Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: sybex on October 27, 2012, 09:15:08 AM
-
Hiya the Avast team,
I am a computer tech/IT Consultant and for many years now I have recommended and installed the paid version of Avast on new builds, repairs or just when clients ask me to recommend an antivirus program be it for their business or home computers.
Disturbingly over the last 12 months or so Avast seems to be going the way Norton did (Lets face it Norton had the market years ago then went crazy trying to add every feature and scan it could and turned itself into "bloatware", in a relatively short time technicians began to hate it, had to either uninstall or at the very least disable Norton to be able to repair/diagnose the computers with a notable amount of problems (both performance and program conflict) caused by Norton itself, most importantly they stopped recommending and installing it)
Businesses, and home users for that matter, especially in today's economy cant justify or afford to replace computers every 3 yrs (how many are still running XP), so although its nice to have every bell and whistle there is, its (IMHO) far better to have a program that protects while still using the least amount of resources and time to monitor activities, so it doesn't significantly affect performance.
So my request or at least something for you to think about is, fine have an antivirus program for the people with the latest and greatest computer but also don't forget the loyal customers who don't have the latest and greatest, provide a cut down? (maybe call it Avast Slim?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.
Please take this as intended, as constructive criticism from us guys out there on the front line, nothing is worse than recommending and then installing Avast only to see the performance of the computers go through the floor.
rgds
Syb
-
If you're trying to imply that avast! is bloatware, you're greatly mistaken. I also don't know what extra components do you mean are considered bloatware. All the shields? In fact its just the way how are they displayed separately. In reality, they are basically 1 single shield just broken down into dedicated shields for additional customization. Only unnecessary stuff with avast! are the widget and the Chrome browser. And that's it. Auto Sandbox and Sandbox are rather essential components now...
Bloat is when you start adding useless registry cleaners, all sorts of disk scrubbers that remove junk files, defragmenters etc etc. avast! doesn't have any of that.
-
hmm,
First I am very surprised there was not a reply from the programmers!! hmm we are your users, your bread and butter!! if you don't listen to those out there on the front line, well you have serious problems, do you really think you know it all? are you so naive and self centered that you think that every ones opinion is worthless compared to your own? that your users, who buy your software are not even worth talking to or even listening to?
Secondly look at AVG, it is a classic example of "bloatware" having a serious affect on the performance of computers it is installed to!! you want to go that track? well guess what its the road to destruction, grow up!! you don't know everything, if you don't heed the feedback from your users you will be no more, you will go the road that Norton's did.
users are fickle, but smart, present them with software that makes them look bad or seriously affect the performance of their computer they will leave in droves!!!
rgds
syb
-
I think you have serious problem understanding the definition of word "Bloated". AVG might be to some degree as they fill it with useless garbage like TuneUp thing and speed measurement etc. avast! doesn't have any of that and as such it's not bloatware in any way.
-
hi sybex,
Sorry you feel the way you do, at least for the moment anyway.
As you know, what used to be called bloatware was a program install that required a download of 100 Mb or more, or a large cd install, and took up 200-300 Mb when installed. Back when hard drives were only 1-2GB in size, this was a significant hit to free space, but now, what with 1-2 TB drives available, not so much.
I define bloatware now as a program having too many, and unnecessary, features. It is not defined in how much space it actually takes up on the hard drive as it was in the past. Unnecessary features would be functions or options the average user would never use; I do not see Avast! having such unnecessary features or options built into it. All the features built into the free version are necessary and needed.
The job of securing a system against malicious malware is very complex, and at times, very daunting. Every feature included in Avast! free is necessary and needed at one time or another (except for WebRep) to fend off the myriad ways malware will attempt to enter your system.
It is just that the paid versions have additional features for additional protection. As you say, some older systems cannot run the paid versions as well as the newer ones can.
As for providing an Avast! slim version, we already have that.
It is called Avast! Free, and it comes without the bells and whistles of the paid Pro and Suite versions.
Please do not mistake the title under my user name for my actually representing Avast! as a corporate representative; or think I got that title due to the fact that the more posts I make the higher the title or that I have earned this title on that basis alone.
An Avast! Evangelist is that in name only; I am not an employee of Avast! now or have I ever been such. We do have Avast! employees drop in here from time to time, user Tech is one of them.
Some of the frustration you may feel may come from having clients that will not move to faster and more capable systems; know that Avast! still supports Windows 2000 SP4 Rollup 1. But support for Win 2000 will end sometime in the future, and the same will be true for XP. Until then, we need to find a solution users of older systems can be happy with, not to mention older OS's are more vulnerable as well.
-
provide a cut down? (maybe call it Avast Slim?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.
you get that if you do a custom install, and deselect what you do not want
-
Hiya the Avast team,
I am a computer tech/IT Consultant and for many years now I have recommended and installed the paid version of Avast on new builds, repairs or just when clients ask me to recommend an antivirus program be it for their business or home computers.
