Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: RejZoR on October 16, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
-
Ok, so complaints over this matter are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day. I'll explain it here why avast! team decided to do so and what is my personal technical opinion on this matter.
Users are complaining that they were forcibly updated and that avast! team doesn't have the right to do that. Well, that is actually incorrect. They do have every right to do so and they did so for a very good reason. Let me explain why.
Do you really expect avast! team to fix version 7 and release updates for it when it has been long ago superseded by v8 which has also been superseded by v9 which will soon be superseded by version v10 very soon? It's a 3 generations old version which apart from signature updates will NOT receive any program updates or fixes ANYMORE. If it works fine for you then great, if it doesn't, only way to resolve that is to update to the latest version. And if latest version still has the same issue, then you have every right to demand a fix from the developer because you are using the latest version which still has that issue. As for the forced updates to latest version, if you haven't bothered to update your product to the latest build of that major version back then, then you will be forcibly updated to the latest version (currently v9 aka v2014). If you do have the latest version of that major version (latest build released for v7), then you will be left alone to continue using it for the time being. It's how they decided to run old versions and you can only accept it or leave it. There is no other way around it.
The reason for such decision is that they will only provide technical support for latest versions of each major release. Because also supporting every single build in between is an administrative nightmare that no one would ever be able to solve or satisfy the users that are using them. And also because every new release which brings new protection features also needs to have a fallback so that all the signature detections for current version also work with all the older versions. And same applies to the entire cloud infrastructure. It has to be backward compatible with older versions to a degree that allows them normal operation. But doing so too extensively causes heavy complications and high costs while holding back quick progress for current version because tehy also have to take old versions into account. And that is just a bad and expensive way to run such business, from financial/manpower aspect and also protection aspect.
If current latest version 2014 doesn't satisfy your needs or you feel like it's not operating as it should, then do so. Ask questions, request fixes, avast! team will respond to that and try to resolve it. Because it is the latest version and they have the requirement to maintain it in the best possible way and they will.
If i've been updating avast! to the very latest versions on every single release since year 2004 when i started using it and had absolutely no issues with it on several systems, then i find it very unlikely that your system is somehow that different. Because when it is, from my experience, there are deeper problems with that particular system that just reflect all the issues through other installed software which can also include antivirus like avast!. And users naturally then blame the antivirus, even though i'm quite confident to say it would turn out it isn't after deeper inspection. Been there, seen that too many times and not just with avast! but also with NVIDIA drivers, even entire OS (Vista back in the days) etc.
Just update to the latest version and if there are problems, we and the avast! team will be happy to try and help you until the problems are resolved. You'll soon learn to appreciate that and you will also start to like the latest version(s).
-
Thanks for having the patience to write it down :)
-
Many people have "complained" (as you call it, Rejzor... I would call it doing exactly what you then go on to tell them to do in your own post - that is TO TELL AVAST and request fixes), but the "complaint" is that they don't want avast forcing an update to THEIR computer. Someone forcing something upon you that you do not want and did not ask for is immoral and unethical... (that's what us earthlings call it Lisandro, maybe because you think you might be on Mars you don't understand that).
Plain and simple solution...
broadcast a message and say as of such a date (a couple of months out) this version will no longer be supported, here are your options... update, use another AV or understand no updates will be sent to this older version any longer (not even definitions)
See that... simple.
They have everyone's email address to send an email to... they have the ability to broadcast messages to the computer... but instead a method is chosen that is invasive and locks up people's computers and when they come on the forum to express their anger, they are told quit complaining, avast has the right to do this and even though many valid reasons have been told why they don't want to... ignore them, demean them, show a complete lack of understanding or willingness to work them... that's the motto here...
Lisandro... Rejzor having "patience" to write it down... really? Is it "your job" to maybe have written that yourself? If it isn't your job then if I have to choose between someone from Avast not saying anything (which is the norm) or saying sarcastic one liners, then please you are really making your company look worse then they already do with your lack of "patience" when people have legitimate concerns.
Hey I got a joke for you... What's the difference between Avast and an unethical hacker? Well a hacker goes into your computer and does things that cause your computer to lock up and Avast... well... they... ummmm... hmmmm... guess I need to work on the punchline ::)
-
And yet you go on and grind the same thing as everyone did in all the threads. Read my post again and do so continuously until you'll finally understand it. Don't like the way they run backward support, then go with a competitor's product. And sooner or later you'll experience the exact same thing. Calling them unethical because they want to protect you the best way they can is just plain ridiculous.
Broadcasting some message won't solve anything because it has been proven countless times that people don't read them and they just want them to "go away" so they can do whatever they were doing.
-
On a side note.
Basically, they are all complaining that avast is protecting their systems in the best way possible.
And that is exactly what they have asked avast to do.
-
That's the reason why i don't understand them at all. They haven't removed stuff, they have only added it. And all of it is either removable or configurable. Plus it offers better protection. So why are they fighting that off so desperately is beyond me. Apparently just for the sake of it even without giving the very latest version a proper chance. Because if they would, they'd soon find out they are superior.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing with your strawman explanation.
