This will cycle through your system and continue from where it left off (when it starts again) if the system becomes active. If for some reason my system wasn't on, no big deal I will catch up on the next scheduled scan.Īnother option is the screensaver scan that will run when your system is inactive and the screensaver on. I have avast set to do a scheduled weekly Quick scan, set at a time and day that I know the computer will be on. If they were active files then the on-access file system shield would be scanning them before being created, modified, opened or executed. For the most part the on-demand scan is going to be scanning files that would be otherwise be dormant or inert.
With a resident on-access antivirus like avast, the need for frequent on-demand scans is much depreciated. Does anyone have any idea as to what could be causing this? The only significant thing that has changed on the computer was the signature database update. Scanning the folder manually takes 4 minutes, significantly less time, so this only applies while running a full system scan. Enabling or disabling Scan Whole Files makes no difference. No settings have been altered since the last scan. Scan Speed displays 6-10 MB per second, which is clearly false. Everything else is scanned at the usual pace. It normally doens't take 12 minutes to scan it but now it does. I noticed that Avast slows down while scanning the My Pictures folder, which has about 1000 picture files saved into it. I stopped the scan and tried a second one. It has been running for over 14 minutes, and it barely got through the My Documents folder, which usually takes 1-2 minutes to complete. When I ran a scan today, I noticed that it takes unusually long. Heuristics sensitivity is set to High, Scan for PUP's is enabled, Scan Whole Files is disabled - these are the settings I always scan with, unless I enable Scan Whole Files. I usually run a full system scan at least once a day, the duration of which is between 18 and 23 minutes. I tried to look this up but apparently nobody else encountered this problem.
0 kommentar(er)
