Thank you for this info. I don't use SourceSafe, but the failure of USE on a network may be affecting me. In my larger apps, the users sometimes get errors relating to the DBC container being in use by someone else when a form opens or a table may not be opened. I attributed this to something else and was going to make some mods to try to accomdate, but I'll also look at NAV, also. Someone said (and you seem to be saying) that excluding the DBFs, etc. will not prevent them from being scanned, just from it reporting on what it found. I'm doubtful about that. I'd certainly be surprised if Symantec continued to open and scan files even when the are excluded, so I'll try excluding the tables.


>Russel,
>
>the most know problems are the following
>
>-source safe integration goes very slow (Check in - out, compile etc)
>-USE may fail. This will occur mostly on networks. This is the biggest problem because it will end up with untraceable errors. You will get a variety of errors dealing with file open problems. The risk on that will be as higher as the frequency you open files. For I have a "database - autorepair" what will run trough all tables clean up all indizees, pack and recreate the indexes. It fires rapidly USE ... commands. This method will normal die with stupid "file xx not found" or so and if you rety after a while xy will be missed. Again it may run for months without any error! You have a good chance of not reproducing it, but its a good point to look for in strange moments.
>
>NAV is not compltely to blame for that. There is that problem that it scans all wether or not you exclude, but this should only slow down.
>It seems to be a major problem in VFP file opening. There are more problems involved in the way VFP handles network file access.
>
>
>Agnes
>
>>I use VFP 8 with NAV 2003 (v09.05.15) and have no problems that I can attribute to NAV. However, I do hear people blame NAV for things on occasion. Can you be more specific or point me to documented issues?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Russell Campbell
>>
>>>Alessio,
>>>
>>>You can not trust a computer in computing. Thats normal. This was the very first I ever learned about computing. It needs always a human brain to make sense out of it.
>>>The simplest reason is translating a decimal fraction into a binary one is imposiible, so a simple 0.1 is not that easy because a binary fraction as divided by 2 and 0.1 is 1/(2*5). This wil end up in 0b0.0001011111111111111111.....
>>>There was allways a need for look over the results. A number like 1,000,000.01 makes no sense in technical terms, it need to be rounded. In finance terms there might be a reason, but this why we have special data-types for that.
>>>
>>>What I see is that you prevent NAV from scanning your scx files.
>>><bg>
>>>This is impossibile. NAV will allways scan your files - it will simple surpress the messages for the excluded.
>>>
>>>If you run VFP , switch off antvir progs - thats the simple rule. Argue to MS if you don't like it.
>>>You will run in a lot of strange errors if don't follow it. For example a simple USE may fail.
>>>
>>>I run VCX based classes for 7 years know (VFP 5 - 8) and had never had any problem.
>>>
>>>Agnes