Difference in numbers of files scanned
internethelp4you_at_nitsuj.servehttp.com
Date: 01/01/04
- Next message: internethelp4you_at_nitsuj.servehttp.com: "Re: Phantom Virus?"
- Previous message: internethelp4you_at_nitsuj.servehttp.com: "Address Bar"
- In reply to: Beano: "Difference in numbers of files scanned"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:33:58 -0800
In the one which scans 220,000 files or what ever, you
may have a feature enabled which allows Deep scanning,
which means that it scans archives (such as the contents
of .zip, .cab and .rar files) which takes time to extract
and scan etc.
Both would be as effective, as compressed files cannot
hurt your computer, they have to be extraced first.
You have plenty of time, use the shorter one, if you have
need high security, use the longer one.
All anti-viruses must be kept up-to-date.
Justin..
internethelp4you@nitsuj.servehttp.com
>-----Original Message-----
>I use AVG AV free version. I notice that the number of
files scanned numbers
>around 40,000, and takes about 10 minutes time. When I
use BitDefender
>on-line AV Scanner, Some 220,000 files are scanned and
it takes
>approximately 35 minutes. With such a big difference, I
am concerned that
>AVG is less effective in looking into the possible files
that could harbor a
>virus. Would someone be able to explain the differences
in the depth and
>efficiency of these scans?
>
>http://www.bitdefender.com/scan/Msie/index.php
>
>Thanks, and Happy New Year! ;-)
>
>Beano
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: internethelp4you_at_nitsuj.servehttp.com: "Re: Phantom Virus?"
- Previous message: internethelp4you_at_nitsuj.servehttp.com: "Address Bar"
- In reply to: Beano: "Difference in numbers of files scanned"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|