I figured somebody was going to ask that question, eventually.
I think you will recall that I stated last year I had to leave Avast. No need to go back into why. So I have allowed the licenses to expire on the other units one-by-one and on the Epson I noticed there was a kind of survey about why I was leaving or something like that and I thought that was fair enough and was going from page to page of the questions and then hit one page after stating on the previous that I would get another product and that next page asked me how much I was going to pay -- multiple choice, if I remember correctly. At that time I thought that was a bit intrusive and just closed the survey. Then we got to talking about it here and one of my folks said I should have been doing screenshots and gone ahead and finished it, so I was planning on doing just that with this Dell, but never had the time. Then presto, come back from dinner one day, fire up the computer to go back to work and see I have a reactivated product. Heck, it had only been about 10 or 11 days since it had expired. Can't be that is too long. Anyway, that answers your question, I think.
Now, about question one, I understand you are stating the answer is on that same page you provided the link for, yes?
And if you read that page very carefully it explicitly states that running two anti-virus programs at the same time is what is bad, and the reason given for uninstalling a third-party anti-virus program is to enable Avast to properly install. That page does not specifically address the issue of if being a danger for one product to be inactive while Avast is active. At least, I didn't see it. Of course, we're going to pick that wording apart, but I didn't see it and there's not a lot to read.
Anyway, I do appreciate that you provided the link to that page. I haven't had as much time as I would've liked to study and search for pages like that. If you think of anything else, don't hesitate to let me know, please. But I wish to repeat that I am looking for specifics -- black and white -- clearly spelled out warnings and such. That's the way this business works. A company has to properly document certain things and this is an area where it is necessary. But they know that. Those lawyer folks gets tonnes of money to get it right and to see around corners.
But we still need to find out why this happened.
And there is another really big problem. It's lucky I'm not so ... well, I don't know the right vocabulary, but I don't wish to cause problems for Avast. But you see, Avast reactivated the product, but did not ask me to sign a new ToS or User Agreement. The original one was for the license for one year and the view around here is that when that product expired that ended that agreement. Company law departments are usually very, very careful about such things. I'd say they missed this time.
But as long as the tech people clearly understand why and how this happened I don't mind signing the same agreement as before. You see the reason for the why and how? It's rather important for me and the company. I want to know this isn't some freak accident that may cause me problems and Avast probably would like me to sign that new agreement.
This is a lot more complicated than I suspect some folks at first realized, but lessons can be learned, and everything can be figured out, I'm sure. Just need some answers, that's all. A little checking here. A little checking there. And everyone will go home happy. And you're helping. Again, thank you.
* * *
EDITING was for all the stupid spelling mistakes, that's all. Not substantive context changing.
