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]

Originally Posted by C.S.J

in all honesty, don't be stupid

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 or VirusTotal)? 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]

Originally Posted by n8chavez

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.

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...el/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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?
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]

Originally Posted by docfleetwood

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.

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]

Originally Posted by skylights

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nobody actually means to be rude, and i hope you can forgive me if i was rude to you.

[skylights]

Originally Posted by computer geek

come on, of course clam failed ya, you comparing it to cureit and bitdefender now?
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!

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]

Originally Posted by skylights

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

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]

Originally Posted by n8chavez

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

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]

Originally Posted by skylights

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.

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]

Originally Posted by n8chavez

Wow!!! You are an ass.

I concur.

[skylights]

Originally Posted by n8chavez

Any you wonder why people are upset with you.

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.

Originally Posted by n8chavez

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

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]

Originally Posted by docfleetwood

And the response from CSJ was more than non-helpful, it was downright insulting. People come here for help.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

i dont think it needs closing,

threatfire, its free and puts him in control.

http://www.threatfire.com/

[Stem]

Originally Posted by C.S.J

ask a stupid question, get a 'stupid' reply

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]

Originally Posted by skylights

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

Here's when CureIt comes into action.
Sorry, i've ran out of IK.