How do I install AntiVir, AVG, and Avast as on-demand only?

[skylights]

Is there a tutorial anywhere that shows how to set up AntiVir, AVG and Avast as on-demand scanners only? Basically, how to make their processes not run on startup? If there's not a tutorial (there should be!), could you outline the steps? No screenshots needed.

I know about ClamWin, BitDefender Free and CureIt, I just like to have multiple on-demand scanners in case the others fail me. :)

Also, which process for each of the three programs needs to be kept running if I want scheduled scans?

Thanks. :)

[C.S.J]

in all honesty, don't be stupid

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> in all honesty, don't be stupid <-QUOTE}


Haha. That's a little too blunt. Nevertheless, the agree. There is no need for that many on-demand scanners. That just seems 'stupid'. If you are really intent on having multiple on-demand scanners I suggest using Trustport.

[Firebytes]

If you are worried about your own scanner failing to detect a threat why not just use one of these online scanners (Jotti (http://virusscan.jotti.org/) or VirusTotal (http://www.virustotal.com/))? You get multiple opinions on a files safety, you don't have to install anything, and you won't have to worry about modifying how the AV's you mention are supposed to function.

[Firebytes]

If you are wanting to scan your whole drive instead of just getting a "second opinion" on a few files then there are online scanners that can handle that as well. I believe TrendMicro, Bit Defender, and possibly Panda offer online scanners for example and I am sure there are others. Just Google "online virus scan" and take a look.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> Haha. That's a little too blunt. Nevertheless, the agree. There is no need for that many on-demand scanners. That just seems 'stupid'. If you are really intent on having multiple on-demand scanners I suggest using Trustport. <-QUOTE}

I should have specified that I want multiple scanners primarily for cleaning purposes, and for detection only secondarily. This test shows that AVG and Avast have quite good cleaning abilities:

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/14

I'm guessing that their cleanup abilities don't completely overlap; I figure AVG would clean a lot of infections that Avast wouldn't, and vice-versa. If I'm mistaken in this assumption, then you're right, I don't need multiple scanners. Do you have any good evidence that I'm mistaken?

I should've also mentioned that I don't use BitDefender Free, because of its poor cleaning ability in that test (6%). I doubt ClamWin is any better. I only mentioned them because I figured someone would say "Just use BitDefender or ClamWin."

I use Avira as my real-time scanner so I don't need to know how to disable its processes at this time; I was only curious in case I ever decided to use a different real-time scanner. For example, Avast AV has among the best spyware detection of any AV or AS (http://malware-test-lab.blogspot.com/search/label/AntiSpyware) so I'm tempted to switch to it in the future. Same with AVG if they ever include their AS in their AV.

So in the end I would only be using CureIt!, Avast!, and AVG as on-demand scanners. If my assumption about their not-completely-overlapping cleaning abilities is correct, I don't think that's too many. Even you have two or three on-demand AVs in your sig.

TrustPort isn't free, so that's out.

Jotti and VirusTotal are great for getting multiple opinions on one file. That's not what I'm asking about.

[Macstorm]

Skylights, there is no need to have multiple on-demand scanners.
IMO, BitDefender free is perfect for your needs. You can also run CureIt from time to time if you are paranoid ;)

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> If you are wanting to scan your whole drive instead of just getting a "second opinion" on a few files then there are online scanners that can handle that as well. I believe TrendMicro, Bit Defender, and possibly Panda offer online scanners for example and I am sure there are others. Just Google "online virus scan" and take a look. <-QUOTE}

True. Panda has a good cleaning ability and their online scanner cleans, so that's a good choice. Kaspersky cleans well but their online scanner doesn't clean. But they have a beta on-demand scanner at http://ftp.kaspersky.com/devbuilds/AVPTool/ that supposedly does, so I would use that too. Okay, that would make four on-demand scanners installed on my machine. Still not too many if their cleaning abilities don't completely overlap. (Or maybe that's just my OCD tendencies talking.) Plus the Kaspersky tool incorporates AVZ, a HJT-like tool that's supposed to be really good.

