How to code batch file?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric
  • Start date Start date
E

Eric

Guest
I need to consistently download patch on following web site, but the file

name keeps changing based on date, for example

http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe



Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch file to download the

patch based on specific date format? so I can set schedule task to run it.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

Eric
 
"Eric" wrote in message

news:CB9126DD-6B0C-408F-A4CB-94FF8180FBB3@microsoft.com...

> I need to consistently download patch on following web site, but the file

> name keeps changing based on date, for example

> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>

> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch file to download

> the

> patch based on specific date format? so I can set schedule task to run it.

> Does anyone have any suggestions?

> Thanks in advance for any suggestions

> Eric

>




It depends on your regional settings. What exactly do you see when you type

this command at the Command Prompt:



echo %date%
 
Eric wrote:

> I need to consistently download patch on following web site, but the

> file name keeps changing based on date, for example

> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>

> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch file to

> download the patch based on specific date format? so I can set

> schedule task to run it. Does anyone have any suggestions?

> Thanks in advance for any suggestions

> Eric




Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble. Yesterday McAfee

finally caught up to Symantec in the race to slow down computers.
 
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news:uguqdSh4KHA.1888@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Eric wrote:

>> I need to consistently download patch on following web site, but the

>> file name keeps changing based on date, for example

>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>

>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch file to

>> download the patch based on specific date format? so I can set

>> schedule task to run it. Does anyone have any suggestions?

>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>> Eric


>

> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble. Yesterday McAfee

> finally caught up to Symantec in the race to slow down computers.




LOL!
 
HeyBub wrote:



> Eric wrote:

>

>>I need to consistently download patch on following web site, but the

>>file name keeps changing based on date, for example

>>http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>

>>Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch file to

>>download the patch based on specific date format? so I can set

>>schedule task to run it. Does anyone have any suggestions?

>>Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>Eric


>

>

> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble. Yesterday McAfee

> finally caught up to Symantec in the race to slow down computers.

>

>




Slow, or KILL?
 
In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

Bob I typed:

> HeyBub wrote:

>

>> Eric wrote:

>>

>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date, for

>>> example

>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe Does anyone

>>> have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>> file to download the patch based on specific date format?

>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>> Eric


>>

>>

>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the race

>> to slow down computers.


>

> Slow, or KILL?




No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint, excellent speed.

Actually I noticed NO difference when NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed.

I think you guys are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

used them in years.
 
Twayne wrote:

> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

> Bob I typed:

>> HeyBub wrote:

>>

>>> Eric wrote:

>>>

>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date, for

>>>> example

>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe Does anyone

>>>> have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date format?

>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>> Eric

>>>

>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the race

>>> to slow down computers.


>> Slow, or KILL?


>

> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint, excellent speed.

> Actually I noticed NO difference when NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed.

> I think you guys are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

> used them in years.

>

>




Twayne:



You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last several

products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV software that I

have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again when my year

ends. There are a few places where it can be purchased for a very low price.



The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008 was fairly

good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and re-install, just to get

it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try) has recently

crashed a huge number of computers. It deleted thousands of files from

any computers running Windows 7/64.



Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are showing their

age, NIS once was bloated but not now.



Sardine
 
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

wrote:



>Twayne wrote:

>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>> Bob I typed:

>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>

>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date, for

>>>>> example

>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe Does anyone

>>>>> have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date format?

>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>>> Eric

>>>>

>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the race

>>>> to slow down computers.

>>> Slow, or KILL?


>>

>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint, excellent speed.

>> Actually I noticed NO difference when NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed.

>> I think you guys are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

>> used them in years.

>>

>>


>

>Twayne:

>

>You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last several

>products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV software that I

>have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again when my year

>ends. There are a few places where it can be purchased for a very low price.

>

>The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008 was fairly

>good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and re-install, just to get

>it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try) has recently

>crashed a huge number of computers. It deleted thousands of files from

>any computers running Windows 7/64.

>

>Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are showing their

>age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>

>Sardine




NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.
 
WaIIy wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

> wrote:

>

>> Twayne wrote:

>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>>> Bob I typed:

>>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date, for

>>>>>> example

>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe Does anyone

>>>>>> have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date format?

>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>>>> Eric

>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the race

>>>>> to slow down computers.

>>>> Slow, or KILL?

>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint, excellent speed.

>>> Actually I noticed NO difference when NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed.

>>> I think you guys are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

>>> used them in years.

>>>

>>>


>> Twayne:

>>

>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last several

>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV software that I

>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again when my year

>> ends. There are a few places where it can be purchased for a very low price.

>>

>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008 was fairly

>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and re-install, just to get

>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try) has recently

>> crashed a huge number of computers. It deleted thousands of files from

>> any computers running Windows 7/64.

