What was wrong with that? The "automatic" update in AVG is not really
automatic; it is started at scheduled times by the software. If you are not
connected to the internet this operation will fail, and if the computer is
turned off the operation will not start at all. Thus, if AVG is scheduled to
look for updates at 7 AM every day and you never turn on your computer
before 8 AM AVG will never be automatically updated.

Yes, you _can_ configure AVG to connect to the internet if you are on
dialup, but even this is a far inferior solution to the one used in Avast!

Rip off Fish

First, I guess you didn't read my post.  Second, in any *INDEPENDENT* tests
I have read, nothing else came close to Norton Antivirus for effectiveness.
There were two other links posted in this thread that will take you to sites
that will verify this.  On any machine that i have *EVER* used NAV on, I
have never had a virus.  On *EVERY* computer that I have used that had *ANY
OTHER* antivirus, I have had infections.  If you don't like Norton, then so
be it.  I don't care what your preferences are.  I know, from years of
experience, what works and what doesn't.  Hope you like manually chasing
after and deleting viruses and worms, cause that's what you'll be doing.

Bobby

NoNoBadDog then you should remove the hook that's inside
your mouth because you're a fish if you been using norton
for years . All those years getting rid off for paid such
a high price for Norton , while their is cheaper anti-
virus programs that do a better job . All i have to say
to you NoNoBadDog your're a FISH

ever be.  The closest

uneducated say about

other BS they spew.  I

testing I have ever

to detect viruses

is a perfect

survey that those

did,  I would be

product ever again   ....

doesn't hog the resource

using awhile ago I

So I move onto AVG

wood ....  I did like the

provide "Free" stuff

infected with a virus

in message

about it ...

favour of Avast!

Kaspersky 5.0?

Not an apologist.  Just know that it works, and the claims of bloat an using
large amounts of system resources are false.  I have it installed on all 5
of my home computers, and my small network of 23 computers at work.  The
only noticeable difference is that *some* files take a bit longer to open
because they are being scanned.  It uses almost no resources on any of my
computers.  AVG simply misses files that NAV finds.  It has never altered or
removed any files without first indicating what it wants to do, so that
point is moot.  The  "has no business touching " bit is a knee-jerk
statement at best, as NAV will not alter files just to alter files as your
post tries to suggest.  This whole "system usage" business is useless in
this discussion, as your "average user" does little to monitor and maintain
system health, therefore the often cited "system usage" is often
attributable to other issues as well.  A properly maintained system of
reasonable power (i.e. non celeron processor and with sufficient memory)
should and does not have problems with NAV.

I hope this discussion ends here, as you and I are obviously on opposite
sides of the fence.  You don't like their products, and I do. You state they
don't work, and I know that they do.  You are entitled to your opinion, as I
am to mine.  Life goes on.  But others read these posts and I just wanted to
shed some positive light on a product that I feel is worth consideration.

Bobby