Disturbingly over the last 12 months or so Avast seems to be going the way Norton did (Lets face it Norton had the market years ago then went crazy trying to add every feature and scan it could and turned itself into "bloatware", in a relatively short time technicians began to hate it, had to either uninstall or at the very least disable Norton to be able to repair/diagnose the computers with a notable amount of problems (both performance and program conflict) caused by Norton itself, most importantly they stopped recommending and installing it)
Businesses, and home users for that matter, especially in today's economy cant justify or afford to replace computers every 3 yrs (how many are still running XP), so although its nice to have every bell and whistle there is, its (IMHO) far better to have a program that protects while still using the least amount of resources and time to monitor activities, so it doesn't significantly affect performance.
So my request or at least something for you to think about is, fine have an antivirus program for the people with the latest and greatest computer but also don't forget the loyal customers who don't have the latest and greatest, provide a cut down? (maybe call it Avast Slim?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.
Please take this as intended, as constructive criticism from us guys out there on the front line, nothing is worse than recommending and then installing Avast only to see the performance of the computers go through the floor.
rgds
Syb
Sybex.
Interesting comments.
I think,in this day and age there is a tendency to add more bells and whistles to every update to try and stay in front of the opposition.
The result of this is that the program becomes more unreliable until those problems are sorted.
I don't think Avast can be accused of adding Bloatware.The updates are necessary to deal with the current Malware that plagues us
I do think,however,that more testing should be done before these updates are issued.
I have a love,hate relationship with Avast but it is still the best.
I would rather there are less updates but fine tune the present program.
Regards
-
provide a cut down? (maybe call it Avast Slim?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.
you get that if you do a custom install, and deselect what you do not want
By the way, it's impossible deselect some components in a custom install (e.g. AutoSandbox, Cloud Services)...
-
By the way, it's impossible deselect some components in a custom install (e.g. AutoSandbox, Cloud Services)...
Some components could only be disabled but need to be installed.
What's the advantage of disabling autosandbox and cloud services is out of my mind...
-
Interesting enough I found that avast! AIS 7 actually rendered web pages noticeably faster in Firefox with a ton of extensions when using W8-RP than with Windows Defender in W8-RP which is actually Microsft Security Essentials reworked to be compatible with W8. WD for W8 is about as slimmed down an anti-malware program as you are going to find with regard to features. I used WD in W8-DP, W8-CP and W8-RP. When I finally got around to replacing WD with avast! AIS 7 I ran a Full System Scan on both of my computers using WD in W8 and they came up clean.
Since then I have downgraded to W7-SP1
When I upgrade to from W7-SP1 to W8 RTM I will keep using avast! AIS 7 rather than WD primarily because I found it is lighter on my system with regard to browsing in Firefox. Is avast! AIS more secure? Could be, but like I said it found no Malware after using WD for W8 for at least six months. I can't speak to Google Chrome or IE in W7-SP1 or W8 since I do not use normally use them. Once in a while I do use IE since some websites are still not compatible with Firefox. Not too many anymore but there are still some.
-
i think this boy need a job.
-
i think this boy need a job.
Better to not have to work. I highly recommend it to anyway who can afford not to have to work.
-
Some components could only be disabled but need to be installed.
What's the advantage of disabling autosandbox and cloud services is out of my mind...
You removed my comment from the context. Of course those components can be disabled, but it's a whole another story. AutoSandbox doesn't need to be installed, but for some reason it's impossible to deselect it in a custom install.
-
The autosandbox is more of an integration with the File System Shield than a stand alone shield, perhaps that is why it doesn't feature in the custom scan elements.
If you look at the Additional Protection, AutoSandbox, just click the Settings button and it takes you to the File System Shield Expert Settings on a tab for the AutoSandbox.
-
Some components could only be disabled but need to be installed.
What's the advantage of disabling autosandbox and cloud services is out of my mind...
You removed my comment from the context. Of course those components can be disabled, but it's a whole another story. AutoSandbox doesn't need to be installed, but for some reason it's impossible to deselect it in a custom install.
Some components are integral part of the program and you cannot remove them without crippling it entirely.
-
user_1000, RejZoR answered it for me...
Some components are integral part of the program and you cannot remove them without crippling it entirely.
-
user_1000, RejZoR answered it for me...
Some components are integral part of the program and you cannot remove them without crippling it entirely.
Tech, I don't know why you want to argue about this... but most likely it's not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install.
Case is already closed and this is offtopic.
-
Tech, I don't know why you want to argue about this... but most likely it's not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install.
I'm not arguing. I'm not an avast programmer.
Just saying that some parts of avast! are required for the proper working. Maybe they're not eligible.
