On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:34:39 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Quote:
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:d4hs35h9nviutigmuj4gn9k5r6vvtegqnu@xxxxxx Quote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:26:36 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@xxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > Quote:
> >> >> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could
> >> >> possibly eat
> >> >> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???
> >> >
> >> > Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are
> >> > they
> >> > kept up to date?
> >>
> >> Have scanned with Norton (daily updates), SuperAntiSpyware, plus
> >> one
> >> other whose name escapes me. Not a peep or a burp from any of
> >> them.
> >
> > In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
> > anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells you. >
> How current is that view? There was a time when Norton was indeed
> mediocre after resting on their laurels but they seem to have gotten
> their act together lately.
They are, in general, a lot worse than mediocre.
However, bear in mind that the latest version, AntiVirus 2009, has
gotten much better reports from several people, several of whom I
trust. However I have no personal experience with it, and I am not
willing to use it myself, nor even to yet recommend it to anyone else.
Quote:
> No single program can catch everything
> but, knock on wood, I'm not aware of any malware on my system since it
> came with my HP desktop. And my e-mail and Web security practices
> could be described as being at the Paranoia +1 setting so it's not
> like I'm flirting with known security risk behaviors.
> Quote:
> > SuperAntiSpyware, on the other hand, is one of the best anti-spyware
> > programs available. However, I would recommend that you download and
> > run the free Malwarebytes program, which is the best anti-spyware
> > program available today.
>
> I've been scanning with all 3 (Malwarebytes is the third one I
> mentioned but couldn't remember the name of). If all 3 of these are
> reporting no malware then either my system is clean, or I've been
> zapped by malware so undetectable that probably only a complete system
> re-install can cure it.
I don't know what your situation is, but it *is* possible that you are
infected with malware that none of the above can catch.
Quote:
> Backing up data files is not a problem, but
> I'd rather have my appendix removed with a butter knife and no
> anesthesia than recreate everything on a machine with dozens of
> software titles and years of tweaking. :-(
I understand. It's a substantial effort, and one that I would
recommend only as a last resort.
Quote:
> I'm barely hanging on today at 1.06 GB but it's hard to figure what's
> going on. In the second or two that it takes to check the C: drive
> properties, close it, hit Refresh and reopen it, I get very fast
> fluctuations of +/- 200,000 bytes of free space. Occasionally the
> number doesn't change for several readings but Task Manager doesn't
> show any processes making those kinds of disk writes. Only the usual
> programs show any CPU usage and nothing is above 3% and only for a few
> seconds. All that may be incidental to my problem of what happened to
> 200 GB of free space but it's still weird.
>
> CHKDSK reports the same disk size and the same paltry empty space
> available as the Computer window icon for C: drive, so there's no
> mis-match there.
>
> I don't think anyone else is going to offer a solution so my next step
> is doing a restore to just prior to the June 10 batch of downloads,
> which is when this problem cropped up. Even if a restore point isn't
> necessarily a logical choice of action, barring an undiscovered
> miraculous solution, I've been reduced to either this, a complete
> system restoration, or waiting for the end - be it with a bang or a
> whimper.
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup