For my thinking, I'd say Avast people are making a point. The old once a day process of updating VPS defs is gone and simply NOT NEEDED with the new technology used by Avast.
Until folks start dropping like flies with contracted virus's due to 'no vps daily updates' I'm not in the least worried.
Really, Avast users are using a cutting edge security software program and you either trust what you have installed or you don't. Avast is leading not because it lets their users surf unprotected but because we are protected in ways other security programs don't.
The lack of daily updates imo is just another step in "effective efficiency", and in no way causes me to think I'm protected less........when the fact is with Constant Streaming Updates I'm protected better!.
IMO
Actually, what we have here is a case of user expectations based on the old way of doing things.
It's like when you get up in the morning, clean up, put on your clothes, get your breakfast and whatever else, read the newspaper left at your door, watch the telly, and go out the door to work, etc.,. If you change the expected order of that routine, it may be less efficient or may not make sense or prevent one from getting out the door on that day, so....
It's a case of not understanding what streaming updates are, and what they do, so this disrupts to some extent what the user expects on a daily basis from avast!, as the daily vps's are something they understand and are used to occurring every day.
Streaming updates are not breaking the protective cycle, but actually enhancing this protective process. We're heading to the point where a daily vps may not be needed anymore, and may only see one when avast! thinks it is needed.
That's what I'm seeing from here.
So, for those who have disabled streaming updates for whatever reason, I think you may be missing out on the enhanced protection avast! now provides. There is such a thing as removing active features from avast! (not default) that can actually hurt a user as far as protection expected from avast! goes. Maybe this is one of the source issues we seem to be dealing with here in this thread.