RNFolsom

SWEX: In my 64-bit Win7Sp1 laptop, when I click the ESET icon in the Navigation Area, I get two choices: NOD32 Antivirus 8.0.312.0 or 8.0.319.0. There is no mention of version 9.0.318.0. Since I have no intention of ever installing Windows10, I will stick with 8.0.312.0. My many years of experience with ESET is that it doesn't insist on an update unless there is a problem with the existing version. For example, before I installed 8.0.312.0, I was using a 7.xxxx (I forget the rest of the numbers), and in my Navigation Area ESET insisted that I install 8.0.312.0, and I did so. But I prefer to follow ESET's lead than follow the people in this thread who think I am an idiot. They may be right, but I don't think so. I have MUCH more confidence in ESET's technology people. Cordially, Roger Folsom

TomasP: I very much appreciate your response, that the ESET employee who said that "Since you plan on staying on Windows 7 SP1 64-bit, keep ESET version 8.0.312.0" is wrong. That bad advice applied to my two 64-bit Win7sp1 laptops (one of them is my wife's). I have three thoughts, which may (or may not) interest you. First, since I gave information in this thread about where the ESET employee came from (and I can give even more detailed information about his message to me if that is useful), SOMEBODY should inform him that he gave me bad information. I don't have authority to do that. Surely I'm not the only person that he is misleading. And since that bad information came from an ESET Customer Care Home Support technician, maybe all of the entire Customer Care people need to be retrained. Second, now that NOD32 9.0.318.0 is available (according to TomFace), I need to know whether it has replaced 8.0.319.0 for a 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop, or only for a Windows10 laptop (or desktop) computer. Third, please realize that I had no way to know whether the people who criticized me were truly knowledgeable, given what I described as an enormous gap between a 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop and a Windows10 laptop (or desktop) computer. I am NOT expecting you to answer those three items, because I know you are very busy. Instead, I will try to find out where I can be confident that my questions are answered by genuinely knowledgeable ESET technicians. Anyone can post in a forum (including in the thread that I started) whether or not they are truly knowledgeable. Maybe "Moderators" are what I need. If so, I will need to find out where "Moderators" are located, presumably somewhere in ESET's website. I have been a user of ESET ever since November 2005, maybe earlier. Previously, I was able to use ESET's website for accurate information. But now, when I need accurate ESET information, I don't know where to get it on ESET's website. About ESET, I have become a total ignoramus. P.S. I am surprised that when I select ESET in my laptop's Notification Area, it does NOT obviously recommend that I replace version 8.0.312.0 with something else. Roger Folsom

I have received a personal message from TomFace, with the following From: ESET Security Forum <noreply@forum.noreply.eset.com> So I cannot send him an email. His message is: "RNFolsom, "TomFace (https://forum.eset.com/user/556-tomface/) has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "For a 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop, NO plans for Windows10, Any reason to replace 8.0.312.0 with 8.0.319.0?". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Doesn't matter anymore...Now 9.0.318.0 is out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The topic can be found here: https://forum.eset.com/topic/6171-for-a-64-bit-win7sp1-laptop-no-plans-for-windows10-any-reason-to-replace-803120-with-803190/?view=getnewpost " When I responded to that link (despite its including 803120 and 803190 without decimal points, and its /?view=getnewpost end,), I got a copy of the preceding post in this thread --- #13 --- and not a new post. I don't know how to persuade that link to come up with something new. Nevertheless, it is interesting that 9.0.318.0 is out. I am guessing that ESET has decided to replace NOD32 8.0.319.0 with NOD32 9.0.318.0, for users who want to "upgrade" to Windows10. Roger Folsom

I am surprised that in this thread pavilion_alex insists that even though the technical difference between a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop and a Windows10 laptop is enormous [and therefore a VERY unusual update], my 64-bit Windows7sp1 laptop that will never use Windows10 needs NOD32 8.0.319.0 rather than 8.0.312.0. In an earlier post, I answered TomasP, who apparently is an ESET Moderator (whatever they are, and wherever they may be located), in my preceding post, by telling him that I had contacted an ESET Customer Care Home Support technician, who told me that "Since you plan on staying on Windows 7 SP1 64-bit, keep ESET version 8.0.312.0. The benefit of version 8.0.319.0 is for upgrade compatibility to Windows 10." So far, TomasP has not replied, so either he is very busy or he does not disapprove of my continuing to use 8.0.312.0. And when I run ESET NOD32 updates, I do NOT get a message encouraging me to use 8.0.319.0. [In contrast, when I was running NOD32 7.xxxx (I don't remember the numbers after 7.x, but they were the latest), ESET insisted that I upgrade to NOD32 8.0.312.0 (which I did)]. I remain mildly disappointed that no one has responded to my question " Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? " but I think it is obvious that if an ESET Customer Care Home Support technician tells me to use NOD32 8.0.312.0, the answer is "NO". Roger Folsom

