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...21-002-x86.exe
http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CB9126DD-6B0C-408F-A4CB-(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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...21-002-x86.exe
> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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...21-002-x86.exe
> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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...21-002-x86.exe
>>http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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:(E-Mail Removed),
Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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:(E-Mail Removed),
> Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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

WaIIy wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
>>> Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hqq4f8$7do$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Twayne wrote:
>> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
>> Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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:(E-Mail Removed),
WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> typed:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
>>> Bob I <(E-Mail Removed)> 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...21-002-x86.exe
>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs...dd-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.