"Drew" wrote in message ...

On 3/31/2014 9:23 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:12:21 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"

wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:54:52 -0700, Drew wrote:

On 3/30/2014 4:37 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:20:33 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:52:59 -0700, Drew
wrote:


OK, that makes sense to me, although I still respectfully disagree. To
be a bit more fair, I'll tell you my thinking.

My thinking is specific to antimalware. Malware keeps changing, since
there are a lot of people out there having fun at your expense and mine.

So antimalware programs need to keep changing as well. In particular, as
the approaches taken by the malware programmers change, some new
exploits can't be handled by simply changing the malware definitions,
and require new algorithms in the code to cover the new behavior.

So updating antimalware programs is very prudent, in my book.

+1 to all of that. Well said, Gene.

I guess part of it was frustration from at one time allowing Avast to
install (extra's?) to its program and was constantly being bombarded with
"Update this" and "clean up this" and so I probably overreacted due to
serious time constraints lately. I normally would keep any anti virus and
anti malware programs (not just definitions) updated at all times but as I
said. Now that I have received some wise advice I have taken it and done
something about it. My sincere Thanks to all respondants. Malwarebytes as
well as Avast are fully updated and all is back to normal. Hardware
firewall as well as software firewall doing what they are supposed to as
well. Once again "Thank you!!!"

Glad to hear it.

--
Buffalo