Error on printing labels or emailing across network

[BrianShoe]

When we attempt to print mailing labels or to send e-mail from a remote station (see below), PCPlus issues a cryptic message, then aborts.

I recently installed BitDefender ver. 10 on both the PCPlus machine and the secretary's station. Now, if we attempt either label printing or emailing from OFFICE, immediately after the selection screen, the system responds with an Error dialog giving the following message and an <OK> button:

PROGRAM: open
Line: 25
ERROR: 41
Message: Memo file h:\pcplus\s62179dc.fpt is missing or is invalid.

(I have very specific notes about the installation and the error, but the subission filter bounces them back at me with the spam warning.)
Does anyone have any relevant observations or suggestions? This one has me totally stumped.

Thanks.

[Zorak]

It sounds like something may have come uninstalled or unregistered on the workstation. Re-run the Netsetup10 program from the workstation to reinstall and register everything locally. This should get you back up and running.

If it happens again, you may need to check into setting some exceptions in the anti-virus.

[BrianShoe]

Thanks for the attempt, but you're not even remotely close.
FWIW, we're still on ver. 9, so I reran Netsetup9 - and it didn't help. Mind you, there's another station where exactly the same thing is occurring.
I looked more closely, and found that:
1) ANY report or output which first invokes the Selection Criteria screen will cause this crash
2) When I acknowledge the error, a "Do Canceled" message briefly flashes in the upper RH corner before PCPlus dies
3) On the machine where PCPlus is installed, I discovered a WHOLE PILE of xxyyzz.fpt and xxyyzz.dbf files, left over from my multiple attempts to figure out this issue
4) I can set the BitDefender "Allow All" firewall setting and get a report to run once - but the next attempt will crash
5) Occasionally, I'll get a different error message: usually "File Already Exists" but on occasion a report that the cursor is read-only.

Once again, I installed the July 9, 2007 update which was purported to deal with locked-up temporary files with antivirus programs in use.

One solution (not my first choice) may be to ditch BitDefender and use a different antivirus program. Can you recommend antivirus programs that PCPlus 9 **WILL** work with?

Thanks,
Brian

[NeilZ]

Thanks for the attempt, but you're not even remotely close.
FWIW, we're still on ver. 9, so I reran Netsetup9 - and it didn't help. Mind you, there's another station where exactly the same thing is occurring.
I looked more closely, and found that:
1) ANY report or output which first invokes the Selection Criteria screen will cause this crash
2) When I acknowledge the error, a "Do Canceled" message briefly flashes in the upper RH corner before PCPlus dies
3) On the machine where PCPlus is installed, I discovered a WHOLE PILE of xxyyzz.fpt and xxyyzz.dbf files, left over from my multiple attempts to figure out this issue
4) I can set the BitDefender "Allow All" firewall setting and get a report to run once - but the next attempt will crash
5) Occasionally, I'll get a different error message: usually "File Already Exists" but on occasion a report that the cursor is read-only.

Once again, I installed the July 9, 2007 update which was purported to deal with locked-up temporary files with antivirus programs in use.

One solution (not my first choice) may be to ditch BitDefender and use a different antivirus program. Can you recommend antivirus programs that PCPlus 9 **WILL** work with?

Thanks,
Brian

FWIW ... I have setup PC+ 9 and 10 on networks where we have Norton and/or AVG Profiessional installed without an issue such as you're seeing. From what you've been saying here, the problem is more with BitDefender than PC+.

[BrianShoe]

Thanks, Neil, for the suggestion of where to look.

I eventually ripped out BitDefender and installed Kaspersky instead - and the emailing / reporting issue went away completely. We've had Kaspersky installed for over a month now, and the client-server setup works just the way it should.

The BitDefender folks (after I complained bitterly) said something vague about our trouble looking similar to a known issue with that version, and that I could upgrade to their latest for free . . . but this had taken so long that I'd had it with them.

Lesson: avoid BitDefender. IMHO.

Brian Shoemaker