"Dustin Cook" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9C7FBD84EC2D3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
> "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:h7tihc$pqk$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C7CEC1715127HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247...
>>> "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:h7m2h0$nmu$1
>>> @news.eternal-september.org:
[...]
>>> It's probably more of a generic warning. IE: If your running Norton
>>> preinstalled, please remove it BEFORE you install AVG.
>>
>> Yes, but I think it is disingenuous for these security related
>> programs
>> to warn against competing anti-spyware programs unless there actually
>> *is* conflict between them. It seems like they are making suggestions
>> that result in the user removing the competition's software for fear
>> of
>> conflicts that don't actually exist.
>
> It's generally considered bad practice to have more than one resident
> scanner active at the same time. The chance of system conflict and
> issues
> is high and you aren't gaining a double layer of security for your
> efforts.
>
>> I believe that several "realtime" entities can run without conflict
>> as
>> long as there aren't "on access" conflicts involved, and these
>> vendors
>> (Microsoft included) use this misunderstanding of "realtime" to get
>> users to remove the competition's software from their system.
>
> Again, it's generally not a good idea to run several resident scanners
> at
> the same time. Having several for scan when you want only is fine, but
> only one should be resident.
Agreed, but that would not warrant an installation wizard stating this:
http://www.addictivetips.com/wp-cont...eady-thumb.png
With no mention of the offending program's possibly benign configuration
options (such as on demand only).
This is just an example purportedly from Microsoft's most recent entry
into the field.
Similar Threads