Although I have been an ESET NOD32 user for many years, I don't know what ESET Moderators are, and I don't know what PM means. But I will try to help. On this forum, I was unable to get a clear answer about whether, on each of two 64bit Windows7sp1 laptops that never will be using Windows10, I needed to replace NOD32 8.0.312.0 with NOD32 8.0.319.0. So I contacted ESET customer support (by using a Google search on the internet), which sent me an email that included the following: Subject: ESET Support Case Update: 1359912 - Other Issue - Other products or services issue From: ESET North America <ccreply@eset.com> Date: 08-Oct-15 11:08 To: rnfolsom@redshift.com (that's me). Ronnie ESET Customer Care Home Support In that message, the primary content of the message sent was " Since you plan on staying on Windows 7 SP1 64-bit, keep ESET version 8.0.312.0. The benefit of version 8.0.319.0 is for upgrade compatibility to Windows 10." In one of my previous posts, I emphasized that the technical difference between a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop and a Windows10 laptop is enormous [and therefore a VERY unusual update] (in between there are at least two Windows8 versions). In my many years of using ESET NOD32, I never before have had to ask and ask and ask for a clear answer to a key question. In this case " Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? " has yet to get an unambiguous yes or no answer. So after getting the response from ESET Support Case Update: 1359912, it seemed obvious to me that the answer is " NO ". Given your message, now I never will know the true answer to my question. Roger Folsom

Earlier today I received a message from ESET tech support saying " Since you plan on staying on Windows 7 SP1 64-bit, keep ESET version 8.0.312.0. The benefit of version 8.0.319.0 is for upgrade compatibility to Windows 10." I assume that for my question, " Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? " the answer is " NO ". Roger Folsom

My most recent post --- two posts above this one --- asks what I think is a straightforward yes or no question: Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? As I wrote in my most recent post, I want an answer to that question, because the technical difference between a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop and a Windows10 laptop is enormous [and therefore a VERY unusual update] (in between there are at least two Windows8 versions), and it is entirely possible that the answer to my question is NO, because maybe ESET created NOD32 8.0.319.0 on the assumption that many Windows7 or Windows8 users will want to upgrade to Windows10. Earlier today I contacted tech support at ESET and invited tech support to read my posts in this thread, and I am expecting an answer to my question tomorrow since it didn't show up today. P.S. I never thought or said or wrote that anyone is forcing me to update to windows 10. Roger Folsom

I again appreciate pavilion_alex's response to my posts. I am sorry that he did not give me more information about the NOD32 8.0.319.0 features 2, 4, and 5 (Improved: Internal code optimization; Changed: Latest Virus Signature Databases included directly in build; Changed: Latest modules included directly in build), but a Google search may provide some information about those features. I do appreciate his information that "the eset team won't tell you what exactly is improved because they don't publicly announce full release changes," and that "no one can answer to you what are the benefits specifically for 32 or 64bit windows." I now understand that I cannot learn the specific benefits of particular ESET NOD32 versions. More important is that I still need at least a "yes or no" answer to my previous question: Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? I want an answer to that question, because the technical difference between a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop and a Windows10 laptop is enormous (in between there are at least two Windows8 versions), and it is entirely possible that the answer to my question is NO, because maybe ESET created NOD32 8.0.319.0 on the assumption that many Windows7 or Windows8 users will want to upgrade to Windows10. (For example, Dell spent money sending me a manual advertising new Windows10 laptops, including some that were very inexpensive, although I don't remember the prices.) But my wife and I both expect to stick with our 64bit Win7sp1 laptops for as long as we can, and my understanding is that Microsoft will continue sending updates for Win7sp1 until at least 2020. So if the answer to my question is NO, we will want to stay with NOD32 8.0.312.0. Roger Folsom

