How to turn off on-access resident?

[rogerfgay]

I can turn-off resident protection by right clicking the blue icon in the system tray - but I don't want it to automatically start when I boot the machine.

I tried going to the services panel in Admin. tools; found Avast there and tried to change it from automatic load to manual - but for the first time in the history of my computer - for which I am admin., I was denied access. Avast also pops-up an access denial message when I do it.

I want to have control over the operation of this software.

How do I get access?
How do I change it to manual operation?

[igor]

If you don't stop the whole on-access protection (from the tray icon), but you stop the resident providers one-by-one instead, you'll be asked whether you want to preserve the changes across reboots.

[rogerfgay]

If you don't stop the whole on-access protection (from the tray icon), but you stop the resident providers one-by-one instead, you'll be asked whether you want to preserve the changes across reboots.

thanks

[olddog]

rogerfgay,

Whilst that may well put you in control, if you have turned off all of the shields then you have no AV protection, and you could forget to turn it on until it's too late.

For that reason, I would strongle advise always leaving the Standard Shield at least, active.
The days of having to turn off your AV to install programs are thankfully long gone.

[rogerfgay]

rogerfgay,

Whilst that may well put you in control, if you have turned off all of the shields then you have no AV protection, and you could forget to turn it on until it's too late.

For that reason, I would strongle advise always leaving the Standard Shield at least, active.
The days of having to turn off your AV to install programs are thankfully long gone.

I've actually survived quite well for years without active anti-virus protection; or at least only that provided by my anti-spyware program. There's too much overhead involved in keeping Avast running full-time - turning my modern computer's performance into something like my old 386 (maybe that's an exaggeration - but I want the speed - I need the speed). I guess maybe my computer settings and download / install practices might be pretty good - since I generally do not experience problems with viruses. Also - I use Yahoo! mail, which has virus protection built it at the server end - and I generally identify spam just by looking at the subject and sender.

I just want to be able to run a virus scan from time to time to be on the safe side. I'd only turn on resident scan if there's a serious problem lurking and continuous scanning keeps the wolf at bay. I don't need to remember to turn it back on, and I have pretty good habits about regular scanning for spyware.

So - I'm not saying all this to argue with you. I'm just saying it because I doubt I'm alone in the world regarding my views on this. As a message to product developers - I think what I want should be given consideration - and appropriate options should be available to give the best, most efficient means of accomplishing what I'm out to do. A couple of nice features would be the ability to choose between rescanning and not rescanning already scanned files, and just looking for files by file-name. I should only occassionally have any interest in scanning everything at a deeper level.

(Sorry if I've named any already existing features - which you can tell me about if I did. I've indicated that I've only installed this software yesterday, and am just trying to express a view - not trying to come off as an expert.)

[Tarq57]

I'm just saying it because I doubt I'm alone in the world regarding my views on this.

I also doubt you are alone in the world with that view.
I do say, though, that a gram of prevention is seriously worth a kilo of cure, and that by the time you get an inkling that "something is lurking" it's a bit late to be turning on the resident protection.
Unless you're browsing in a virtual environment, with good, well understood outbound connection control, or maintain a system imaging program (which you may well be) then it would be good for the www if you were alone with that view.
It would make the job of malware writers that much more difficult.

[Lisandro]

A couple of nice features would be the ability to choose between rescanning and not rescanning already scanned files

To check if the file was already scanned and the file was not changed will take even more time of precessing...

and just looking for files by file-name.

Useless in terms of security... malware use approved and common file names...

[rogerfgay]

OK, once again - I'm not trying to tick anyone off, and I'll emphasize that I'm not an security expert; and I dare say it is a fact that I'm not alone in that!

I'd logically however, take the complaint that there's too much performance overhead very seriously. Take me as mainstream (rather than part of the statistically smaller security expert elite). My primary purpose in using the computer doesn't send my head into security issues every day. It sends me places and to activities in which great computer performance is a very positive thing, very noticable one way or the other, and economically significant.

Given that I haven't been plagued with noticable virus problems to any great extent (or my other software - not specifically labeled as anti-virus is taking care of them) - the net calculation is that a pound of cure, when needed, is worth a lot more than an ounce of prevention that's clogging up my machine all day.

Just one more thing - I really appreciate these freeware and open source things. I was plagued by unemployment a few years ago, and if it wasn't for open source and freeware, I would not have been able to use my computer at all. (SpyBot saved me.) I donated when things got better. So don't take my comments as anything other than an attempt to be helpful and constructive.

Of course - I always search the web and read reviews and make sure I'm downloading from the right place before getting anything. 

[Lisandro]

My primary purpose in using the computer doesn't send my head into security issues every day.

I fully agree... that happens with us most of the time... but better safe than sorry, there are a lot of things (sites, emails...) that are innocent just in appearance...

It sends me places and to activities in which great computer performance is a very positive thing, very noticable one way or the other, and economically significant.

We all love performance... but if just avast is making things slower, maybe you should consider buying a more powerful machine.

So don't take my comments as anything other than an attempt to be helpful and constructive.

I'm seeing exactly in this way. Don't worry.

[rogerfgay]

We all love performance... but if just avast is making things slower, maybe you should consider buying a more powerful machine.

OK, now you're taking a risk. I'm an old guy and my primary occupation over the decades has been in software. You've hit a sore spot. We keep building and buying more powerful computers, but we're often going one step backwards for each two steps forward. Younger developers seem to think that faster computers with more memory are being built purely for the purpose of allowing sloppier software development.

I'm not accusing anybody involved with Avast! of anything - I'm just sayin' you hit a general sore spot with me. Some of the greatest software development practices in the world are applied in open-source projects, but even there I sometimes see some things that remind me of Microsoft.

I'm strongly on the side of building fast, efficient programs without bloat; as well as the right set of useful usable user options and adaptations presented in the right way.

[Lisandro]

I'm strongly on the side of building fast, efficient programs without bloat; as well as the right set of useful usable user options and adaptations presented in the right way.

Fully agree.