[docfleetwood]

Wow, you folks are kind of being asses. Skylight asked a simple question. If you don't know the answer, that is one thing. But to just say - 'don't do it' is a little dumb. And the response from CSJ was more than non-helpful, it was downright insulting. People come here for help. If you are too arrogant and too good for them then just don't bother posting at all. If you have a better suggestion for someone, then by all means suggest it. But none of you have actually addressed his/her initial question. These responses would likely stop other 'less informed' people from bothering to post >:(

As to the original question, the only one I have used is Avira and you have figured that one out. So I'm sorry I can't be helpful on the others. But I felt the need to respond to the other issue above. I would think you could install any AV software and then deactivate the on-access scanner.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> Skylights, there is no need to have multiple on-demand scanners.
IMO, BitDefender free is perfect for your needs. You can also run CureIt from time to time if you are paranoid ;) <-QUOTE}

Granted BD has good detection rates, but its cleanup abilities are poor. Once it detected something I'd probably have to hunt for a specific infection cleanup tool that may not exist, or instructions that may be confusing and time-consuming. Whereas with multiple on-demand scanners I can just unleash them (one at a time), and one of them just might get rid of the virus (I'm talking an installed virus).

C'mon, there has to be someone here who agrees with what I'm saying. Can you at least see my logic?

[computer geek]

come on, of course clam failed ya, you comparing it to cureit and bitdefender now? :thumbd:
1.)antivir itself is good enough
2.)with avg, both on realtime, massive cpu drag
3.)with avast, get your receipt and get ready to go back to the shops with you computer!

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> As to the original question, the only one I have used is Avira and you have figured that one out. So I'm sorry I can't be helpful on the others. But I felt the need to respond to the other issue above. I would think you could install any AV software and then deactivate the on-access scanner. <-QUOTE}

Thanks for coming to my defense. :) I haven't actually figured out how to stop Avira's processes from starting-- I just use it as my on-access scanner. I just wanted the info for future reference.

I could probably figure out the answer to my original question myself. It's just that I thought someone here might have the info already at hand, or know where I could find it. If not, fine, but don't say "it's stupid" without providing any reasoning why. Whereas I think I've laid out my reasoning pretty clearly.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Thanks for coming to my defense. :) I haven't actually figured out how to stop Avira's processes from starting-- I just use it as my on-access scanner. I just wanted the info for future reference.

I could probably figure out the answer to my original question myself. It's just that I thought someone here might have the info already at hand, or know where I could find it. If not, fine, but don't say "it's stupid" without providing any reasoning why. Whereas I think I've laid out my reasoning pretty clearly. <-QUOTE}

There were reasons given for our collective opinions; there is simply no need to have multiple on-demand scanners. But yet you insist. The best answer I can give you, since you didn't like my first attempt, would be to look at my signature and see what will work best for you. There are good alternatives out there that do not require having several AVs installed simply for the sake of on-demand scanning.

[computer geek]

{QUOTE-> Wow, you folks are kind of being asses. Skylight asked a simple question. If you don't know the answer, that is one thing. But to just say - 'don't do it' is a little dumb. And the response from CSJ was more than non-helpful, it was downright insulting. People come here for help. If you are too arrogant and too good for them then just don't bother posting at all. If you have a better suggestion for someone, then by all means suggest it. But none of you have actually addressed his/her initial question. These responses would likely stop other 'less informed' people from bothering to post >:(

As to the original question, the only one I have used is Avira and you have figured that one out. So I'm sorry I can't be helpful on the others. But I felt the need to respond to the other issue above. I would think you could install any AV software and then deactivate the on-access scanner. <-QUOTE}
Nobody actually means to be rude, and i hope you can forgive me if i was rude to you.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> come on, of course clam failed ya, you comparing it to cureit and bitdefender now? :thumbd:
1.)antivir itself is good enough
2.)with avg, both on realtime, massive cpu drag
3.)with avast, get your receipt and get ready to go back to the shops with you computer! <-QUOTE}

Wow, the level of discourse just keeps getting better and better! ::)

1.)For real-time virus detection, yes. Not for cleaning. AVG and Avast are much better in that regard.
2.)"with avg, both on realtime"-- I hope you don't think I'm suggesting running two realtime AVs. As for CPU drag, evidence?
3.)Again, evidence? And I don't mean just one or two anecdotes out of the millions who have used Avast with no problem.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Wow, the level of discourse just keeps getting better and better! ::) <-QUOTE}

Any you wonder why people are upset with you. >:(

Can you logically tell me why you require multiple on-demand scanners, as opposed to the solutions that have been posted above?

