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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
