All systems are active and running!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1 :-TU


You don’t need that. avast, for instance, let it everything to be configurated by user. Flexibility!

[attachment deleted by admin]

Don’t need what?What is “that” in your post?

“be nagged because I set up the program to run different to the default settings”

Well, then it’s similar to CIS’s behavior.

No, it’s not. With avast you can configure which shields must warn the user, one by one.
CIS shows green even when shields are disabled. You can’t configure anything.

Yes, but if You disable them, it’s normal to show green, right?They are not corrupted, but stopped by user.Because he wanted to.

No. Choose other color. How would we know if “we” disabled it or any “malware” disabled/messed it?

For sure, if it is corrupted, the green color can’t be used also.

There are two streams here and the GUI is really only dealing with one of them.

Stream 1 is from Comodo’s perspective - all systems are “up and running” because the applications components are installed and connected to the O/S in the manner intended by the manufacturer - connected, not necessarily active (important distinction).

Stream 2 is from the users perspective - CIS is installed but I have intentionally disabled one or more components - from my perspective not all things are “up and running” - where running means capable of and able to interact at the user level of the O/S.

While I can understand stream 1’s side of things, I would have thought that the primary purpose of a GUI is to enable interaction from the user and to report activity to the user AT THE USER LEVEL OF THE INTERFACE.

Maybe the answer is to have two icons - one for system reporting (the one we have now) and a second for user reporting showing which of the installed components are currently disabled. Call them System Status and User Status, call them System Mode and User Mode, call them whatever.

It doesn’t matter what they’re called, but I think there needs to be a distinction between what Comodo sees and what the user expects and these two divergent streams need two separate displays.

There is sufficient space in the GUI for a second symbol and, I suspect, sufficient demand.

Jusy my $0.02.

Ewen :slight_smile:

panic, I agree with the two perspectives.
avast solved that with a configuration of what would be monitored.
I think the user should see “red” if anything, from manufacturer perspective, is going wrong OR if the program is not running as it was set to run from user perspective.
The problem is shown green in one of these perspectives.

I really think a second icon is confusing. The user should see “red” if anything is wrong with the program itself. There is no need for a second icon showing green from manufacturer perspective (the manufacturer is not seeing my interface…) imho.

I agree! the second icon will be totally confusing

“Wrong” from whose perspective??

If a user disables the AV, there is still, technically, nothing wrong with the program itself. Think of it this way - if I choose to disable autosave in MS Word, does this mean MS Word is now “wrong”. I don’t think so. It just means it’s still operational, just not at its default installed status.

Having said that, I really believe that there needs to be some form of user notification that a component has been disabled. I just don’t know what form that notification should take and whether the current notification should remain.

Still thinking.

Ewen :slight_smile:

Windows security center gives a very clear notification, isn’t it?:))
So, why do we need another one?

[attachment deleted by admin]

Lol, it’s not like i’ve said so many times… You’re looking at this issue from YOUR point of view. But if you sit a regular Joe in front a computer with CIS installed, he WILL be confused. Oooooooh, Windows Security Center is saying i have my antivirus disabled. But Comodo says everything is fine. Oooooh oh.
That’s why this IS problematic even if it’s so called “by design”. It’s not like it has to switch to red. Yellow is still good for getting users attention, yet it doesn’t mean something is horrifically wrong. It’s just partially wrong…

Of any… If the manufacturer sees a problem. There is a problem regardless of the user.
If the user disables a shield, it should be “remembered” that there is something lower in his protection status.

You’re comparing apples with oranges.
Word does not need to be resident and running all the time.
Only firewall and antimalware need that (talking for most users).

Agree with you. The user must be warned (or, like avast did, not warned if the user explicitly set so).


Let’s put this issue a bit in perspective, especially considering non-professional users:

Let’s not forget that the majority of users are superficial. This is due to them being constantly bombarded by information (ads, pop-ups, balloon tips, etc.) so there is minimal time to grab their attention and they also want to get all the info as fast and as easy as possible.
If they see a nice green shield, they will assume all is fine. If Windows or Comodo then starts alerting them to issues about systems not running, they’ll only get annoyed and will call their admin about how bad the software is and such. Admin guys will get fed up after some time and will dump Comodo because it is misleading and causes a lot of service calls. I am sure this is not what Comodo wants to achieve.

All in all, I am quite surprised I am even seeing a discussion about this. Such software should be intuitive and easy to use and understand from day zero and also for a common user. For sure implementing a ‘yellow shield’ would not take more time and effort than even reading through these 3 pages of posts…

what perspective? all systems are active when it is not active, it is disabled and disabled means non active, i think Comodo crew should change this, If people chose to install particular component then if something (anything/anyone) disable it, CIS should notify end user about that, at the end it could be disabled by malware :o (theoretically) ;D

Green is ok (from all perspectives).
Yellow is something fishy.
Red is problem.

If Comodo is a good software (it does not get corrupt, the manufacturer perspective will always be green). If the user is a common one (he won’t change the default settings) and everything is green.
If the software alerts too much there is a problem with the software or with the user.
The actual scheme is contraintuitive.

I think that perhaps comodo should consider the users opinion…ok, they say: “Don’ worry man, the shield will remain always green because of our prospective, that is a little different from the your one. So you can configure comodo IS as you want (turning off everything you want) and nothing will happen…no annoying pop ups or yellow/red symbols on the main unterface…, if something very bad happens (a malware disables the AV module, Firewall module etc…) you’ll be alerted by Windows”.
Problem is that windows is not so safe as you know ;D
And if the Windows security center detects an anomaly, it alerts you by a little, yellow, insignificant pop up on the right corner of your desktop…unless you open the security center from control panel (I’m talking about XP, I don’t know well vista and seven) and see what’s happening by yourself…And then, consider the confusion generated by a contraddictory signals: Windows says “There’s a problem, fix it” an Comodo says “Don’t worry everythin is enabled and running”. Perhaps, I’d trust Comodo…and not Windows ehehe ;D


That’s the main point imho.