I appreciate pavilion_alex's response to my post, but I still need an answer to the basic question that I should have asked explicitly in my post: Does NOD32 8.0.319.0 benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? And if the answer to that is "yes," which of the improvements in NOD32 8.0.319.0 -- for example, the items in my initial post's Changelog list --- are beneficial for a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop that currently is using NOD32 8.0.312.0? IF NOD32 8.0.319.0 does benefit a 64-bit Windows7 sp1 laptop, I would also appreciate any information about what the beneficial benefits do, particularly the Changelog list's items 2, 4, and 5, so that I get some idea of what they do and how they work. Roger Folsom

NOD32 8.0.312.0 has a new version 8.0.319.0 that apparently is designed for Windows10, with the following features: Changelog Added: Compatibility with Microsoft Windows 10 RTM build 10240 Improved: Internal code optimization Changed: End User License Agreement Changed: Latest Virus Signature Databases included directly in build Changed: Latest modules included directly in build Do any of these changes benefit a Windows7 sp1 laptop? I don't know what items 2, 4, and 5 really do. My wife and I (each of us have a 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop using ESET NOD32) have considered Windows10, and NOTHING in its new features would be useful for us. We will stick with Win7sp1 as long as it is available. IF NOD32 8.0.319.0 doesn't benefit a Windows7 sp1 laptop, we don't want to install it and replace NOD32 8.0.312.0, for a NOD32 version that has extra features that do not apply to a 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop, and that might clutter and slow down NOD32's operations on our laptops, and maybe even damage our Win7sp1 laptops. I hope some knowledgeable person reads this and provides some answers. Roger Folsom

My Dell Precision M4700 laptop and my wife's Lenovo ThinkPad T530 both use 64-bit Windows7sp1 and ESET NOD32 version 7.0.325.1, and we have no intention of replacing 64-bit Windows7sp1 until it expires in 2020. I have finally found time to find out whether we want to replace our laptops with the latest ESET NOD32 version 8. A) I now understand (at a very beginning level) that ESET NOD32 version 7.0.325.1 does nothing to prevent lockscreens and/or ransomeware trojans that could prevent us from using our laptops by malware injecting a full screen application upon login followed by disabling crucial services that allow us to operate our own computer, but that ESET NOD32 Version 8 prevents those attacks. B) With regard to HIPS (Host-based Intrusion Prevention) Smart mode, I am puzzled. Arakasi above (apparently he was describing NOD32 V8) wrote that "weakening Host-based Intrusion Prevention System would be a security risk, but any good points that may come of it would be directed at actions such as remote access, or applications that really change the OS around. There is a higher chance of successful exploitation or intrusion if you weaken it, or disable the features or predefined rules set etc." But since we never have experienced HIPS (unless we didn't know it had functioned in our NOD32 v7.0.325.1 laptops), I don't understand why NOD32 version 8 apparently weakens HIPS. There must be some reasons that I don't understand, being very much a technical ignoramus. With regard to Version 8's inclusion of ESET SysRescue Live, I think I have that in version 7.0.325.1, although I am sorry to say that I never got around to using it. And I don't know what ESET Cybersecurity Education (North America only) would teach me. I am an economist, not a technology expert. With regard to items A) and B), upgrading from NOD32 7.0.325.1 to the latest NOD32 Version 8 looks like a tradeoff: If we stick with 7.0.325.1 we apparently have the risk of an A) attack, with the benefits of a not-weakened B) attack. If we replace NOD32 7.0.325.1 with the latest NOD32 version 8, we apparently have less risk of an A) attack, but more risk of a B) problem. I would very much appreciate any suggestions and reasons for staying with NOD32 7.0.32.1 or upgrading to the latest NOD32 Version 8. Roger Nils Folsom

rugk: Thanks for pointing me to ESET NOD32 Antivirus Version 8 Has Been Released Worldwide. The new features listed there Enhanced Exploit Blocker ESET SysRescue Live HIPS Smart mode ESET Cybersecurity Education (North America only) are interesting, but for Enhanced Exploit Blocker and HIPS Smart mode I am going to have to do some studying to figure out what they do. (For example, I don't know what lockscreens and/or ransomeware are and do and when they do it, and I don't know what pre-defined rules in Automatic mode are or why weakening Host-based Intrusion Prevention System is useful --- I've never had a HIPS problem.) But that's because of my technical ignorance, and not at all ESETs fault. Thanks again. R.N. (Roger) Folsom

