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

Demanding support for bald assertions is being an ass?

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?

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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