AGH1965

I always log on using a standard user account and I'm used to fill in the password of the adminstrator account when an UAC dialog appears. Are you saying that this isn't possible anymore?

If you can do this for features, then why not do it for bugs as well? Reducing the time thresholds that the as soon as possible option of the scheduler uses when scheduled scans are missed consecutively, is very simple to do and therefore cheap. It would not fix the as soon as possible option, but it would make it much easier to accept. So I suggest you treat this proposal as a feature request and then it can be implemented soon.

It would be much more logical if ESET customer care employees would watch this forum thoroughly and create support tickets themselves for everything more serious than an assumption.

Using the scheduler for scans wasn't my own idea. Please see the note at the bottom of this support page. So ESET advices to scan at least once a month and the link in the note shows how to configure the scheduler for a weekly scan with "as soon as possible" option activated. That is exactly what I did when I discovered the scheduler problems. (Only for testing the scheduler I switched to daily scheduled scans.)

@Marcos, why if necessary? I'm not the only person who reported scheduler problems. Also a very much appreciated forum member named @itman did. Why do I have to do something to make ESET fix a problem that was reported by several people at this forum? So ESET simply ignores the information received from customers at this forum?

@Marcos It's a pity that you didn't reply. Please explain me why the scheduler of v12.2.23.0 was modified in such manner that the already existing problem became larger instead of smaller. I do understand why the scheduler may not be fixed before v14, but if that is the case, then please undo its modification of v12.2.23.0. However, an acceptable compromise could be making a similar modification as made in v12.2.23.0 but then in the opposite direction. For example: Reduce the threshold for missed daily scans, which was 23 hours and is 24 hours now, down to 4 hours. That still will no

Thanks for your reply, but it doesn't make sense. If someone is able to increase the threshold for daily scans from 23 to 24 hours, then that person must also be able to reduce it to (almost) 0 hours. So what is the problem? You suggested that already in the other topic. Personally I don't like the command line scanner. I would prefer triggering the normal scanner from the command line, but that is a missing feature.

In December I started a topic about the as soon as possible option of the scheduler. Unfortunately that topic has been closed. So I can't add any new comments. You can find the original topic here: link Apparently ESET modified the as soon as option of the scheduler of EIS version 12.2.23.0, but unfortunately the problem hasn't been fixed. Here are my findings: If consecutive scheduled daily scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 24 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it

@Sammo Why do you think it is protected after renaming?

As soon as possible may mean as soon as possible for ESET, but certainly not for EIS. So now ESET knows what to do: Make as soon as possible also mean as soon as possible for EIS by removing the unwanted thresholds (23 hours for daily tasks and 6 days and 23 hours for weekly tasks) from the scheduler. I'm looking forward to version 12.2...

Indeed, I think that this is exactly what ESET intended with the scheduler. So weekly is considered much more important than the configured day and time. It would be nice if our ESET representative would confirm that. So the main thing that is wrong is naming the option "as soon as possible", because that is certainly not what it does.

Support ticket? Why? What is the use of this forum if you don't use it as input for improving your products? Both itman and I gave enough information for any decent software tester to find out what is wrong. Besides, some of the behavior seems very deliberate. (For example the 23 hours or the 6 days and 23 hours.) Personally I think the scheduler does what was intented by the programmers. So probably it is no bug but a misunderstood feature. This forum could be very helpful explaining customers why the product behaves the way it does and what the intentions of the programmers were. Why don't y

Here some more results: If consecutive scheduled daily scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 23 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is. If consecutive scheduled weekly scans can't run at the scheduled time, then the scan will only be done as soon as possible if the previous scan was at least 6 days and 23 hours ago. If that is not the case yet, then EIS will wait until it is. In my opinion this is not how it should be! For example: A scan is scheduled to r

Also in my case this solved the problem. Thanks! It is quite a coincidence though, that both TomFace's computer scan log and mine stopped working in the beginning of April.

Aren't the rules checked from top to bottom until one is applicable?