rugk: Several years ago I compared ESET Smart Security with ESET NOD32 Antivirus, and discovered that Smart Security had additional features that I did not need. Today I went to Smart Security (hxxp://www.eset.com/us/home/products/) and I discovered that the Smart Security features that NOD32 does not have are the following: Anti-Spam (my Internet Service Provider [redshift.com], and my SeaMonkey browser, deal with Spam), Anti-Theft (Intel deals with that), Personal Firewall (Windows7sp1 provides a firewall for my computer and I don't need it to be personal; my wife is welcome to use my computer if hers is misbehaving or even if it isn't), and Parental Control (my grown-up married daughter doesn't need parental control on a computer that she doesn't use). So I will stick with NOD32. But thanks for the suggestion that I take a look at Smart Security. I still need comparisons of NOD32 version 7.0.325.1 and NOD32 version 8. But there's no rush since 7.0.325.1 is now accepting updates with no problems. R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Marcos and rugk: Thanks very much for the help. I should have thought of cleaning the update cache, but I didn't. I didn't literally uninstall NOD32 7.0.325.1; instead I simply cleaned the update cache, rebooted, and used the Eset icon in the notification area to download and install 39997 kb of updates. Tomorrow there will be additional updates, and I will see if they install routinely. For the longer run, if there is a thread here that describes the benefits of version 8 that are not in 7.0.325.1, I would appreciate knowing where it is. That there are almost no visual differences between v7 and v8 was interesting, but I am interested in actual differences. For example, maybe v8 does more with social media (e.g. facebook) and/or smart cellphones, but I don't use any of them (I do have ancient voice-only cell phones in my cars), so if v8 has features for which I have no need, there would be no reason for me to switch to v8. I try to minimize my use of unneeded bloatware. Thanks again for your essential help that solved my problem. R.N. (Roger) Folsom P.S. Today (Sunday 30 November) Eset 7.0.325.1 updated with no problems.

On my 64-bit Windows 7 sp1 Professional laptop, running NOD32 v7.0.325.1 with no problems until today, earlier today I had to restore a backup image of my Partition C: (created on 12 November) to deal with some problems from my Internet Service Provider. (Those problems were fixed by installing the backup image of my Partition C:.) When I did that, of ESET noticed that my downloads were out of date, and with red wording told me that "Maximum protection is not Insured" followed by a link to "Update virus signature database". Of course I used the link to update the database. But when I did so, I received a larger window which said in red "Virus signature database update ended with an error" followed by a black notice "Undocumented serious error (0x1106)". And there was a note that accurately said that the last update was done on 11 November, which was the day before I had created the update image that I restored earlier today. I tried several attempts to get my database updated, with the interesting results that the first one was 57.7kb and and the next one was 74.5kb --- but nothing was actually installed. I repeated my efforts and the same 57.7kb and 74.5kb pattern continued until I gave up. Then I re-installed NOD32 v7.0.325.1 (on top of the existing installation) but the same problem continued. Farther down in the Eset NOD32 window was the usual invitation to check for a product update. When I had clicked on that, I had learned that Eset NOD32 version 8.0.304.0 was available. But I did not follow that invitation, because I had seen here a month or so ago that some people had problems with version 8, and my Windows7 laptop had been working well with version 7.0.325.1. I have been using 7.0.325.1 with no problems until today, after I installed the Partition C: backup image. And as an ESET NOD32 user since beginning with version 2 from many years ago, I am VERY disappointed IF Eset is trying to stuff a later version onto me. That has never happened before. Adopting it likely would be a huge time sink trying to learn how to use version 8, even if there were no problems. I am not a talented software creator or fixer. Especially since I will never use any version of Windows 8, I am hoping that someone here will tell me how to continue using NOD32 version 7.0.325.0. Sadly, with a mix of exasperation and anger (trying to use 7.0.325.0 and then writing this post has chewed up several hours of my time), R.N. (Roger) Folsom