>>

>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are showing their

>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>>

>> Sardine


>

> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.




Wally:



What do you suggest as some of the best AV to use? What criteria do you

use to decide?



Thanks,



Sardine
 
Don't you think you are showing YOUR age by using NIS instead of WSE?

"Sardine" wrote in message

news:hqq4f8$7do$1@news.xmission.com...

> Twayne wrote:

>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>> Bob I typed:

>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>

>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date, for

>>>>> example

>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe Does anyone

>>>>> have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date format?

>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>>> Eric

>>>>

>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the race

>>>> to slow down computers.

>>> Slow, or KILL?


>>

>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint, excellent speed.

>> Actually I noticed NO difference when NIS 2009 and now 2010 were

>> installed. I think you guys are behind the times. McAfee I don't know

>> about; haven't used them in years.

>>

>>


>

> Twayne:

>

> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last several products

> I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV software that I have ever used

> that works so well that I will buy it again when my year ends. There are a

> few places where it can be purchased for a very low price.

>

> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008 was fairly good

> but 2009 required almost weekly removal and re-install, just to get it to

> work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try) has recently crashed a

> huge number of computers. It deleted thousands of files from any computers

> running Windows 7/64.

>

> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are showing their age,

> NIS once was bloated but not now.

>

> Sardine
 
In news:lu51t55a84j6q0brhovs8vr2r3216er3en@4ax.com,

WaIIy typed:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

> wrote:

>

>> Twayne wrote:

>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>>> Bob I typed:

>>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date,

>>>>>> for

>>>>>> example

>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date

>>>>>> format?

>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>>>> Eric

>>>>>

>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the

>>>>> race to slow down computers.

>>>> Slow, or KILL?

>>>

>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint,

>>> excellent speed. Actually I noticed NO difference when

>>> NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed. I think you guys

>>> are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

>>> used them in years.

>>>

>>>


>>

>> Twayne:

>>

>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last

>> several

>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV

>> software that I

>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again

>> when my year ends. There are a few places where it can be

>> purchased for a very low price.

>>

>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008

>> was fairly

>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and

>> re-install, just to get

>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try)

>> has recently crashed a huge number of computers. It

>> deleted thousands of files from

>> any computers running Windows 7/64.

>>

>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are

>> showing their

>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>>

>> Sardine


>

> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.




Many, many are ignorant of the last two year-titles of the product. That

often happens to closed minds. Come back when you know what you're talking

about.
 
In news:eUkIyvk4KHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,

Unknown typed:

> Don't you think you are showing YOUR age by using NIS

> instead of WSE?




As usual, nothing said of any import.
 
You must be the easiest person in the world to brainwash. You keep pushing

all the useless

application garbage, I.E. Registry cleaners, Norton, Symantics.

Why don't you clean up your machine and find out how great a clean computer

runs?

"Twayne" wrote in message

news:%23a86sOx4KHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> In news:lu51t55a84j6q0brhovs8vr2r3216er3en@4ax.com,

> WaIIy typed:

>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Twayne wrote:

>>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>>>> Bob I typed:

>>>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web

>>>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date,

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>> example

>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch

>>>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date

>>>>>>> format?

>>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have

>>>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions

>>>>>>> Eric

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the

>>>>>> race to slow down computers.

>>>>> Slow, or KILL?

>>>>

>>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint,

>>>> excellent speed. Actually I noticed NO difference when

>>>> NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed. I think you guys

>>>> are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't

>>>> used them in years.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Twayne:

>>>

>>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last

>>> several

>>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV

>>> software that I

>>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again

>>> when my year ends. There are a few places where it can be

>>> purchased for a very low price.

>>>

>>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008

>>> was fairly

>>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and

>>> re-install, just to get

>>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try)

>>> has recently crashed a huge number of computers. It

>>> deleted thousands of files from

>>> any computers running Windows 7/64.

>>>

>>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are

>>> showing their

>>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>>>

>>> Sardine


>>

>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.


>

> Many, many are ignorant of the last two year-titles of the product. That

> often happens to closed minds. Come back when you know what you're talking

> about.

>

>
 
Ditto!

"Twayne" wrote in message

news:uRAOwPx4KHA.1924@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> In news:eUkIyvk4KHA.3880@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,

> Unknown typed:

>> Don't you think you are showing YOUR age by using NIS

>> instead of WSE?


>

> As usual, nothing said of any import.

>
 
Sardine wrote:

>>

>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.


>

> Wally:

>

> What do you suggest as some of the best AV to use? What criteria do

> you use to decide?

