Vista RC1 x86 and Avast - not working

[paterianus]

I had no problem to install and run Avast! Home v. 4.7.871 on earlier Vista versions, but it doesn't work with the new Build 5536.
Any idea?

BTW, RC1 is 5600

[Tech]

BTW, RC1 is 5600

What do you mean?
Did you manage to install avast in a Vista RC1 5600 installation? 

[.: Mac :.]

From Igors Post It seems the ALWIL team i snot happy with Microsoft's RC1 build

Lets Hope Apple's beta of Leopard is not giving them as much trouble with the Mac Version

[paterianus]

BTW, RC1 is 5600

What do you mean?
Did you manage to install avast in a Vista RC1 5600 installation? 

I upgraded from 5472, not officially supported, but everything is working so far (except for avast).

[Tech]

I upgraded from 5472, not officially supported, but everything is working so far (except for avast).

5472?
Do you mean 5672?

[paterianus]

5472 was the release bulid before 5536 which was a quick, one week, test build before the offical release of RC1, build 5600.

[Vlk]

I can now announce that there will be a pre-release version of avast Home/Pro compatible with Vista RC1 available on Friday.


Thanks
Vlk

[Tech]

I can now announce that there will be a pre-release version of avast Home/Pro compatible with Vista RC1 available on Friday.

Thanks Vlk... I'll test it as soon as I can, I mean, if you're refering to a new *corrected* version of avast to work with the monster-wrong-Vista-RC1-5600 
Welcome back from your vacations 

[sZc]

...avast to work with the monster-wrong-Vista-RC1-5600 
...
...

I wouldn't go that far to call it "monster-wrong-Vista". Everything else works wonderful, and that "glitch" that happened with few antiviruses, as far as I can see Microsoft does not have to do anything to fix it. All those antiviruses that didn't or still don't work with latest Vista release, their developers need to apply some changes. Of course I am sure Microsoft knows exactly why they took that step, and it could be that it has to do something with how new OS will deal with security related applications and security threats as well.

It was always like that... You have to build your application accordingly to the OS requirements, not backwards.

AVG worked immediatelly as soon as it was installed on my end, so it must be that AVG developers counted with that from the beginning.

[DavidR]

Whilst I agree that application developers have to conform, but when major things are changed at such a critical time, you would at least expect MS to give the companies working with them to integrate important applications like AVs a heads up. Rather than find suddenly that things no longer work.

When this first reared its ugly head, and Alwil contacted MS it was thought the only problem was the hard coded block on a number of AVs avast included. No mention of the other issue that has now come to light during those enquiries with MS.

Well, Microsoft did something completely insane - they changed a prototype of a system exported function in Vista RC1. I guess it doesn't sound that bad to most of you, but it's really crazy - you are not expected to do that, ever, and certainly not in RC1 build!
It's like a pharmaceutical company changing the formula for their medicament, without changing its name, or actually telling anybody about it. So, everybody using the good old dosage, as they are used to, suddenly dies from overdose 

[sZc]

Whilst I agree that application developers have to conform, but when major things are changed at such a critical time, you would at least expect MS to give the companies working with them to integrate important applications like AVs a heads up. Rather than find suddenly that things no longer work.

Remember, Vista RC1 Build 5600 is not even public. They are still developing it and no one forces people to test it untill all these things are fixed. That's why it takes so long to release it. I am sure if they rushed it, everybody (ok, not everybody just those anti-MS dudes) would keep complaining and bitching about how unsecure another MS product is...

It takes a lot of work and a lot of planning, and I am sure we will see a lot more problems untill everything is fixed and works how it's supposed to work.

[Tech]

I wouldn't go that far to call it "monster-wrong-Vista".

I'm not an anti-MS, on contrary. You know that 

But in this particular case I believe and trust Igor - which called MS insane - and Vlk - which say sue MS - so...

Well, Microsoft did something completely insane - they changed a prototype of a system exported function in Vista RC1. I guess it doesn't sound that bad to most of you, but it's really crazy - you are not expected to do that, ever, and certainly not in RC1 build!
It's like a pharmaceutical company changing the formula for their medicament, without changing its name, or actually telling anybody about it. So, everybody using the good old dosage, as they are used to, suddenly dies from overdose 

So, even though the blocking of avast! driver was probably done by mistake or bug in Vista, the latest official build of avast! wouldn't work anyway in the RC1 build of Vista (it causes bluescreen, as some found a few posts above). I think Vlk will release an updated version when he comes back from holiday.

The bug will not be present in the real RC1 build. That is, the driver will NOT be blocked in Vista RC1, and avast WILL work.
I have this confirmed from MS (I had a phonecall with responsible people yesterday).
As a matter of fact, they were very polite, probably realizing that if this happened with a RELEASE build of Windows, we could actually SUE them for this!

[stmckin]

Public Release of RC1 is today (to everybody in public Beta 2) ... functional til June 1, 2007....

MS site outlining "Vista RC1 Antivirus Providers"
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/windowsvistaRC1AV.mspx

Again... Avast Guys, this is an emergency... I know about your announcement for Friday..... I read a buncha posts and I know it's not your fault about driver changes, lack of notification, and promises from MS you would be fixed... but it is what it is.....

[sZc]

...
...
As a matter of fact, they were very polite, probably realizing that if this happened with a RELEASE build of Windows, we could actually SUE them for this!

Tech, you are taking things out of their context... spot something inside Vlk's reply and you will see what he really said:

Quote by Vlk:

"...that if this happened with a RELEASE build of Windows, we could actually SUE them for this!..."

Well exactly what I wrote up there in my previous reply. It is NOT a Public Release

[Tech]

...
...
As a matter of fact, they were very polite, probably realizing that if this happened with a RELEASE build of Windows, we could actually SUE them for this!

Tech, you are taking things out of their context... spot something inside Vlk's reply and you will see what he really said:

"...that if this happened with a RELEASE build of Windows, we could actually SUE them for this!..."

Well exactly what I wrote up there in my previous reply. It is NOT a Public Release

Ok... you're right.
Igor speaks technically... and I agree with him in this point.