For #1, please read this Juice article: http://juice.altiris.com/node/548

2 - Files written by the app will go into the layer, unless excluded. If a base process writes to the app's installation directory, yes, that will stay in the base. The theory is that a base process should not be able to modify (and potentially corrupt) a virtualized app. However, that does mean that artifacts of a virtual layer might get left behind on deactivation, because a base process saw the app when it was active and did something. MRU entries in the registry are the most obvious example.

3 - I assume you are asking when is normal visibility a bad thing, not a good thing. Well, if you ask Microsoft, it's always a bad thing. But if you ask SVS customers, the scenarios where it causes trouble are few and very specific/contained. For example, apps that programatically prevent multiple instances in memory at the same time (like Windows Media Player) -- if you have two versions in SVS layers, you will only be able to use one of them at a time. Also, some versions of Java have trouble if they can see elements of another version on the system. The pros definitely far outweigh the cons. Very consistently, customers indicate that normal visibility is SVS's key advantage.

Scott Jones
Product Manager
Symantec

A very simple explanation of this question is as follow:
SVS layers alway's lookup the requested DLL init's own layer. When it is not present over there, it will look on the C file system.
If it is not present there, you have a issue.
If you have a layer that is dependend of a DLL that is not in the layer, but you need the DLL with that particular version number, just doubleclick the de-activated layer, and drag the requested DLL inside the layer.
That is the easiest way to get this solved.

Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl

Tageur asked these question via a private message, I gave them the same answers, but he might have been thinking I was employed by Symantec :) This is why I directed him this way to get his questions asnwered :)
This way the whole world can participate in helping him.

Cheers, FrankB

Ain't you working for Symantec?
He PM me also, but knows for sure i'm not, and i do know for sure Frank is also not working for Symantec.
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl

Sometimes I doubt it myself, as I'm advertising SVS to everyone :)

Cheers, FrankB

Heh, I got PMed by him too.

Looks like he hit everyone up.

Frank, SVS such a marvelous, great, wonderful tool for FREE of cost. There is nothing wrong in advertising SVS. I have become die-hard fan of SVS. Apart from that for promoting SVS in blog, I got a free T-shirt too. There are other Freebies for contributions in the juices form, which attracts me even further.

Greetings,
Swami.

Thanks Scott,Eric,Frank,Jordan for answering all the queries!!!I wasn't sure about discussion thread so I sent PM (sorry all of you for that),but when Frank suggested i came to know about it...

That is why I do it :)

Cheers, FrankB