Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NTO] AVG Free woes

Expand Messages
  • David Smart
    It s in the scheduler - where it always has been. Right click the taskbar icon and launch the Control Centre. (Double-click might do that for you, depending
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
      It's in the scheduler - where it always has been.

      Right click the taskbar icon and launch the Control Centre. (Double-click
      might do that for you, depending on how it's configured.) In the white pane
      you'll probably see a list of components - one per row. (This is a
      different view of the components that came in some time ago.) Single-click
      Scheduler. Then hit the Scheduled Tasks button. There is a task called
      "Update plan in basic mode".

      I don't think you can delete this task, but you can certainly change its
      schedule and/or turn off "Periodically check for Internet updates".

      AVG Free has always checked daily for updates, by default. Frankly I can't
      think why you wouldn't want to do so.

      Regards, Dave S

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "loro" <loro-spam01-@...>
      To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:40 PM
      Subject: [NTO] AVG Free woes


      > Hi,
      >
      > I upgraded AVG. Now it seems to do automatic updates and I don't find
      > a way to turn it off. I don't think the free version supported
      > automatic updates at all earlier. I don't find a way to turn off the
      > signature it adds to email either. Is there a way to turn those things
      > off?
      >
      > To my defence - the Help file is terse and organized after the menu
      > choices and it doesn't have a search function. If I knew where the
      > options were I wouldn't need the Help file. I've turned scanning of
      > outgoing email off. Let's see if it adds its sig anyway. It pollutes
      > all incoming mail with it.
      >
      > Lotta
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • WV-Mike
      ... I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive. To my knowledge I have not had a PC virus since my first one - nearly 20 years ago.
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
        At 04:52 AM 11/16/2007 , David Smart wrote:
        >AVG Free has always checked daily for updates, by default. Frankly I can't
        >think why you wouldn't want to do so.




        I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive.

        To my knowledge I have not had a PC virus since my first one - nearly 20
        years ago.

        IMHO - Common since and safe computing is the best Anti Virus.

        -Mike




        _________________________________
        Check it out:
        www.EpicRoadTrips.us
        ~~~
        To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
        are to stand by the President , right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
        servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
        -Theodore Roosevelt ( 1859-1919) 2rth President of the United States and
        Winner of the 1906 Noble Peace Prize.
        ~~~
      • Axel Berger
        ... Yes, and a bit of sense helps too. (Sorry, tried to resist but failed.) Axel
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
          WV-Mike wrote:
          > IMHO - Common since and safe computing is the best Anti Virus.

          Yes, and a bit of sense helps too.
          (Sorry, tried to resist but failed.)

          Axel
        • David Smart
          ... I run AVG Free. It is not burdensome and it is not cumbersome. Actually, it isn t even intrusive - even when it finds a virus. It just goes about its
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
            > I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive.

            I run AVG Free. It is not burdensome and it is not cumbersome. Actually,
            it isn't even intrusive - even when it finds a virus. It just goes about
            its work quietly, efficiently, and very cheaply.

            I do not ever do a full virus scan of my computers, unless I have reason to
            suspect that something has slipped past (and I'm always wrong). The
            real-time scanning keeps things out.

            I agree that common sense is the best Anti Virus. Common sense says "be
            protected". Safe computing is certainly a help, but not actually a
            protection.

            I drive carefully, attentively and (I think) reasonably skilfully. But I
            still have car insurance.

            Regards, Dave S

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "WV-Mike" <notetab@...>
            To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:24 PM
            Subject: Re: [NTO] AVG Free woes


            > At 04:52 AM 11/16/2007 , David Smart wrote:
            >>AVG Free has always checked daily for updates, by default. Frankly I can't
            >>think why you wouldn't want to do so.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive.
            >
            > To my knowledge I have not had a PC virus since my first one - nearly 20
            > years ago.
            >
            > IMHO - Common since and safe computing is the best Anti Virus.
            >
            > -Mike
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > _________________________________
            > Check it out:
            > www.EpicRoadTrips.us
            > ~~~
            > To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
            > are to stand by the President , right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
            > and
            > servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
            > -Theodore Roosevelt ( 1859-1919) 2rth President of the United States and
            > Winner of the 1906 Noble Peace Prize.
            > ~~~
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • gkluther
            Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri (plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish. Hey, nothing
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
              Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
              (plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.

              Hey, nothing personal. Just my oppinion.
              --
              "Good Health means you are dying at the slowest possible rate!!"

              The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is
              that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

              "Where lipstick is concerned, the important thing is not color, but to
              accept God's final word on where your lips end." - Jerry Seinfeld


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Axel Berger
              ... That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single infection of any kind.
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                gkluther wrote:
                > I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.

                That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
                computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
                infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
                And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
                Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
                across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
                quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
                presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
                detect.

                If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
                so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
                tests of such software result in even for the best.

                Axel
              • David Smart
                ... Your source for this statistic is? Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it doesn t know about yet. The response times for
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                  > ... you may assume that for every four or
                  > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
                  > tests of such software result in even for the best.

                  Your source for this statistic is?

                  Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it
                  doesn't know about yet. The response times for new AV signatures is quick,
                  and my own computers have never been subjected to a virus that was found
                  "after the event". So, either I am getting viruses that are too trivial to
                  justify protection, or the response times of the AV companies beats the
                  propagation times of viruses to the sort of Internet contact my computer
                  has.

                  > But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
                  > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
                  > infection of any kind.

                  I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that they
                  shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience indicates that
                  others should very definitely be running AV software, as they clearly don't
                  follow the other stringencies that keep your computer clean.

