schedule daily full scan option?

[REDACTED]

I've already described the use of doing scans in addition to shields.

Just keep in mind you could choose to do something different tomorrow or some new virus could come out that could allow malware to sneak in that only a scan could find.  It's unlikely, but not impossible.  Somebody, somewhere, is among the first to be infected by each new virus.

It boils down to this:  What level of unlikely do you feel you can live with?  It's a matter of preference how often you'd like to check, and you have to understand that different folks have different preferences.

In my personal case my workstation stays on 24/7, because there are jobs I have it do all the time, plus backups, etc.  I have a free slot where nothing much else happens between 6 and 8 am, so I found it a dandy time for a thorough C: drive scan.

I don't know what you find precious about CPU time.  The processors could be executing the idle loop or a scan.  The latter is more useful.  Are you concerned with using additional electrical power?  I don't see an additional heat load while it's scanning, implying little if any extra power is being used.  That may differ from system to system.

All that said, I haven't had Avast actually BLOCK any malware in years here.  I do a bunch of other things that keep it from even getting near the front door.  Thus you might say I am the least needy of daily scans - but daily they are done nonetheless, because I would like an undiagnosed malware infection to be very unlikely indeed!

-Noel

[Alikhan]

Anything detected by an on-demand/scheduled scan will be also detected by the Realtime Shields (unless PUP is not enabled for 1 or the other)

On top of this, if you were to get a new infection, the chance of a scan finding it compared to the shields is very, very low.

You need to remember one thing here especially : The shields have on-access detection for detections, e.g. evo gen and suspicious file blocking, whereas, if you were to do a scan, those files would not appear.

You may say that realtime protection doesn't scan everything BUT it does scan every file when it is accessed meaning the amount of scans needs is really depreciated.

Edit : Fixed typo.

[REDACTED]

If you guys think like the average person then there in no flaw in your comments. But if you think like a non-average person then there is a flaw. Consider what I am writing below. And by the way, this in great conversation.
 1- I'm a system builder. It is important as a system builder that I provide simple access all the way around for most of my customers. Such simpleness is great for the new computer user, the average person that wants to be protected and don't care how. But will easily get a virus and call me up to say, (that computer you built, It was acting up so I let my buddy check it out and he said it was loaded with viruses), even though no, it's not my issue as to how they use the computer but I will get blamed for every little thing that happens while I have it under warranty.  Easy access to them setting a scan schedule can mean a lot to a system builder that cares that the customer has a good time after the sale because that means they will come back. And in this day and time you need all customers returning to you.

2- I do network investigations. I also spend much time slithering on the underbelly of some very dark locations on the internet. And even with virtual machines and other systems I never know for sure what I can pick up inadvertently and bring home. So you can say it's over kill to scan like I do but then I say it's extra assurance.

3- I agree that Avast has become much more than just another free antivirus for people to download for free. But I also do computer and network investigations where I have had to write my own software to get through some blocks put up by various software protections. I currently have written a remote administration tool that does get pass Avast for the sole purpose of providing my services to corporate owners  whom need to know whats going on. So I need to assure them when I say I can find any issue they are concerned with this is my reputation on the line. I was forced to re-write my remote administration tool so get past Avast Premier not long after the 2014 came out because of this very reason. I have to re-write tools all the time to be able to keep getting the job done. So if I can do this I know others are doing this also so I need the assurances that when moving between computers that everything is safe. I always, every day go through my system policies and more to maintain this self assurance. It's priceless to me. But over kill to others.

So to some of you this may make some since but to others it won't and still others will question what I have put down. But the facts are here.

Again, great conversation.

[REDACTED]

You may say that realtime protection doesn't scan everything BUT it does scan every file when it is accessed meaning the amount of scans needs is really depreciated.

I dislike it when people state things as fact that are inaccurate, especially when they could have actually checked in just a few seconds.  It's like we're having a conversation on two different levels:  The way it actually is implemented vs. the way someone fantasizes that it must work.

Avast can scan every file on read or write, but it's not set that way by default.  Why?  Performance reasons. 

This one verifiable fact is the cornerstone of this conversation.

Please show us a screen grab of your File System Shield Settings, Scan When Opening and Scan When Writing subsections - before you change from the default settings.

