I can’t install it since there are compatibility issues.
As far as I’m aware there are no compatibility issues and certainly not at install level, I don’t know how it works exactly but I would have thought the only possible conflict would be with the web shield when it is running.
What errors are you getting when you try to install it.
When installing AVG Linkscanner it says I have to uninstall Avast because of compatibility issues. I CAN however uninstall Avast and then install Linkscanner, then reinstall Avast with no problem. 0_o Odd
linkscanner is useless. Wait for avast!'s 6 WebRep
I’m only using it since WOT is having some issues at the moment.
right… I’m curious how will avast’s Web Reputation compete WOT.
But do not use avg linkscanner anyway… It doesn’t work. Infected sites are reported as clean by AVG linkscanner, and when you will enter them, AVG will block that “clean” website.
In other ways it slowdowns your browser and annoys you.
Doing some tests…
youareanidiot - Clean by AVG linkscanner
guggle - Clean by AVG linkscanner
watch out this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv_TXsaKfDk
I would have to agree, the avg link scanner is pointless, regardless of how effective or ineffective it is. You have the avast Network Shield (with its own list of known malicious sites, not exhaustive) and the Web Shield providing active real time scans and it is without doubt one of the most effective web scanners.
+1
One question…why on earth would anyone run two av’s at the same time?
Doing so could cause false positives or even worse letting a virus through.
LinkScanner is a stand alone app I don’t have AVG and Avast at the same time haha.
Just found this thread. I’m running AvastFree AV and don’t want to change. I’m using WOT and found McAfee’s Site Advisor kept telling me not to download innocent stuff like … er … Avast. Tried to download AVG’s so-called stand-alone link scanner. At the last minute it told me to uninstal Avast and aborted. Are these guys all trying to sabotage each other? None give 100% security so it’s a bit rich.
BTW, if Avast’s web and network shields are so cool, shame they didn’t work on my Win 7x64 system before the latest version … and they give no clue they’re sniffing out bad links on search results. Nothing beats traffic lights!
Dr Web(?) does a link scanner. Not a software company I’ve used. Russian isn’t it?
Guess I’m stuck with MyWOT and a pair of bashful Avast shields? 
With all due respect, I found out the hard way not to trust anything from AVG. I had AVG av with its built-in link scanner and it let through five viruses and/or malware. Switched to avast and have not had any problems since. I even went back to a couple of sites AVG said were clean, avast came through with a pop-up bubble warning. I was sold on avast!
I had to do a system restore to get rid of that program. WOW it messed up Avast.
Avast! should add detection of Linkscanner 
infection win32:omg_linkscanner
action deleted
Why on earth anybody would want to install AVG’s Linkscanner is beyond me. One of the worst concepts ever. Quite useless and tries to scan most of the Internet. Slows down browsing till you feel you are on dial-up. And still worse protection than avast and others.
We had to script AVG setups to stop this and other junkware being installed. That, and I don’t think AVG’s protection is all that good, I’ve seen cases of it sitting silent on infected computers, when a live-CD scan with other products detected the malware straightaway.
As Mike Gundy would say, “That’s NOT TRUE!”
Do you actually know, or who ever did that review (that character Kazutadashi), how LinkScanner works? I’ll explain you in a very short way.
AVG LinkScanner has two components: Search-Shield and Surf-Shield.
Search-Shield works with IE and Firefox (Now I believe Google Chrome as well), and reports whether a given domain is KNOWN as being malicious. Meaning, this feature checks given domains against a database of KNOWN malicious websites.
Surf-Shield is the real-time protection component, the one that actually protects against URLs hosting ACTIVE malicious content, such as exploits (its main task, I’d say). So, even if Search-Shield reports GREEN, that only means the domain is not KNOWN to host malicious content/being a phishing domain, etc. That is, it reports it green because according to Search-Shield database, that domain is not there.
Surf-Shield will scan ACTIVE malicious content, and if it’s there, it will be stopped. That’s why sometimes when Search-Shield rates something green, Surf-Shield may block access if it finds ACTIVE malicious content.
To test an application, one needs to know how it exactly works, otherwise we just make ourselves complete fools.
Actually, we have to define something as either pointless or of use, considering its effectiveness or lack of it. If one wants to use it, that’s a different matter. But, if something is effective, it isn’t pointless.
Also, LinkScanner doesn’t only verify known malicious websites. It actually verifies them for active malicious content (not viruses, etc., rather exploits, javascript obfuscation).
avast! team clearly believes this type of protection is useful, and that a webscanner isn’t enough, as they are introducing something similar in version 6? I haven’t read its details with much attention, but I believe it’s something within that line?
I’m glad avast! team is cooking something similar. It gives avast! users one more security layer, which IMO makes difference. (So that others don’t come saying I’m an AVG fan, because I just like to clarify facts when they’re wrong. )
I still think there is something fundamentally wrong in the way link scanner works and if avast is planning something similar, it is bye bye avast! (in spite of having paid for it) and hello MSE.
The last time it installed with an update of AVG and after that I used it for exactly 2 days and when I realised what it did, I uninstalled it and stopped using AVG - it had become useless bloatware. There were howls of protests on AVG’s miserable forums as well. It had also let an autorun trojan onto my PC (luckily I was running as a limited user and it could not install itself and I could clean up my PC easily).
What I saw in the way it was working was that it checks each and every link on any page you load in your browser. Now that IMO is useless. I may or may not click on a link on that page. Obviously, this also slows down an Internet connection.
Avast’s web shield is way better in that only when you click on a link, it checks it, plus the realtime shield also protects.
Would you mind to explain it better? What exactly is wrong about the way LinkScanner works?
The last time it installed with an update of AVG and after that I used it for exactly 2 days and when I realised what it did, I uninstalled it and stopped using AVG - it had become useless bloatware. There were howls of protests on AVG's miserable forums as well. It had also let an autorun trojan onto my PC (luckily I was running as a limited user and it could not install itself and I could clean up my PC easily).
I can’t make any sense out of that. What do you mean with “The last time it installed with an update of AVG…”?
Why are you talking about Trojans? LinkScanner’s task is to prevent exploits, which will install malware, but that’s another thing. If there’s no exploit, why would you be expecting LinkScanner to stop a trojan? LinkScanner is not a webscanner; it does not scan URLs for known/unknown malware. It only scans for exploits.
What I saw in the way it was working was that it checks each and every link on any page you load in your browser. Now that IMO is useless. I may or may not click on a link on that page. Obviously, this also slows down an Internet connection.
Actually, it does not check “each and every link on any page you load in your browser”. LinkScanner will only scan the current URL you’re on. For example, if you’re at -http://somedomain.com, and if this domain contains active malicious content (exploits), then it will prevent access to it. If there’s no exploit in that URL, then it will allow access. But, if there’s an exploit in -http://somedomain.com/some_other_stuff, then it will prevent access to this URL, despite the fact it allows access to -http://somedomain.com
Avast's web shield is way better in that only when you click on a link, it checks it, plus the realtime shield also protects.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Different “vitamins”, so to speak.