                  Regards, Dave S

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
                  To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:15 PM
                  Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


                  > gkluther wrote:
                  >> I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
                  >
                  > That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
                  > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
                  > infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
                  > And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
                  > Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
                  > across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
                  > quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
                  > presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
                  > detect.
                  >
                  > If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
                  > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
                  > tests of such software result in even for the best.
                  >
                  > Axel
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • WV-Mike
                  ... Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years. But, I must doing something right - no viruses in 20
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                    At 11:09 PM 11/16/2007 , gkluther wrote:
                    >Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
                    >(plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
                    >
                    >Hey, nothing personal. Just my oppinion.



                    Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years.
                    But, I must doing something right - no
                    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus>viruses in 20 years.

                    In fact, I cannot help but wonder why it is such a pervasive problem.
                    How are all these people getting all these viruses?

                    -Mike





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Axel Berger
                    ... The respected German magazine c t regularly tests these things. You re right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not so for
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                      David Smart wrote:
                      > Your source for this statistic is?

                      The respected German magazine c't regularly tests these things. You're
                      right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not
                      so for trojans, spyware and some other stuff.

                      > I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that
                      > they shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience
                      > indicates that others should very definitely be running AV software,
                      > as they clearly don't follow the other stringencies that keep your
                      > computer clean.

                      Here I agree, with the proviso, that I hold my way to be better and
                      proven to be so. But you're right, most people refuse to access the net
                      the way I do: "Nothing works anymore".

                      Axel
                    • Axel Berger
                      ... You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers use, I d
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                        WV-Mike wrote:
                        > How are all these people getting all these viruses?

                        You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
                        bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
                        use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
                        custom elsewhere.

                        Axel
                      • David Smart
                        ... And the misspellings. This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or get someone with a better understanding of English
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                          > If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar
                          > those phishers use ...

                          And the misspellings.

                          This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or
                          get someone with a better understanding of English involved.

                          It was suggested to me that it is deliberate, to make the job harder for the
                          anti-spam software. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that
                          my copy of PopFile is running at 98.64% accuracy on the 10,000 messages that
                          have come in to my desktop computer since I last reset its statistics at the
                          beginning of September - so the ruse clearly doesn't work very well.

                          (Annoyingly, my spam content is running at over 47% of e-mails currently -
                          due to an absolute flood of spam messages to the unmoderated, and unowned,
                          C++ Yahoo group.)

                          Regards, Dave S

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
                          To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:07 AM
                          Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


                          > WV-Mike wrote:
                          >> How are all these people getting all these viruses?
                          >
                          > You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
                          > bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
                          > use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
                          > custom elsewhere.
                          >
                          > Axel
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • loro
                          Thank you, Stan, Dave and others. ... I must have been more tired than I thought, but that s where I looked and I didn t see the check boxes. I had been
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 18, 2007
                            Thank you, Stan, Dave and others.

                            >The signature .... again from the control center highlight 'E-mail scanner' &
                            >click on the properties button. In the window that pops up, click on the
                            >configure button. The next window will have a section called 'E-mail
                            >scanning',
                            >uncheck the 2 boxes labeled 'Certify mail' ..... no more AVG signatures.

                            I must have been more tired than I thought, but that's where I looked
                            and I didn't see the check boxes. I had been installing software all
                            day, so I admit I was a little cross eyed. Before your post came in I
                            uninstalled AVG, so I can't have a look right now. I decided it was
                            time to test the free AVs out there again. ATM I'm trying Avast, but
                            I may very well go back to AVG, so your instructions aren't wasted.

                            Lotta
                          • Gerard Huijing
                            ... FYI The Latin plural of virus is virus . Without a context you cannot see the difference. Our plural, so to speak, for virus is viruses , just as
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                              gkluther wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
                              > (plural of virus?).

                              FYI

                              The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'. Without a context you cannot see
                              the difference.

                              Our plural, so to speak, for 'virus' is 'viruses', just as 'apparatuses'
                              is the plural of 'apparatus'.

                              'Viri' represents forms of a completely different word, while
                              'apparati', which I have come across many times on the internet, means
                              nothing at all.

                              Cheers,
                              Gerard


                              --
                              Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                              2312 ZD Leiden
                              Netherlands
                              inboxgen@...
                            • Axel Berger
                              ... Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but with the Latin
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                                Gerard Huijing wrote:
                                > The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'.

                                Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                                genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                                with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                                Thus viruses is correct.

                                Axel
                              • Gerard Huijing
                                ... You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction. I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not masculine as one might think at first sight
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 20, 2007
                                  Axel Berger wrote:

                                  >
                                  > Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                                  > genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                                  > with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                                  > Thus viruses is correct.
                                  >
                                  > Axel

                                  You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction.
                                  I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not
                                  masculine as one might think at first sight (this can be proved from
                                  existing texts).

                                  I wrongly thought that virus was of the fourth, not the second declension.
                                  Hence plural virus, hence the analogy with apparatus, where apparati is
                                  definitely wrong.

                                  Although the plural viri of virus is nowhere to be found, that plural
                                  form is at least *theoretically* possible; it is not as impossible as
                                  apparati is.

                                  But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even
                                  for the NTB off topic list. :-)

                                  Cheers,
                                  Gerard

                                  --
                                  Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                                  2312 ZD Leiden
                                  Netherlands
                                  inboxgen@...
                                • Ray Shapp
                                  Hi Gerad, Maybe too off topic , but entertaining,
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Nov 23, 2007
                                    Hi Gerad,

                                    <<But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even for
                                    the NTB off topic list. :-) >>

                                    Maybe "too off topic", but entertaining, nevertheless.

                                    Ciao,

                                    Ray Shapp
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.