The problem you keep conveniently ignoring is that the people should have been notified ahead of time so that they could have prepared or went elsewhere if necessary.
and as for this:
Broadcasting some message won't solve anything because it has been proven countless times that people don't read them and they just want them to "go away" so they can do whatever they were doing.
Are you actually trying to argue that because some people in a group may ignore a message it is justifiable to not notify the whole??
As with the Google chrome offer in the Avast program update - if at least they were informed that it was going to be included, and they failed to decline, they don't have the same justification for outrage that they would have if they were not told before hand at all.
So, as a final attempt to try to hold you to point:
No one argues with the manifesto you wrote
The problem is that they did it with out notifying anyone ahead of time so that people could take whatever measures they deemed necessary!
-
Notification to prepare for what? They'll just be dismissing that message or forget about it and when the D day would arrive they'd complain about it just the same.
-
Fine - notify anyway.
Then those who had legitimate issues would have had a chance to prepare.
and if for whatever reason they failed to do so, Avast and the rest of us could say that they were warned ahead of time, and refer them to the reason why it was done.
-
Just give the latest version a chance and you'll see it's no boogeyman.
I recommend that you remove avast!, use avast! Uninstall Utility and install latest version clean and fresh.
You can also use this config that i made:
http://rejzor.wordpress.com/avast-protection-tweaks/
Which makes avast! less intrusive, with high performance and more security. I'm also preparing for final release of v2015 where i'll make this config again, specifically for that version.
Works like a charm on any system from low end to top end.
-
All this is intellectual masturbation for hide the bottom of the problem:
YOU (AVAST) have NO RIGHT to change the contents of OURS computers without our permission! And I'm sure this could be subject of complaints to courts!
-
They have no right, but you use THEIR program. You all keep on forgetting that over and over again. Who says they don't have the right to do that? They designed it and they have every right in the world to do that. If you don't like it, move on. It's that simple and they frankly won't cry after 5 lost users who just can't deal with it.
If you use the latest version but not the very latest build, they will not enforce anything on you if you have updating set to MANUAL. If you have an old version, they will if it's required by them due to backend infrastructure.
-
cfz (and others), stop whining like little babies who don't get what they want.
avast did nothing wrong, they just did what the users asked them to do, namely protecting their systems.
If you don't like it, remove avast and go use something else.
And I'm sure this could be subject of complaints to courts!
Why don't you take them to court? Oh wait, I know. You are one of those people who like to see others do your homework. Stop nagging and get over it.
-
(...) They designed it and they have every right in the world to do that.
I hope this is a joke. So the manufacturer of my car can break into my garage at night to change the engine or the tires? ridiculous!
-
(...) They designed it and they have every right in the world to do that.
I hope this is a joke. So the manufacturer of my car can break into my garage at night to change the engine or the tires? ridiculous!
So, you want to go the analogy game. Sure. If we follow your analogy, avast! "break" into your "garage" and exchanged your weak flat four with a turbo charged flat four and your crappy worn out tires with a brand new set of high end tires. That's what happens when v7 gets updated to v9. So, you don't want a better engine and better tires for free. You still make no sense.
-
czf, even a 4 year old can do it.
wipe your tears and move on.
-
@ everybody complaining about software updates:
I can't believe why don't Avast give support to my 64 computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64
-
@ everybody complaining about software updates:
I can't believe why don't Avast give support to my 64 computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64
And dont forget the very popular win 3.1x ;D
-
And don't forget all the classics songs back in the days one of them is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W_kWxWn-Zo
Enjoy ;D
To the users who doesn't like Avast and it's forcing updates to avast! 2014. There's one simple solution move on and install a different antivirus such as Avira, MSE, and etc free antivirus. Just uninstall avast, run the avast uninstall utility (in safe mode), run Avast Cleanup Tool in safe mode (by Rejzors), install a different antivirus, and do a manual reboot. No one is forcing you to switch/to use avast. Simply blaming us (the avast users) and the Avast! Team is unnecessary and won't do much good. We (the avast users) doing our jobs to help other avast users so as the Avast! team (helping their customers and making their own product even more better and better protection). I have been using avast since version 7 on my old laptop windows vista (no problems at all) and got a new laptop Windows 7 SP1 ( only 1 year old) and I am still running Avast 2014, well guess what. "IT IS RUNNING A+".
Before using avast!7 I have been switching from one free/paid antivirus software to another such as Windows Live OneCare, MSE, Panda Cloud Free, Norton, McAfee, and Trend Micro. When I was told about avast! 7 by my younger brother and at present he is still using Avast! Free and it's the latest version of the 2014 product. Well guess what...his avast! free update configuration is set to "always update program automatically" and he ain't complaining at all or what so ever. I immediately switched to Avast! 7 since then till now I will always keep using Avast and I will always use the latest version of Avast! Free and I have "NEVER" regretted the switch. I am now an Avast customer for good :), because of their excellent customer service and support and excellent product features and functionality, and all of these are for "FREE" :)
-
I have been patiently following this thread and I have a few observations...