rugk: Thanks very much for your detailed explanations of the purposes of ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 Mozilla Thunderbird and the x86 folder. Marcos's response (at https://forum.eset.com/topic/3587-eset-nod32-703251-installation-mysteries/) while helpful, was a bit brief! FYI, Mozilla-SeaMonkey does have anti-spam filters (which gradually learn what to dump as I select stuff I don't want to read), and my ISP (redshift.com, a Northern California local outfit) also, on its website, has primitive anti-spam features, which have a bad habit of including items that I need, so each day I go to the website and move the falsely defined spam to a separate folder that SeaMonkey then downloads for me. But the Redshift website lets me list the routine items I want to read, so they go directly into the separate folder that SeaMonkey then downloads. After a few more weeks of listing all the routine items that I need, those items will go directly to the SeaMonkey good-stuff download folder. I have been using Redshift for many years, but these new features were needed because Redshift got hit by some sort of very sophisticated malware, which took Redshift about a month to clean up the mess. As for using Eset version 8: After reading its features, I decided to hold off on that until there is a bit more experience with it. Meanwhile I will use ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1. Thank you again. When I got no responses to my post I for several days I was beginning to get very worried that I would have to start experimenting. R.N. (Roger) Folsom P.S. As you probably know, SeaMonkey is a descendant of the original Netscape, by Marc Andreessen (and colleagues). (hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen)

Marcos: 2, The x86 folder contains 32-bit files that are needed on x64 systems. Thanks. Understood. 1, V7 still supported older versions of Thunderbird. The existence of the folder has nothing to do with what applications you have installed. Does that mean I can delete that Mozilla Thunderbird folder? R.N. (Roger) Folsom

I have installed ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 on my 64-bit Windows 7 sp1 laptop (and I hope to install it also onto my wife's 64-bit Windows 7 sp1 laptop), but at the installation location (C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus) there are two mysteries: 1) A Mozilla Thunderbird folder, even though my email (and browser) is Mozilla SeaMonkey, and 2) An x86 folder, even though my computers are 64-bit. The details of those two mysteries --- and the questions I am asking about them --- are in an ESET forum, ESET NOD32 Antivirus 7.0.317 has been released, post #38, at https://forum.eset.com/topic/2493-eset-nod32-antivirus-70317-has-been-released/page-2 For the past few days I have been revising and revising that post, but no one has replied. So I am posting this here in hopes that someone looks at my post #38 and supplies me with some answers. Hopefully, R.N. (Roger) Folsom

ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 Installation Mysteries Since I haven't gotten any response to my original post here, I have revised it, and simplified it (by deleting a description of my failed attempts to use Customer Care for answers to the questions below). I have installed ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1 onto my 64-bit Win7sp1 laptop (as a replacement for version 7.0.302.26), at C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus. (I did not select that location; the installer selected it.) That installation location included two surprises. 1) It includes a Mozilla Thunderbird folder containing chrome.manifest and install.rdf files, and also a Components folder (containing one file, eplgTb.dll). But my email (and browser) is Mozilla SeaMonkey, NOT Mozilla Thunderbird. My SeaMonkey is installed at C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla.Org\SeaMonkey. 2) It has an x86 folder (containing 21 files), at C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus\x86 folder. That puzzles me because x86 usually means 32-bits, and I am wondering if my newly installed NOD32 v(7.0.325.1) really is supposed to be at Program Files (x86). My questions are: 1) Given that my email (and browser) is in Mozilla SeaMonkey and is NOT Mozilla Thunderbird: 1a) In C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus, why is there a Mozilla Thunderbird folder containing chrome.manifest and install.rdf files, and also a Components folder (containing 1 file, eplgTb.dll)? What are that Mozilla Thunderbird folder's contents supposed to do? 1b) Can I delete the Mozilla Thunderbird folder, or at least some of its contents? 1c) Should I replace the Mozilla Thunderbird folder with some sort of Mozilla SeaMonkey folder? 2) In C:\Program Files\ESET\ESET NOD32 Antivirus, why is the x86 folder (and its 21 files) there? What is that x86 folder supposed to do? Also, a new question: Should I go back to ESET 7.0.302.26? Or are there real advantages to using ESET NOD32 7.0.325.1? R.N. (Roger) Folsom P.S. Thanks to rugk for inviting my attention to the topic "decoding version numbers" for more details about version numbers.

