• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Advanced

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

This forum thread needs a solution.
Kudos0

NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Performing an offline boot time defrag of any drive but C: results in an error reporting a device conflict.  I believe this problem is a result of this patch.

Please correct.

Thank you.

Replies

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Possible but I have PerfectDisk10 build 114 and have no problem with the offline defrag at all.
Win10 x64; Proud graduate of GeeksToGo
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Raxco patched PD10, so of course it won't be an issue.  PD2008 won't get patched, so the ball is in Symantec's court.

Why do I say that?  Because I can choose to not update PD2008.  I don't have that luxury with NIS2009.  If Symantec's going to force me to continually update, then they're the ones that need to ensure those updates don't break existing configurations.

-Jeff

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Well, I checked and there is a patch available beyond Build 68; Build 74 for PerfectDisk 2008.  I am giving it a try now.

However, I am really not inclined to just buy an unnecessary upgrade purely for the sake of resolving a NIS 09 compatibility bug.
Kudos1 Stats

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)


Mark_Kratzer wrote:

Performing an offline boot time defrag of any drive but C: results in an error reporting a device conflict.  I believe this problem is a result of this patch.

Please correct.

Thank you.


Actually, completely the opposite. It sounds like for you NIS is a mandatory product to have on your system. This means that it's up to Raxco to fix issues with their product if it becomes incompatible with a patched version of NIS. Having an AV or IS package installed is far more important than a 3rd party degragmenting software.

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

I think whoever introduces a problem to a working configuration is responsible for fixing it.  NIS upgrades are suppose to be seamless and not things that I need to worry about (especially since I cannot control it).  NIS is supposed to be buying me peace of mind.

By this reasoning, if MSFT through WU breaks NIS, then since Windows is obviously more critical than NIS, it becomes Symantec's problem.

Strange ...
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)


Mark_Kratzer wrote:
I think whoever introduces a problem to a working configuration is responsible for fixing it.  NIS upgrades are suppose to be seamless and not things that I need to worry about (especially since I cannot control it).  NIS is supposed to be buying me peace of mind.

By this reasoning, if MSFT through WU breaks NIS, then since Windows is obviously more critical than NIS, it becomes Symantec's problem.

Strange ...

You cannot expect software that is not up-to-date (PerfectDisk) to work with software that is (NIS). And yes, by my reasoning, if an incompatibility develops between Windows and NIS as a result of an update from Microsoft then I'd expect Symantec to fix the problem. This is because Windows is the underlying layer, everything that runs on it has to conform to its ways.

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Just tested Build 76 and no joy.  If PD 10 works, then it looks like I am for $100 for upgrade licenses.

Thanks, Symantec!  :(

Kudos1 Stats

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

JeffBDVS -

If Norton plays by MS rules and follows all the proper procedures, then it is the other vendors duty to do the same.  This has happened several times in the past.  Why should a vendor try and make their application work both by the rules and then with others exceptions?  All should follow the baseline which in this case is the OS manufacturer's rules and protocols as long as it's supported current software.

Win10 x64; Proud graduate of GeeksToGo
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)


Mark_Kratzer wrote:

Just tested Build 76 and no joy.  If PD 10 works, then it looks like I am for $100 for upgrade licenses.

Thanks, Symantec!  :(


You're pointing a finger at the wrong party here. Your PD is not up to date. You can't expect it to work as well as if you were running the latest build. When combining a new and an old piece of software, I would expect the maker of the old one to release a fix to allow it to catch up. Clearly PD did not (yet), so you need to bark up their tree.

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)


dbrisendine wrote:

JeffBDVS -

If Norton plays by MS rules and follows all the proper procedures, then it is the other vendors duty to do the same.  This has happened several times in the past.  Why should a vendor try and make their application work both by the rules and then with others exceptions?  All should follow the baseline which in this case is the OS manufacturer's rules and protocols as long as it's supported current software.


You are completely missing the point.

Until recent patches, I have had a working version of NIS2009 that played very nicely with my working version of PD2008.  I did not attempt to update my copy of NIS - that was forced upon me.