So, now, here's the 64 dollar question: 

Now that you KNOW that not every file is scanned when it is read and written, will you enable the [ ] Scan All Files settings and slow your system's normal file access down, or will you schedule more scans?   It's difficult to return to a state of blissful ignorance, but that IS an option too.

Bottom line is this:  It's impossible for anyone to say "this is just the right balance of protection vs. performance for every single person".  That's why there are things like options you can change and scans you can schedule.

-Noel

[Para-Noid]

Like talking to a brick wall. 

Again...have you tried to run scan less frequently and the compared the results? 

[REDACTED]

Just remember that brick walls repel the huffing and puffing of much hot air.

Again...  I would not want to run a scan less frequently, because I would like to know as soon as possible if I have an uncaught infection.

You simply can't make a logical argument that Avast can and will catch every single possible infection with just the shields.  I've already shown you why.

It's as if someone came to you and said, "I've been fishing in the lake every day but I haven't caught anything yet", to which you responded, "Have you tried just fishing every week instead and compared the number of fish you caught?"   Think how ridiculous that would sound to someone who prefers to fish every day.

-Noel

[Alikhan]

You may say that realtime protection doesn't scan everything BUT it does scan every file when it is accessed meaning the amount of scans needs is really depreciated.

I dislike it when people state things as fact that are inaccurate, especially when they could have actually checked in just a few seconds. 

Perhaps you need to have a look at the Full scan settings... the full scan also does not scan every file.

Both the file shield and avast scans (by default) will only scan files which can be infected.

For the file shield, it only scans the files that could be infected. There's no need for it to scan GBs of archived files if it does no damage. The same goes for the scan unless you want it to run for hours.

If you look carefully at the shields, it states that it scans the packers which are not archived and infections can come through. Ofcourse when a file is extracted, the FSS would scan it.

If you look throughout Windows, you'll see a lot of huge archived files which will take hours to scan. It would be interesting for you to tell me any vendors who scan all the zipped file in every location by default.

The key of an anti-virus is to prevent infections from coming in at the first place and if your scan keeps finding malware, the anti-virus would not be fit for purpose. (unless the anti virus was installed on an infected PC).

On top of this, BOTH the File System Shield and Full System Scan scan the same packers (default). There isn't one extra or one less in either.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't run a scan but saying with a resident AV such as avast!, the amount of time you scan the PC really is depreciated.

A quick scan once a week is more than enough. It scans for active infections and areas where malware is most likely to be. If the quick scan finds infections, you go on to the full scan. It goes down to personal preference at the end and a full scan once a month is more than enough.

[REDACTED]

Perhaps you need to have a look at the Full scan settings... the full scan also does not scan every file.

We're going around in circles.  See post 13.

And yes, I DO have my daily scan check all files, just as I showed, and takes an expected couple of hours to go through a couple of terabytes of data.  That's what it takes to be thorough.  There is no problem.

I can't imagine why you folks seem to be so bent on telling others NOT to scan their systems as often as they like.

-Noel

[Alikhan]

Perhaps you need to have a look at the Full scan settings... the full scan also does not scan every file.

We're going around in circles.  See post 13.

And yes, I DO have my daily scan check all files, just as I showed, and takes an expected couple of hours to go through a couple of terabytes of data.  That's what it takes to be thorough.  There is no problem.

I can't imagine why you folks seem to be so bent on telling others NOT to scan their systems as often as they like.

-Noel

I'll admit that I missed the screenshot on your post 13.

We're NOT telling other not to scan their systems as often as they like but are stating that the scans do not need to be run on a daily basis, it's an overkill.

We do not say "No, you can not scan your system frequently" but rather suggest it would be an overkill.

At the end of the day, the decision is up to the user of the computer.

[bob3160]

If you scan results are clean what's the use in frequent scans.
I've been running weekly quick scan for several years and have been
infection free. Why do you think avast has resident shields for? <$1alt="" title="" onresizestart="return false;" id="smiley__$2" style="padding: 0 3px 0 3px;" />

But if you want to waste precious CPU usage go right on ahead.
Try cutting back on scan frequency and find out for yourself.
Try running a full scan once a week and let me know what kind of
results you get. I'll bet you won't see any difference. <$1alt="" title="" onresizestart="return false;" id="smiley__$2" style="padding: 0 3px 0 3px;" />

Highly doubt you'll be listed too any more than I was when I explained the same point.
Some people always need to emphasize their point even if isn't logical or helpful.
I've decided to leave this thread alone.