Thanks to everyone in this thread for helping me to decide that on my 64-bit Win7sp1 laptops I install Esets Antivirus,AntiSpyware version7.0.325. One surprise was that I had downloaded 7.0.325.0 on 22 October and saved it. But today, after I installed it (Eset wanted to have me download and then install, but I unchecked that option), I learned that I had installed 7.0.325.1, even though I thought I was installing version 7.0.325.0. Wonders never cease. Here's hoping it works. So far, so good. R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Earlier today (late afternoon, California time) I decided to download and then install ESET NOD32 7.0.317.4. But when I tried doing that (I wish I had kept some notes), I somehow ended up at hxxp://www.eset.com/int/download/home/detail/family/2/fileflag/7.0.325.0/ where instead of version 7.0.317.4 I was invited to download version 7.0.325.0. At the site above, there were "Other Versions": ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8 (8.0.304.4), ESET NOD32 Antivirus 6 (6.0.316.6), ESET NOD32 Antivirus 5 (5.2.15.2), ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4 (4.2.71.5), and ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3 (3.0.695.0), but there was no mention of version 7.0.317.4. So I downloaded version 7.0.325.0, and also its Quick Start Guide (752.5 kB) and User Guide (2.5 MB). On my 64-bit Dell M4700 laptop (now using 7.0.302.26), I will install version 7.0.325.0 as a test run, but I expect that I will like what I see. If so, on my wife's 64-bit Lenovo Thinkpad T530 (now using 7.0.317.4) I will install 7.0.325.0. I'm now setting up my wife's Thinkpad. (The 7.0.317.4 got installed onto the Thinkpad without my permission when I simply downloaded NOD32, but so far there have not been any problems.) Nevertheless, since somewhere among ESET's websites (again, I wish I had kept notes) there was information that 7.0.325.0 is an improvement over 7.0.317.4, replacing that with 7.0.325.0 seems sensible. I am hoping that by next weekend both of my family's laptops will be using ESET NOD32 7.0.325.0. If there are any unusual events, I will report them here. R.N. (Roger) Folsom ---------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. I should mention that my downloading of 7.0.325.0 had a weird conclusion: The small window containing how well the download was going reported speeds of anywhere from close to 140kb/sec to slow down close to 30kb/sec, and then up again. That probably was a busy internet. But when the downloading information window got to "only a few seconds remaining," and the action band looked like everything was downloaded, and the top of the window said that the download was finished, the window also said that 69.7 MB of 69.9MB were still being installed. And it took roughly an extra 15 minutes --- maybe more --- to finish downloading so that the window could disappear. Dramatic variations in speeds/sec are not unusual, but I never before saw .2MB to require a large amount of extra time to complete a download. I wondered whether the download had any errors in it. So I downloaded the same installation file again (and again the end was a delayed 69.7 MB of 69.9MB), and used Xplorer² (which measures file size in bytes instead of KB or MB) to compare the two downloads, and they were identical (73,269,248 bytes). So apparently all was well.

Thanks to SweX and Peter Randziak for suggesting that I contact ESET directly. From the ESET icon on the Notification Area (aka System Tray), I went to "Open ESET NOD32 Antivirus 7" and Help and Support's Customer Care, and sent them a message that was most of the content of my post that started this thread. Here's hoping that works! Saturday 08 November 2004, Delayed Report: On 27 October 2014, with the help of Daniel Womack, I was able to contact an ESET sales representative by telephone, who was able to set renew my ESET NOD32 license for three instead of four laptops, for two years, for $75.99. (I went for three instead of two laptops because I realized that my wife's XP laptop was going to take additional time before I get it set up for her new Win7sp1 laptop.) R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Rugk: Thanks for correcting my link. R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Proactive Services: Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not used to using a Sales Representative, but a Google search probably can come up with one. But I will wait for another day or two --- my current holding runs to November 02 --- to see if someone from ESET comes up with a more direct solution. Thanks again. R.N. (Roger) Folsom

Two years ago, I was running four laptops: two new ones, and two elderly ones that I continued to use as I struggled with setting up the new ones. So I bought a two year NOD32 renewal for four laptops. I now have only two laptops for which I want to renew; the elderly ones have been donated to a local organization that sets them up (mostly using Linux because they can't run Windows later than XP) for low income people. But I can't find any way to get ESET to renew a smaller number of laptops, at .hxxp://www.eset.com/us/renew/. If necessary, I will renew four laptops for two years --- it's only $101.99, and I think that price would be reasonable even for only two laptops --- but if I am overlooking some way to renew only two laptops, I would like to know how to do that. I'm not willing to pretend that I am a new customer (buying two years of NOD32 would cost only $74.99), because I don't want Eset to think I am someone that I ain't. R.N. (Roger) Folsom