Avast 5

[Andavari]

Now I've never known Avast to repair anything, McAfee does.

With the way modern malware infects stuff you just about always have to restore stuff nowadays. McAfee.

 

Now it does a full scan and shows the Results page afterwards where you can see the info. But in the Results page you can't really select certain files to move, repair or delete, its all or nothing.

Sounds just like how AntiVir works. However in AntiVir's configuration with expert mode turned on you can enable the Notifications mode "combined (expert)" which allows you more options on detected files, albeit the default settings are there for a purpose.

[Andavari]

Supposedly this new Avast 5 beta is supposed to fix the BSOD's.

[ident]

Now I've never known Avast to repair anything, McAfee does.

 

Ok now you're going to far. Mcafee is in the top biggest crapware alive, with norton. It's an insult to even mention it in the same thread as avast.

 

Il be trying avast again in a few months, I gone back to not running any AV,

[marmite]

... I gone back to not running any AV,

So is anything protecting you?

[ident]

So is anything protecting you?

 

Common sense? You dont need a av.

[marmite]

Common sense? You dont need a av.

That's like saying you won't get pregnant using the rhythm method for protection

 

Actually I think it's common sense that means most other people on here are using AV

 

Still, if it works for you, go for it. So why will you be trying Avast again?

[JDPower]

Common sense?

I saw that reply coming a mile off lol. FWIW I think you can comfortably run with no AV if you know what to avoid, I can't remember the last virus alert I had but still wouldn't run with no AV, just to be on the safe side

 

That's like saying you won't get pregnant using the rhythm method for protection

Not really, more like saying you won't get a girl pregnant if you never go near any places where girls are (but then as with my AV strategy, I'd still keep protection in my wallet just in case )

[marmite]

I saw that reply coming a mile off lol. FWIW I think you can comfortably run with no AV if you know what to avoid, I can't remember the last virus alert I had but still wouldn't run with no AV, just to be on the safe side

Yeah, what I was looking for was more like "I don't use AV because I have this other software .....".

 

I completely agree that common sense goes a long way to protecting you on-line ... in fact it's essential. But it only gets us so far. You can surf safely, but you can only 'avoid' things you know are there. Can you guarantee that next link is safe? Can you guarantee that next download is safe? Can you guarantee that file your mate sent you is safe? Nothing is guaranteed is it, so it's just risk mitigation, pure and simple.

 

I'll stick with my insurance policy thanks For the sake of the small overhead running an AV, going without just ain't worth it.

[login123]

Common sense. Ahhh, vastly overrated. See HERE

[marmite]

Common sense. Ahhh, vastly overrated. See HERE

Ah ... lucky you had AV running then

 

But as you say ... you can't get much more innocuous looking than that.

[kroozer]

Just reading some of the malware posts on Geeks to Go is enough to scare everyone into running AV.

[ident]

That's like saying you won't get pregnant using the rhythm method for protection

 

Actually I think it's common sense that means most other people on here are using AV

 

Still, if it works for you, go for it. So why will you be trying Avast again?

 

JDPower pretty much said it for me mate, but il add a few things. My laptop has a av, why did i decide to use avast? or why will i try again. Because simply i love there work. Even though i think avast 5 is 100% shite in its current state.

 

I have friends using it fine, and some with the same problems as me. Should this be a reason to slag it off? No way(i know you never said i am or did, im rambling) All im doing is saying how it is currently working on this system.

 

I disable mailsheild and web shield and every thing went back to normal. (in services) disabling normal way in context menu just enabled again after restart. which im told on there forum "is normal"

 

why? since they have disable permanent or disable until restart.

 

"Hey here is a good idea. Lets add the same option ontop of each other calling the same function"

 

I think not. Bug? Yes?????? Hmm maybe. But still im told this is normal by non member sof the team.

 

Im waiting for a reply from avast so i will update this when emailed back.

 

Back on track now, ~(i did say i was rambling)~

 

Laptop has a av because....Well just because. Sense? i do things on it that i dont here. I use this pc for here, and a few sites and running my server and coding.

 

A good friend of mine who runs his own shop, would never touch a av. why? sense!

 

Overall i dont think viruses are what they use to be. Im no expert when it comes to infections but id know if my system was infected. Like said above. each to there own. No biggie running a av. Bit i do laugh when i see people running as many real times as there systems can handle.

 

 

Sorry for the ramble. lol

[marmite]

But i do laugh when i see people running as many real times as there systems can handle.

Now that I agree with

[DennisD]

I wonder if any of you chaps may have missed the "custom install" options during the installation?

 

I admit I did, and it's likely some others may have.

 

The one thing I didn't like about Avast 5 was the exclamation mark over the tray icon coupled with the "you are not fully protected" warnings if you had certain modules disabled. Modules could be disabled in 4.8 without any warnings.