I would be perfectly happy to return to an older version of NIS2009, but I don't have that option.  Therefore, since Symantec is taking away my choice as to which version of their software that I can run, it is up to them to fix any compatibility issues that my forced upgrade introduces.

Now if I had *chosen* to update NIS, then it would indeed be up to me to ensure that other software on my system could peacefully co-exist.  I suppose you could make the argument that since I chose NIS in the first place, that I'm on the hook for anything that Symantec chooses to do.  But if that's the fallback argument for Symantec, then I should probably rethink my initial choice.

-Jeff

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)


JeffBDVS wrote:

I would be perfectly happy to return to an older version of NIS2009, but I don't have that option.  Therefore, since Symantec is taking away my choice as to which version of their software that I can run, it is up to them to fix any compatibility issues that my forced upgrade introduces.

-Jeff


I disagree. The NIS compatibility update was meant to fix issues between the OS and NIS. As long as that's fixes and works fine, it's all good. If any other software falls prey to this update then it's collateral damage. I'm sure it wasn't intentional and you can't expect Symantec to test their software against every other program that is out there, let alone old versions of them. Raxco needs to work with Symantec to figure out the situation. Personally, an Internet security suite is a whole lot more important to me than a degragging software. I use PD10 build 114 and everything is kosher.

Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

I don't think that argument is valid that if I want my Symantec product to work than my only choice is to run the very latest release of every product.  And what about hardware?

And let's not forget that Symantec has not always been ready on Day #1/Month #1/Quarter #1 for various major products like Firefox 3.5.

Let's see, I have NIS09 running on a 2004 DELL Laptop, and a 2007 Desktop, and a 2008 Desktop.

Additionally, I am running XP (admittedly Win XP Pro SP3 32 bit).  But it was released in mid-2001 and has been superceded by Vista and Win7.  However, I intend to keep running it rather than just upgrade.  MSFT says is supported until 2014 despite later OS releases.

So, if Symantec's Corporate Postion truly is "we can cut the legs out from whatever else you're running and tell you that it is their and your problem when it had worked the day before, then that it is a very bad business precident".  I don't think that is very customer friendly.

---

Finally, I have to mention one other disturbing trend.  My first few weeks on this forum I had received answers to questions from senior forum members (presumably volunteers) and also Symantec employees.  Then, one day I was critical of a NIS09 crash that left my PC and its ports fully exposed; also, I noted that Zone Alarm Pro handles such crashes much better.  Since then, my posts no longer get responded to by Senior Members or Symantec employees.  Note that all my posts have been polite and civil.  I would have expected such fanboy-ism and blacklisting on a forum of PC gamers, but not a forum dedicated to support of a commercial security product.  Oh, well ...

---

Off to go buy the latest version of Perfect Disk.  So much, for NIS09 being a very cost effective solution.
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Alright upgraded to Perfect Disk 10 Build 114 ... got a 3 license upgrade for around $50 USD.  (Still would have prefered not to just for this.)

PD10 still reports an error on offline boot time defragging.  Instead of reporting a file conflict, it basically says unable to open volume with some methodology, then trying second methodology, then second methodology sucessful.  After which I do see it moving some system files like it is supposed to.

At least, it is once again working.  I have tried this on three systems and interestingly it does not occur on C: (partition 0).

If anyone from Symantec would like to see this in detail, I did take some digital photos of it.  I had to do this, since the offline boot defragger runs prior to the loading of Windows (similar to like a CHKDSK).  By the way, I did try turning off Auto Protect and Early Load, but this did not resolve the problem.  However, I only tried with Perfect Disk 2008 (Build 76) and not Perfect Disk 10 (Build 114).
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Hi Mark,

Please email the screenshots to me, and I can review them. My email address is listed on my profile. Thanks!

Tony Weiss | Norton Forums Global Community Manager | Symantec Corporation
Kudos0

Re: NIS09 16.7.2.10 Patch & PerfectDisk 2008 (Build 64)

Tony,

Photos sent to your email.  Let me know if there is anything further you need.  Thanks for your investigation into this.

This thread is closed from further comment. Please visit the forum to start a new thread.