-
This thread and some of the comments have me starting to think about the question of who fuels change on the Internet? Is it the customer? Is it the developer? Is there another element that fuels change? Can we always argue that change is because of technological advancement?
I'm not a young fella, so I can recall when it was a good thing to be especially careful of how one took care of that 55 Chevy and made it last 10 years or more.
But that thinking seems to be totally at odds with what we are being taught/told on the Internet. We seem to be hearing/reading that a computer is garbage after 3 or 4 years. That an OS is unsafe after 3 or 4 years. The same for a browser. Why is that?
What happened to pride in taking good care of something and making it last a long time? Even computer hardware and software? Why is "change" now taken for granted? How can "change" keep speeding up without eating itself? Without overrunning itself?
-
Hi ManyQs,
As the OP has yet to respond to the numerous comments regarding the 'bloatware' (edit: he says) that is now Avast!, this may be a new topic for you to open, albeit in the General Category section, with you as the originating poster. Nothing wrong with what you posted, but that idea about change might be better dealt with over there. Good questions otherwise.
We have many highly qualified users here; many of them are in the IT industry or are retired. Certainly, the window of opportunity to learn a lot is present here.
Research (Google) 'Murphy's Law' to get an idea of why this happens, tho.
-
The thing is, it's not bloated. In fact 90% of ppl scream at things t be bloated that aren't even close to that state. Ppl think that more features automatically means bloat. Or slightly higher resource usage. You can have shitloads of features and in case of AV, if they are all security related, that's not bloat. High resoure usage is also not bloat. Bloat is when you stick loads of basically randomly picked unrelated features and stuff them into one app. Thats what bloat is.
-
Edited above post to make it a little clearer.
Every function in Avast! is needed and works together to increase protection and security. That is not 'bloatware' to me.
-
mchain, I would like very much to be able to start such a thread in that section, but I was under the impression that section was for board related topics.
Maybe we could stretch that by indicating the subject sort of came up elsewhere on the board?
By the way, the only Murphy's Law I am familiar with is the one we were cited in our early days of helicopter flight school. "Our" referring to us WOCs. Draftees, many of us. Not sure I understand what that has to do with taking good care of one's property and making it last for a long time.
-
Tech, I don't know why you want to argue about this... but most likely it's not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install.
I'm not arguing. I'm not an avast programmer.
Just saying that some parts of avast! are required for the proper working. Maybe they're not eligible.
Of course you're not an Avast programmer. Nobody has claimed so, but you're still repeating that same sentence... "some parts of avast! are required for the proper working".
Yes, of course that's true, but as I said... most likely it's not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install. That is just my personal opinion, so there is no need to argue about that. ;)
Tech, If you still want to argue with me, please use a private message instead. ;D
-
'Quote Snip'
But that thinking seems to be totally at odds with what we are being taught/told on the Internet. We seem to be hearing/reading that a computer is garbage after 3 or 4 years. That an OS is unsafe after 3 or 4 years. The same for a browser. Why is that?
Well I speak from personal experience. I am using XP OS that was purchased in 2002 so that makes my laptop 10+ years old and functions as smooth and safe as the day I purchased it.
And I'll continue running XP as long as possible. I have had no viruses/malware or any unwanted "stuff" infection since 2003. Keep the OS updated, the installed software updated and "read before you Click"
I don't believe for one second an OS becomes unsafe with age...........It becomes unsafe with "stupidity" and lack of Good Internet practices.
IMHO ;) :)
-
mchain, ...
By the way, the only Murphy's Law I am familiar with is the one we were cited in our early days of helicopter flight school. "Our" referring to us WOCs. Draftees, many of us. Not sure I understand what that has to do with taking good care of one's property and making it last for a long time.
...Research (Google) 'Murphy's Law' to get an idea of why this happens, tho.
Shoot, I meant Moore's Law instead, as it is a relevant enterprise/commercial practice for computer hardware innovation and progress.
Thanks for pointing that out, ManyQs. My bad here. Sorry about any confusion.
-
Oh yes, Moore's Law. I should have thought of that. Old brain doesn't work quite as well, if it ever did work well.
Yep, that one I'm familiar with, too. In fact, that came up just recently in a tech piece on possibly the BBC site. Not sure, but some writer type made some reference to that Moore fella. That wasn't too long ago and maybe I can find that. May have notes on that bit of writing.
Anyway, thank you for the correction. Sorry I didn't think of that myself. Really should have. The Murphy reference certainly had me perplexed while I had time to consider it. But you brought back a few old memories of those days way back when life was really, really weird. And not just mine. That was a weird, weird world back then. But sliding off-topic and best stop before the forum police give me a ticket for driving outside the lines.
-
'Quote Snip'
But that thinking seems to be totally at odds with what we are being taught/told on the Internet. We seem to be hearing/reading that a computer is garbage after 3 or 4 years. That an OS is unsafe after 3 or 4 years. The same for a browser. Why is that?