 

I did a custom install, and unchecked two of the modules I didn't want, and now I'm running only with my modules of choice, and with a "fully protected" status.

 

 

I also unchecked the IM Shield before I installed.

 

 

Which has Avast running with the following resource:

 

 

Pretty damn good compared to the pretty heavy footprint of V 4.8.

[JDPower]

Pretty damn good compared to the pretty heavy footprint of V 4.8.

I know its no big deal on a half decent system but still some way above what Antivir uses here - two processes currently using 7Mb

[marmite]

I know its no big deal on a half decent system but still some way above what Antivir uses here - two processes currently using 7Mb

Avira is currently running 14Mb on mine

[Capman]

I wonder if any of you chaps may have missed the "custom install" options during the installation?

 

I admit I did, and it's likely some others may have.

 

The one thing I didn't like about Avast 5 was the exclamation mark over the tray icon coupled with the "you are not fully protected" warnings if you had certain modules disabled. Modules could be disabled in 4.8 without any warnings.

 

I did a custom install, and unchecked two of the modules I didn't want, and now I'm running only with my modules of choice, and with a "fully protected" status.

This can also be achieved after installing without the need to uninstall and reinstall by going to Add/Remove Programs (XP) or Programs and Features (Vista), clicking the avast entry and selecting Change.

[Lucky10]

This can also be achieved after installing without the need to uninstall and reinstall by going to Add/Remove Programs (XP) or Programs and Features (Vista), clicking the avast entry and selecting Change.

Yes you can do that on WinXP as well. The same goes for v4.8. I use the custom installation option and I never have the email scan. If I don't know where the email comes from it gets deleted.

[Tasgandy]

Given the fact that I consider all you folk much more computer wise than this old bloke and one of you (can't remember just who) recommended "RETURNIL" Virtual System, and ever since when it comes to a new software app or new version, be it upgrade or not I take the RETURNIL precaution and turn on "System Safe" - then run the install just to make sure the new app does not break my system.

Can I ask why did know one take the above action? or am I being to cautious.

[Andavari]

I know its no big deal on a half decent system but still some way above what Antivir uses here - two processes currently using 7Mb

AntiVir is rather invisible on my system, don't even know it's running however I have three processes using 5 MB (was 16 MB just a minute ago):

* avgnt.exe

* avguard.exe

* sched.exe

[JDPower]

Given the fact that I consider all you folk much more computer wise than this old bloke and one of you (can't remember just who) recommended "RETURNIL" Virtual System, and ever since when it comes to a new software app or new version, be it upgrade or not I take the RETURNIL precaution and turn on "System Safe" - then run the install just to make sure the new app does not break my system.

Can I ask why did know one take the above action? or am I being to cautious.

Because installing an AV requires a restart which kinda defeats the object as Returnil will just remove it on restart.

[Tasgandy]

Because installing an AV requires a restart which kinda defeats the object as Returnil will just remove it on restart.

Thanks for pointing that out, I feel like a dill, a soon as I read your reply I said "what the".........I shall put brain into gear first next time before putting keyboard into gear.

[Mike 1025]

Avast 5 is great whether a clean install or over 4.8.........feel 4.8 was heavier......this uses only 9704 & 1084K memory.......extremely light vs 4.8..........I think its the best & most effective as a free ware.......comparable even to the paid ones.......get no errors.......dont know how you haven been installing......whether clean or over 4.8 no issues......strange..........?????

[ident]

@ Dennis : yea i did. I uninstalled 3 shields and could not be happier with avast

[Tasgandy]

AntiVir is rather invisible on my system, don't even know it's running however I have three processes using 5 MB (was 16 MB just a minute ago):

* avgnt.exe

* avguard.exe

* sched.exe

AntiVir on my Win 7 32bit unit looks like this:

Processes / commit / working set / shareable / private

avgnt.exe / 7812kb / 1496kb /708kb / 3852kb

avguard.exe / 76236kb / 4704kb /748kb / 1232kb

sched.exe /2953kb / 864kb / 436kb / 428kb

 

Can someone please explain: commit, working set, shareable & private and why these values constantly change?

I did have Macrium Reflect performing a scheduled drive C back up running in the background - 32gig about 26 min on a P4 2.8Mhz (hyper thread) 1.5gig of ram 5 year old Unit.

 

Also is it good or questionable practice to also be running "Microsoft Security Essentials", "MS Defender" and "Returnil" which also has a anti-virus module running at the same time?

 

No problems to date, each app has reported/found/located and repaired/cured or quarantined various viruses over the period of the installed OS. The only issue I have picked up on is that the MS Defender service is stopped by default if it detects another AV app running (according a system dialogue box that appeared) So to run MS Defender I had to start the service manually.