Questions re: QfG series installers

[Rath Darkblade]

Oops! Earlier today, I thought I would try to reinstall the QfG series and give it a go again. I own the QfG collection (1-4), plus QfG5 separately.

However, I tried the separate installers first and didn't notice that Collector very generously wrote an installer for the QfG collection! QfG1 VGA and QfG2 installed and played fine, but QfG1 EGA, QfG3 and QfG4 failed at the installation stage. So here are my questions:

1. The QfG3 installer ran fine. However, when I tried to run the game, it started DOSBox and then CTDed. I tried running manually from DOSBox (by using the mount command, etc.) and was told, "This program cannot be run in DOS mode". Err... what's happening? *puzzled* I am running DOSBox 0.74 - perhaps that is the problem? Should I upgrade, or is it sufficient?

The uninstaller ran fine as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. When I tried running QfG4ForDosBox.exe, it told me that "QfG4ForDosBox.exe is not a valid Win32 application." and went back to desktop. Do I need a 32-bit exe? I thought I was running a 64-bit OS! *confused*

I copied the files from the D:\QG4G35 directory. I noticed there's a D:\QG4CD directory, but that one only had files called QG4INST.EXE, README, README.OLD, README.BAT and SIERRA.INF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hummm... when I tried running the installer for QfG5, it told me:

NSIS Error
Installer integrity check failed. Common causes include incomplete download and damaged media. Contact the installer's author to obtain a new copy.

More information at: http://nsis.sf.net/NSIS_Error

Any ideas what this means?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your help! :-]

[Collector]

You must use the installer for the right collection. The individual installers will not work for it. If yours is the Anthology, download that installer. If you have the Collection Series, download that one. I just tested the QfG5 installer to see if it might have become corrupted on the server, but it is fine. It must be a bad download. Just redownload it.

[Rath Darkblade]

GAH. :-[ I'm trying to download the Collection Installer, but my anti-virus (Avast 2014) keeps telling me that this installer - and indeed, every installer on http://www.sierrahelp.com - is infected with a virus called "Win32:Evo-gen [Susp]". I've had a look at this so-called "virus" on google, and it is simply a false positive - so don't worry.

The bad news is that when I try to download the Collection Installer, Avast interferes with the download by insisting that it is a virus, and refuses to let me download it. If I wish to download it, I have to submit a part of the file to the Avast anti-virus lab and tell them that this error is a false positive. Just to get this far, I had to look into how I could put sierrahelp.com on the Avast "exclusion list"... I'm quite annoyed with Avast right now.

I'm just thinking... what??? Avast has never interfered like this before. *shrug* I can definitely report to Avast, but, well... is there any other way around this? *crosses fingers*

[Collector]

Turn off the Avast. I have compiled these installers myself. The only EXEs involved are that from NSIS and from what I downloaded from Sierra's old FTP. I have downloaded several of the installers to see if anything has happened to them on the sever, but they have the exact same file hash as my local copy. In addition, The hosting service for SHP recently scanned the entire site for malware and found nothing.

[DeadPoolX]

That's weird. I've got Avast Anti-Virus Pro 2014 and there are no virus warnings when I download something off SHP. I tried several different installers and patches, just to be sure.

There's probably a setting you have in Avast that's interfering. If it were the program itself, regardless of settings, I'd have the same issue as you, but I don't.

[Rath Darkblade]

That definitely is weird. I have the same version of Avast as you do, DPX, but it tells me that at least the QfG installers (and probably others too) are infected with a virus. I'm absolutely sure that's a false positive. In fact, I googled for Avast and false positives last night, and it turns out that Avast is notorious for this sort of thing. Quite a few people on Avast's forums have complained to the company that their product identifies legit products as viruses. *shrugs*

Anyway, I've turned off Avast's shields, downloaded the installers and turned the shields back on. Thanks for your help! :-]

[DeadPoolX]

I think this is one of those things where a program can work great for some people and not for others.

I've never had a false positive with Avast, but I've have issues with anti-virus programs I've used in the past that other people claim worked perfectly for them.

[Collector]

Norton is one of the worse ones for false positives. Some AVs have gone through phases where they became so diligent that they started to generate a bunch of false positives until it started to hurt them. I can understand the temptation to be so diligent as to not allow anything slip past them and not loose customers because of a perception that they do not offer good enough protection. However, they can loose customers by becoming overly restrictive to the point of becoming a nuance. I used to swear by Zone Alarm until it started to become so restrictive that it was causing too many problems.

A few law suites thrown at the AV companies for unjustly impugning the reputation of legitimate products or web sites might get them to be more careful. It's not quite right that the accused are guilty until proven innocent. These bad AV companies have no interest checking their findings when they slander a product or site.