>




I'm not Wally, but I don't think you can go wrong with Microsoft's Security

Essentials. The criteria I used are the reveiws from (presumably) unbiased

sources.



arsTechnica

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars



CNet

http://www.cnet.com.au/microsoft-se...ews&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=







On the other hand, reviewers who accept paid advertising for non-free AVs

are less impressed:

PC Mag

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353386,00.asp



There are other, free, AV detectors: Avira and Avast have good reputations,

as do several others.
 
HeyBub wrote:

>

> Sardine wrote:

> >>




>

> The criteria I used are the reveiws from (presumably) unbiased

> sources.

>




This is the most stupid thing to do because reviews are reviews

posted by nutters. The Proof is all here for everybody to see:











Either you should use your own brain by trying it on your system

and therefore taking responsibility for it or simply shut up!



I try every solutions on my system before posting here.



hth







--

THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY

KIND. LD55ZRA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND

FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LD55ZRA

OR ITS ASSOCIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER

INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF

BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LD55ZRA OR ITS

ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL

DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY.



Copyright LD55ZRA 2010.
 
HeyBub wrote:

>

> Sardine wrote:

> >>




>

> The criteria I used are the reveiws from (presumably) unbiased

> sources.

>




This is the most stupid thing to do because reviews are reviews

posted by nutters. The Proof is all here for everybody to see:











Either you should use your own brain by trying it on your system

and therefore taking responsibility for it or simply shut up!



I try every solutions on my system before posting here.



hth







--

THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY

KIND. LD55ZRA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND

FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LD55ZRA

OR ITS ASSOCIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER

INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF

BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LD55ZRA OR ITS

ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL

DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY.



Copyright LD55ZRA 2010.
 
LD55ZRA wrote:

>

> This is the most stupid thing to do because reviews are reviews

> posted by nutters. The Proof is all here for everybody to see:

>

>

>

>

>

> Either you should use your own brain by trying it on your system

> and therefore taking responsibility for it or simply shut up!

>

> I try every solutions on my system before posting here.

>




At the risk of being a "nutter," I have to ask: How does an individual, such

as you, test an anti-virus program? How on earth can you detect a false

negative before it does irreparable damage to your machine?



Admittedly, you could download a comprehensive file of virus signatures and

play it against your installed product, but why do that when the providers

of the signature file have already done so? For example:



http://www.av-comparatives.org/



Further, since you've evidently tried multitudes of AV programs, which one

do you recommend? And why? Or are you simply a devotee of "process" instead

of "results?"
 
OT Re: How to code batch file?

In news:uhFKUUx4KHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,

Unknown typed:

> You must be the easiest person in the world to brainwash.

> You keep pushing all the useless

> application garbage, I.E. Registry cleaners, Norton,

> Symantics. Why don't you clean up your machine and find out how great

> a clean computer runs?




My machine is already clean. It runs very well and is fast. It's kept clean

with periodic maintenance. There are 22 icons in the system tray, 96

processes running at the mment, per Task Manager, which we all know isn't

accurate, Registry size is approximately 5 Meg last time I looked, with no

orphans or entries looking for anything that doesn't exist.

NIS, idling, is using 2 to 3% of cpu time. Doing a deep scan, just

started, it's cpu usage is going from 3% to short bursts at 34 to 38% cpu

occupation. I also have IE8, OE and PaintShop Pro running, which is just

beginning to make the processor take a noticeable pause to service the

keyboard. Killing PSP removes that; PSP is a large and powerful program.

Oh, almost forgot; also have NetObjects Fusion 11 running and uploading a

web site. Since closing PSP all is back to running fine. Total overall cpu

occupation is never touching 100% and overall the peak it reached was 92%

for a short period of time (less than one second; forgot the fiture already.

Norton even has a little nicety where if you minimize its window, it lowers

its own priority to keep the cpu available for other programs. No hogging at

all, no problems.



YOUR problem is that you expose your own ignorance and lack of current

knowledge with the types of posts you make. A lot of your comments are so

dated they aren't even close to reality anymore. All in all, your

credibility is and has been for some time in the toilet; namely since you

troll so much.



Bye baby; go cry yourself to sleep.



HTH,



Twayne`







"Twayne" wrote in message

> news:%23a86sOx4KHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> In news:lu51t55a84j6q0brhovs8vr2r3216er3en@4ax.com,

>> WaIIy typed:

>>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Twayne wrote:

>>>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>>>>> Bob I typed:

>>>>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following

>>>>>>>> web site, but the file name keeps changing based on

>>>>>>>> date, for

>>>>>>>> example

>>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a

>>>>>>>> batch file to download the patch based on specific

>>>>>>>> date format?

>>>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone

>>>>>>>> have any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any

>>>>>>>> suggestions Eric

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the

>>>>>>> race to slow down computers.

>>>>>> Slow, or KILL?