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> There were reasons given for our collective opinions; there is simply no need to have multiple on-demand scanners. <-QUOTE}

That's not reasons, that's an assertion. Reasons would be, "There is no need to have multiple on-demand scanners because (reason A); (reason B); (reason C). I'm still waiting.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> That's not reasons, that's an assertion. Reasons would be, "There is no need to have multiple on-demand scanners because (reason A); (reason B); (reason C). I'm still waiting. <-QUOTE}

Wow!!! You are an ass.

Do you honstely think that detection and/or removal capabilities are going to be increased because you have more than one on-demand scanner? Chances are, that is not going to be the case. Everyone here has tried to tell you that. But you refuse to listen to reason.

Now, the circumstances might be different is you have a particular infection. Is that the case?

[TaInTeD_SnIpEr]

{QUOTE-> Wow!!! You are an ass. <-QUOTE}
I concur.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> Any you wonder why people are upset with you. >:( <-QUOTE}

Yes, I do wonder, since none of my posts (except my last one) carried any sort of personal attack or negativity toward anyone. Whereas, your first post after my initial question was "don't be stupid." Hypocritical much?

Edit: Sorry, my mistake, that honor should go to the other guy with a Dr. Web avatar.

{QUOTE-> Can you logically tell me why you require multiple on-demand scanners, as opposed to the solutions that have been posted above? <-QUOTE}

If you want to know my reasoning, go back and read my posts in this thread. Maybe someone who understands could explain it to you more clearly.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> And the response from CSJ was more than non-helpful, it was downright insulting. People come here for help. <-QUOTE}
sorry you dont agree, but i wont sugarcoat any responses to nobody.

ask a stupid question, get a 'stupid' reply. :)

maybe it did sound offensive, but it wasnt meant as a personal remark, just towards the idea of using the 3-free-avs together.

installing Antivir, AVG and Avast IS darn right stupid.

i understand he wants the best 'free' protection that his money 'cough cough' can buy, but its widely recommend to not install more than 1.

my recommendation to him, would be to choose Avast, and use Drweb's Cureit as one of his 2nd opinions (as im sure he will want them, looking at his post)

it wouldnt be the same, as cureit requires no installation.

[n8chavez]

Will a moderator please close this thread? skylights's post has been answered. The user has been told there is no need for multiple on-demand scanners, and that it could do hard to the system. Still, he insists on being rude and on launching personal attaacks. There is no point to this thread now. Please close it.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Will a moderator please close this thread? skylights's post has been answered. The user has been told there is no need for multiple on-demand scanners, and that it could do hard to the system. Still, he insists on being rude and on launching personal attaacks. There is no point to this thread now. Please close it. <-QUOTE}
i dont think it needs closing,

threatfire, its free and puts him in control.

http://www.threatfire.com/

[Stem]

{QUOTE-> ask a stupid question, get a 'stupid' reply <-QUOTE}I have mentioned before that there are no "stupid questions" just stupid replies.

If you believe any question to be of a nature that is at such a low level as from a user who may not have knowledge, then advise, not attempt to belittle.

Stem

[Macstorm]

{QUOTE-> Granted BD has good detection rates, but its cleanup abilities are poor. Once it detected something I'd probably have to hunt for a specific infection cleanup tool that may not exist <-QUOTE}
Here's when CureIt comes into action.
Sorry, i've ran out of IK.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> Wow!!! You are an ass. <-QUOTE}

Demanding support for bald assertions is being an ass?

