Yep they may claim that Beepster but unfortunately I've had to remove them from PCs where they have conflicted with each other on 3 or 4 occasions (to be specific antivirus and anti malware  real time scanning will most likely conflict sooner or later when different vendors are used, and I've seen antivirus products detect valid malware scanners as a virus).

Yeah of course ccCleaner is not an antivirus or anti malware tool and I've got this installed myself.

Cheers..

Interesting. I've never had any issues having those two installed alongside Avast and I've been doing that for years. What AVs were they conflicting with? I'm new to MSE but I only have that on my DAW which only goes online to download/update purchased audio software. I'm assuming that the usual suspects like Mcaffee and Norton were the type of real time programs getting cranky about it. I personally consider that crap bloatware/malware at this point. Cheers.

Oh and there is a warning on Spybot saying that Mcaffee will likely show up as a virusy thingamadoodle. I've actually never gotten any hits while running any of my AVs but I don't tread too many uncharted waters and use script/adblockers when surfing. 

It's definitely a good idea to have more than one AV on your computer, but only run one in real time and use the other(s) to run periodic system scans. None of them catch everything, so it's a good idea to do secondary scans on occasion. I agree with the Malwarebytes and Spybot recommendations. I use MSE as my main AV and Malwarebytes for backup scans.

jackasspenguin


I'm running the MacAfee suite that's free with the AT&T Uverse subscription. I don't see anyway to disable it in it's control panel. I'm not sure if I need to but I have had X2 crash several times. I don't use this pc on the internet much but I do visit the forums and moderately trusted sites.

Would it be best to disable the internet connection while using X2? That seems to be the easiest thing to do. I'm really the only person using this computer. Is disabling the UAC worth messing with?

I also have the McAfee that "comes with the machine".  Before running X2, I unplug the network cable and open the McAfee control panel and turn off "real time scanning" It asks when to turn it on again and I check "next time I boot my machine" This seems to keep McAfee from interfering  with X2 and prevents the "background" talk between every other program on the computer that is scheduled to "check for updates" in the background.

VERY few crashes or freezes.

Best,
Rob

It's definitely a good idea to have more than one AV on your computer, but only run one in real time and use the other(s) to run periodic system scans.


Until you find a virus and then real time scan locks up the manual scan, losing control over the cleanup process (or file lockout) .... Good luck with that idea.

CakeAlexS


It's definitely a good idea to have more than one AV on your computer, but only run one in real time and use the other(s) to run periodic system scans.


Until you find a virus and then real time scan locks up the manual scan, losing control over the cleanup process (or file lockout) .... Good luck with that idea.

Not if you take the extra 30 seconds to disconnect from the Internet and disable real time before you scan. I can tell you've been in IT hell. ;-) 

MSE +1

Am I correct in thinking that, just because a virus gets past an 'anti-virus', it is no indication as to the effectivity of the 'anti-virus'. 

It simply means that it is probably a very new virus that has not been put into the virus database, and has slipped through the net?  

 I'm sure a lot of viruses are the same, and they get locked down, but there are always the creators finding new and improved ways of slipping round the back of the anti-virus product (And keeping SOME peoples money flowing ;) )

It's down to how often that virus signature database gets updated, the virus engine gets updated, the cleanup engine is updated, and well it is done. In addition how effective with internal testing and performance. So earlier in the thread MSE was shown to be shown to be a little less effective nowadays, that could be down to more viruses or slower turnaround times e.g. one less developer working the project (being moved to windows phone dept :-) ) and competition!

SilverfoxUK


MSE +1

Am I correct in thinking that, just because a virus gets past an 'anti-virus', it is no indication as to the effectivity of the 'anti-virus'. 

It simply means that it is probably a very new virus that has not been put into the virus database, and has slipped through the net?  

I'm sure a lot of viruses are the same, and they get locked down, but there are always the creators finding new and improved ways of slipping round the back of the anti-virus product (And keeping SOME peoples money flowing ;) )

What, you mean the AV companies themselves?