>>>>>

>>>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint,

>>>>> excellent speed. Actually I noticed NO difference when

>>>>> NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed. I think you guys

>>>>> are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about;

>>>>> haven't used them in years.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Twayne:

>>>>

>>>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last

>>>> several

>>>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV

>>>> software that I

>>>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it

>>>> again when my year ends. There are a few places where it

>>>> can be purchased for a very low price.

>>>>

>>>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008

>>>> was fairly

>>>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and

>>>> re-install, just to get

>>>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try)

>>>> has recently crashed a huge number of computers. It

>>>> deleted thousands of files from

>>>> any computers running Windows 7/64.

>>>>

>>>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are

>>>> showing their

>>>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>>>>

>>>> Sardine

>>>

>>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.


>>

>> Many, many are ignorant of the last two year-titles of the

>> product. That often happens to closed minds. Come back

>> when you know what you're talking about.
 
OT Re: How to code batch file?

You should look up the word "troll" and apply it to all your posts pushing

registry cleaners, Norton programs,

Semantics and the like. Yet, anytime a post appears explaining the problems

caused by

those programs, you conveniently are nowhere to be found. Then you say they

are good programs.

Like I stated before, you must make your living selling that trash. You're

like a used car salesman.

"Twayne" wrote in message

news:uygNgG94KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> In news:uhFKUUx4KHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,

> Unknown typed:

>> You must be the easiest person in the world to brainwash.

>> You keep pushing all the useless

>> application garbage, I.E. Registry cleaners, Norton,

>> Symantics. Why don't you clean up your machine and find out how great

>> a clean computer runs?


>

> My machine is already clean. It runs very well and is fast. It's kept

> clean with periodic maintenance. There are 22 icons in the system tray, 96

> processes running at the mment, per Task Manager, which we all know isn't

> accurate, Registry size is approximately 5 Meg last time I looked, with no

> orphans or entries looking for anything that doesn't exist.

> NIS, idling, is using 2 to 3% of cpu time. Doing a deep scan, just

> started, it's cpu usage is going from 3% to short bursts at 34 to 38% cpu

> occupation. I also have IE8, OE and PaintShop Pro running, which is just

> beginning to make the processor take a noticeable pause to service the

> keyboard. Killing PSP removes that; PSP is a large and powerful program.

> Oh, almost forgot; also have NetObjects Fusion 11 running and uploading a

> web site. Since closing PSP all is back to running fine. Total overall cpu

> occupation is never touching 100% and overall the peak it reached was 92%

> for a short period of time (less than one second; forgot the fiture

> already. Norton even has a little nicety where if you minimize its window,

> it lowers its own priority to keep the cpu available for other programs.

> No hogging at all, no problems.

>

> YOUR problem is that you expose your own ignorance and lack of current

> knowledge with the types of posts you make. A lot of your comments are so

> dated they aren't even close to reality anymore. All in all, your

> credibility is and has been for some time in the toilet; namely since you

> troll so much.

>

> Bye baby; go cry yourself to sleep.

>

> HTH,

>

> Twayne`

>

>

>

> "Twayne" wrote in message

>> news:%23a86sOx4KHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> In news:lu51t55a84j6q0brhovs8vr2r3216er3en@4ax.com,

>>> WaIIy typed:

>>>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Twayne wrote:

>>>>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,

>>>>>> Bob I typed:

>>>>>>> HeyBub wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Eric wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following

>>>>>>>>> web site, but the file name keeps changing based on

>>>>>>>>> date, for

>>>>>>>>> example

>>>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe

>>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a

>>>>>>>>> batch file to download the patch based on specific

>>>>>>>>> date format?

>>>>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone

>>>>>>>>> have any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any

>>>>>>>>> suggestions Eric

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.

>>>>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the

>>>>>>>> race to slow down computers.

>>>>>>> Slow, or KILL?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint,

>>>>>> excellent speed. Actually I noticed NO difference when

>>>>>> NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed. I think you guys

>>>>>> are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about;

>>>>>> haven't used them in years.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Twayne:

>>>>>

>>>>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last

>>>>> several

>>>>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV

>>>>> software that I

>>>>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it

>>>>> again when my year ends. There are a few places where it

>>>>> can be purchased for a very low price.

>>>>>

>>>>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008

>>>>> was fairly

>>>>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and

>>>>> re-install, just to get

>>>>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try)

>>>>> has recently crashed a huge number of computers. It

>>>>> deleted thousands of files from

>>>>> any computers running Windows 7/64.

>>>>>

>>>>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are

>>>>> showing their

>>>>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.

>>>>>

>>>>> Sardine

>>>>

>>>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.

>>>

>>> Many, many are ignorant of the last two year-titles of the

>>> product. That often happens to closed minds. Come back

>>> when you know what you're talking about.


>

>

>
 
Back
Top