Well I speak from personal experience. I am using XP OS that was purchased in 2002 so that makes my laptop 10+ years old and functions as smooth and safe as the day I purchased it.
And I'll continue running XP as long as possible. I have had no viruses/malware or any unwanted "stuff" infection since 2003. Keep the OS updated, the installed software updated and "read before you Click"
I don't believe for one second an OS becomes unsafe with age...........It becomes unsafe with "stupidity" and lack of Good Internet practices.
IMHO ;) :)
I have the same setup as schmidthouse, and have absolutely no complaints.
-
Okay, I haven't had much time to dig into my notes, or check for older articles and such, but just off the top of my head I can think of this:
Microsoft won't allow XP users to install IE9 and I know for sure that we have seen posted on this site that older browsers aren't as safe as newer ones. I'm sure a lot of you folks have read that on other tech sites, as well.
So if users of XP are stuck with IE8 and don't want Chrome or other choices there is a problem, right?
And then we might consider this business that Microsoft chooses not to support XP users anymore. There's no security risk there?
I'm just shooting from the hip at the moment. Been busy and haven't had time to dig up sources. Sorry.
-
@ ManyQs
The URL in your signature gives me the following warning:
(http://puu.sh/1nRR7)
(The warning comes from TrafficLight)
-
Okay, I haven't had much time to dig into my notes, or check for older articles and such, but just off the top of my head I can think of this:
Microsoft won't allow XP users to install IE9 and I know for sure that we have seen posted on this site that older browsers aren't as safe as newer ones. I'm sure a lot of you folks have read that on other tech sites, as well.
So if users of XP are stuck with IE8 and don't want Chrome or other choices there is a problem, right?
And then we might consider this business that Microsoft chooses not to support XP users anymore. There's no security risk there?
I'm just shooting from the hip at the moment. Been busy and haven't had time to dig up sources. Sorry.
My husband's computer is Windows XP and he has IE9.
-
Okay, I haven't had much time to dig into my notes, or check for older articles and such, but just off the top of my head I can think of this:
Microsoft won't allow XP users to install IE9 and I know for sure that we have seen posted on this site that older browsers aren't as safe as newer ones. I'm sure a lot of you folks have read that on other tech sites, as well.
So if users of XP are stuck with IE8 and don't want Chrome or other choices there is a problem, right?
And then we might consider this business that Microsoft chooses not to support XP users anymore. There's no security risk there?
I'm just shooting from the hip at the moment. Been busy and haven't had time to dig up sources. Sorry.
My husband's computer is Windows XP and he has IE9.
I highly doubt it:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/forum/ie9-windows_other/ie9-for-xp-why-doesnt-internet-explorer-9-work-on/e8113f20-b149-4763-b4d4-562d1da524b6 (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/forum/ie9-windows_other/ie9-for-xp-why-doesnt-internet-explorer-9-work-on/e8113f20-b149-4763-b4d4-562d1da524b6)
-
@ ManyQs
The URL in your signature gives me the following warning:
(http://puu.sh/1nRR7)
(The warning comes from TrafficLight)
I appreciate the feedback, bob3160, but were you informed as to what exactly that company found? Thank you.
-
These scans show clean.
http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=125581
https://www.virustotal.com/url/47742db532a97885c1649720438fd4e0c86423612b7ec2b5884bdc49a901eb0c/analysis/1352439803/
http://www.urlvoid.com/scan/speakezforums.com/
http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/speakezforums.com
http://vscan.novirusthanks.org/analysis/646f63fd0d9c76ce4f8927b931687d08/c3BlYWtlemZvcnVtcy1jb20=/
Scanned with ipvoid and came up with this -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=208.100.54.31
Scan on 5/13/2012 showed detected. New scan 11/9/2012 shows clean.
-
Thank you for checking and posting, Charyb.
Actually, I received some similar feedback a few days ago before that which was posted by bob3160, but I only had time to do some quick checking into that TrafficLight product and what I thought I was seeing was they had to install something on my computer for me to get any results and at that time I didn't have time to check into the company and its reputation and all that necessary research, so I had to move on.
I'm hoping to make some time this weekend to do more research on those TrafficLight folks and what they do and all.
But I'd never heard or read that anyone saw that website as a danger, so something may not be quite right at TrafficLight, or they have found something nobody else has found and it really is a danger but is too sneaky to have been caught by anyone else, including Avast.
But I sure appreciate the extra effort for checking and posting that, Charyb. Thank you.
-
Your welcome.
I don't normally spend this much time looking. There are usually others who know what to look for and can locate the problem.
If you didn't know, Trafficlight is by BitDefender.
I posted in their forum asking them to check for a false positive. I will let you know when I hear something on this.
Edit: No response on their forum yet but the detection has been removed.