don't show red off for explicitly disabled shields

[reesd]

Just a GUI tweak, but it would be nice if I could turn off the red "off" under real time shields for components I have chosen I don't want to run.

I can keep avast from complaining in the status bar by unchecking them under status bar/components monitored, and it also it switch the summary from "attention" to "secured". So those check boxes do effect the current status tab.

I would suggest though if I have manually turned some off and checked I don't want to be bothered, then I also shouldn't get a red off next to "real-time shields). This made me think they were all off. Maybe a orange "some off" or something would be better...

Thanks,
d

[Hermite15]

hey, you can specify in Avast settings that you don't want to be warned for the shields that you want, so this should include those you've purposely disabled >>> go to settings, status bar section

edit: oups sorry I didn't read all your post first, so you don't like this option, not much more I can do for you

[spg SCOTT]

Are they temporarily turned off, or permanantly turned off? i.e. Do you not want to use them at all?

The shields could be uninstalled via control panel

[Rednose]

The exploination point is already orange, so an orange "some off" if you don't want to uninstall some shields is not a bad idea

Greetz, Red.

[reesd]

They are off for days while I see if I notice a performance improvement. So intentionally off, but I may want to turn them back on in the future.

Uninstalling just them is a good tip though if I decide to make it permanent. Thanks.

Are they temporarily turned off, or permanantly turned off? i.e. Do you not want to use them at all?

The shields could be uninstalled via control panel

[ady4um]

I agree with the OP.

I'm not sure that a status completely equivalent to a full 100% protection is wise; but in the same manner, setting it "OFF" with a "turn on" option that are (or seem to be) exactly as if all shields were off, or as if something has gone wrong and the shields protection were ALL disabled, is as bad too.

I happen to have a similar situation, where I temporarily have some shields off, by choice, but I don't want to uninstall them completely. I find myself checking the real status of the shields each time I see that "off" status, "just in case". It simply makes me doubt about "all" the shields.

I'm not sure my "insecurities" would be solved (I might find myself rechecking anyway) but somehow displaying the names and/or amount of the specific shields that are "off", might differentiate those different situations:

_ 100% ON

_ 100% OFF

_ the intermediate status, showing the ones that are "OFF" (and maybe the "turn on" option available for each "off" shield), instead of a general "absolute" OFF/turn ON.

[Lisandro]

Well... I think a little bit different.
I think that avast should report what the user choose to be reported: if he/she manually disable a shield and disable the Status bar settings for the warning, avast should show "green", not "red". After all, the user deliberately choose that!

[MikeBCda]

If you do choose to "uninstall" unused shields in the Change tab of Add-Remove, as I have (I've no use for P2P or Outlook, for instance), I get the impression they stay on your system and are merely deactivated so that avast isn't aware they're there and therefore they're not even listed in the status-warnings list options.

If you later change your mind and want them back (again, via Add-Remove), that goes quite quickly, so it seems obvious to me that they're not being downloaded and reinstalled, merely flagged as "real" again so avast recognizes them and can use them.  This might not work if there been a major-version update in the meantime.

[ady4um]

Well... I think a little bit different.
I think that avast should report what the user choose to be reported: if he/she manually disable a shield and disable the Status bar settings for the warning, avast should show "green", not "red". After all, the user deliberately choose that!

In any case (meaning, the way you want it or some other ways that are being suggested), the current behaviour (the way is currently being displayed) is not so accurate nor so much wanted (in the context of this specific topic/posts).

The only alternative would be to uninstall the relevant shields, in which case I wouldn't know how it would be displayed. Not only I didn't try to uninstall those shields, but also I don't want to. For me, in this context, is out of the question.

The question here is, if the current behaviour/display should be modified/improved to show the "intermediate" cases, where some shields are installed but "temporarily" inactive.

To be clear, when I say "temporarily", it could be also permanent "until reactivated again by the user". With "temporarily", I just mean "not uninstalled".

So, I am disregarding the "un-installation" option here, and I am focusing on the suggestion to improve the current display method.