David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com>
>
>> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk" <rhondalea@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>>> "SOG-1982" <sog82@army.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:1159456368.834799.269390@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 8 year-olds. And no, there is no danger in having multiple
>>>>>> antivirus applications on board your computer simultaneously.
>>>>>> Just avoid scanning at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF? You actually recommend people run more than one resident
>>>>> antivirus on the same pc?
>>>>
>>>> That's not what he wrote at all. Not even close.
>>>>
>>>>> That's a huge waste of system resources and
>>>>> good for conflicts. I suppose next you'll suggest two firewalls?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess this means no one should use Multi_AV, right? I'll let Dave
>>>> Lipman know. No need to thank me; I was happy to help.
>>>>
>>> I believe this is in reference to two fully installed anti virus
>>> applications.
>>
>> Actually, it had no real context at all. The guy threw it in at the
>> tail end as an afterthought.
>>
>>> The Multi AV Scanning Tool does NOT perform "On Access" scanning and
>>> thus can happily coexist with other fully installed AV applications
>>> performing "On Access" scanning.
>>
>> I know, Dave. I've used it. If you recall, I even defended
>> it--several months ago--in one of the Windows newsgroups when
>> someone was railing about how it had destroyed his data.
>>
>>> Generally speaking, it is contraindicated to have two anti virus
>>> applications installed and performing "On Access" scanning. One who
>>> is good with software and not a noob, may be able to have two fully
>>> installed anti virus applications installed but has tweaked both so
>>> they don't interfere with each other.
>>
>> Dustin's post was totally irrelevant, given the context of the
>> original post. That's the point.
>>
>
> Rhonda:
>
> I am NOT saying you don't know. Please don't take offense.
>
> I was responding to the text I saw and made what I thought were
> technical replies and comments for readers in general.

You do know, a "technical reply" would go over the head of Dustbin, so why
would you even try?