{QUOTE-> Do you honstely think that detection and/or removal capabilities are going to be increased because you have more than one on-demand scanner? <-QUOTE}

Yes. Do you think that AV companies collaborate to include exactly the same cleanup routines in each other's products? Don't you think that Company A's AV might clean up a number of infections that Company B's product doesn't, and vice-versa? If not, why not?

{QUOTE-> Chances are, that is not going to be the case. Everyone here has tried to tell you that. But you refuse to listen to reason. <-QUOTE}

OK, why? I think it's likely, just based on the probability that two companies wouldn't have the exact same list of viruses which their AVs clean. You think it's unlikely. Why?

{QUOTE-> Now, the circumstances might be different is you have a particular infection. Is that the case? <-QUOTE}

No.

I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm asking for logical arguments. I guess if you're unable to provide logical arguments, that makes me seem like an ass.

[C.S.J]

skylights

threatfire, with avast will offer you the best protection.

Cureit can always be used as secondary.

-
Stem - of course there are, one has been asked in this thread.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> I guess if you're unable to provide logical arguments, that makes me seem like an ass. <-QUOTE}

Nope. Rather, it is statements like the one above that make you seems like an ass. Then there's these:

{QUOTE-> Hypocritical much? <-QUOTE}

{QUOTE-> Edit: Sorry, my mistake, that honor should go to the other guy with a Dr. Web avatar. <-QUOTE}

{QUOTE-> I'm still waiting. <-QUOTE}

{QUOTE-> Wow, the level of discourse just keeps getting better and better! <-QUOTE}

If you would actually like help....be nicer. There is no reason for you to act the way you are. Remember, you're the one seeking our advice. Insults, such as the above, as not the ways to get that.

Why do you feel it so important to have multiple on-demand scanners when there are plenty of other ways to rid yourself of malware, which have been posted earlier?

[Dieselman]

Why on Earth would anyone need 3 on demand av's? I just say this post and was flabber gastted. I use Avira Premium and maybe once a month or so I use Dr.Web Currit. Never 1 infection in over 5 years.

[skylights]

{QUOTE-> I have mentioned before that there are no "stupid questions" just stupid replies.

If you believe any question to be of a nature that is at such a low level as from a user who may not have knowledge, then advise, not attempt to belittle.

Stem <-QUOTE}

I assure you I have enough knowledge to follow whatever directions people may give me to disable startup processes.

I also realize that having two real-time AVs running simultaneously is a recipe for conflicts.

But I've never heard any reason why simply having two on-demand AVs installed is bad and/or useless. When someone asserts that it is, I think it's reasonable to ask why. That is all I've done (except for ONE snarky comment which I regret, but I wasn't the first). (EDIT: Okay, perhaps more than one, but I was just returning what I got.) I haven't launched any personal attacks, as another poster suggested. If someone can't give reasons for a particular piece of advice, they should say, "I don't know," or "that's just my opinion," not, "Because we say so!"

I hope someone is able to either help me with my original question, or else provide evidence or explain in cause and effect terms why what I want to do is a bad idea. Thanks.

[BlueZannetti]

Well, first of all, thread closed. I'm not about to attempt to spend my evening cleaning up a hopeless mess of a thread. Virtually everyone sniping back and forth in this thread should be ashamed of themselves. That's right - all of you, it's a pathetic example of how not to have a discussion.

To answer the key question posed - there are cogent reasons for not going down this path, but it really depends on all the specific products in question. I've not tried the specific combinations mentioned, and I'm not about to. Suffice it to say, as these products increasing hook the OS, implement various self defense mechanisms, and so on, low level incompatibilities between products will increase and effect system stability. It's less the demand only aspect and more of the self-protection that is part and parcel of the base package. The combination mentioned may be OK, or it may have inherent problems. The situation is akin to shopping for luxury products - if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. In this case, if you have to ask, you are ill prepared for the potential fall out and therefore the whole excursion is really not recommended. If multiple scanners are desired - stay with options that are by design demand only. Don't try to mimic this with partially disabled full packages.

Regards,

Blue