drive. I also notice
>    ->that     >>there is  sometimes a thirty seconds delay when I try
>    ->to save on     >this drive. >
>    ->    >> Can anyone hazard a guess as to what my problem is and how
>    ->I can     >correct it. >
>    ->    >How big is your D drive?  Have you ever defragged it?  When
>    ->you run     >Scandisk, do you do the surface scan? Does Scandisk
>    ->show any errors     >before you exit?  Try booting the system with
>    ->F5 (press F5 as soon     >as
>    -> Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Test Drive