1) Since v7.0 much of the protection in now cloud based. Which offers more protection without the bloat.
2) New technologies, evo-gen and with v2015 dyna-gen equals more protection.
3) Streaming updates.
4) HTTPS scanning (v2015) which v7, v8 and v2014 did not have.
5) NG technology for systems that has "hardware virtualization".
All this means is more and better protection than ever before. And it's still free of charge.
-
Just my opinion.
Even though Avast has the right to force the users to update to its latest version by locking up the users' system, but ethically this is not really a suitable way of promoting users to update to the latest version despite that Avast has its good intention at the first place to do so. However, it is not about the right that matters now but it is the ethic that matters now. Avast should come out with an effective broadcasting message instead of forcing the users to update its product. Besides, this is about the choice of the users and Avast actually doesn't have to interfere that much.
IMO, maybe Avast can have broadcasting notification just like the usual update notification that we get used to READ AND HEAR. I do think sound also plays an important role in broadcasting messages and I believe the message will be transmitted to the users' ears and lastly to their mind. For instance, Avast could notify the user like "Your Avast program is outdated. We recommend you to update to its latest version or continue using the outdated one with your own risk." (My English is not that proficient and I think Avast is able to come out with better message)At the moment, Avast can utilize its Avast sound system to read that message out loud just as usual and I believe users will get the message well. Couple times per week is enough as too many duplicated notifications will annoy the users.
It is just my opinion, no offense here.
Thanks and Regards.
-
You're saying it like the avast!'s primary operation is to lock up the system. If it locks up system, does it matter when that happens? Either when it gets forcibly updated or when you'd update it. It would lock up just the same if there is some sort of issue. So, how does that somehow change anything? It just delays the inevitable if that was the case.
Doing the other part you suggested would just result in people complaining that avast! is nagging about this and that constantly and they'd just uninstall it. Or bitch about that here on forums instead of why they got forcibly updated. As a developer, you always have to treat target users as dumb in order to make things work right. Individuals are smart, masses are stupid. That's how it is, whether that offends you or not.
It's the sole reason why we have come from complicated antivirus solutions from almost 2 decades ago to a single click, do it all automatically solutions in current time. Which just proves my point.
-
You're saying it like the avast!'s primary operation is to lock up the system.
Chill, man. I never really mean that. Maybe I am not good at expressing myself but pls do not perceive my message wrongly. I am just straight to the point since the contents in this topic is already well posted to the public to read.
If it locks up system, does it matter when that happens?
This is not the question that only for you and me but every single user, however for me it doesn't matter me much.
Either when it gets forcibly updated or when you'd update it. It would lock up just the same if there is some sort of issue. So, how does that somehow change anything? It just delays the inevitable if that was the case.
Yup, I agree with you but not every single user thinks like you and me.
Doing the other part you suggested would just result in people complaining that avast! is nagging about this and that constantly and they'd just uninstall it. Or bitch about that here on forums instead of why they got forcibly updated.
Or you have a better idea? I would like to hear that :)
As a developer, you always have to treat target users as dumb in order to make things work right. Individuals are smart, masses are stupid. That's how it is, whether that offends you or not.It's the sole reason why we have come from complicated antivirus solutions from almost 2 decades ago to a single click, do it all automatically solutions in current time. Which just proves my point.
Yup, I agree with you but things won't get any better if the masses start to perceive the forcing as something opposing or negative.
IMO, it is impossible to care every single feedback from every single user but what if majority of users are dissatisfied with this forcing method? Anyway, if majority of the users are okay with this forcing method, then there is no point for me to post at this topic anymore unless necessary because your first post is well written enough to try to persuade the minority.
Thanks for your reply, RejZoR. Have a nice day. :)
-
Although I am using the latest stable version I should say that those who are against forced
updates, in my opinion are leading 3 : 1 as guests and it is 89th minute of the game.
Their arguments are just better.
-
abrubtum, you are wrong.
It is more like 220.000.000 : 25 in favor of those who are for the forced update.
But from that 220.000.000 only a few are responding here, the rest doesn't mind and is not responding here.
-
Their arguments are better? They only have 1 argument, that avast! has no rights to do that. They haven't given me a single really good reason where i've described in quite detail how program versions are maintained. And that's how it is and will remain so, because it just makes sense. Like i said, if it was by me, all home editions would always be force updated. So every single user out there would have nothing but the very latest version.
Corporate versions are deployed differently and they require different policy. But for home, i'd do that.
-
Their arguments are better? They only have 1 argument, that avast! has no rights to do that. They haven't given me a single really good reason where i've described in quite detail how program versions are maintained. And that's how it is and will remain so, because it just makes sense. Like i said, if it was by me, all home editions would always be force updated. So every single user out there would have nothing but the very latest version.
Corporate versions are deployed differently and they require different policy. But for home, i'd do that.
They dont only have one argument, they have multiple arguments and I even gave you multiple in another thread. You are choosing to ignore them and be blinded by your own obsession.
It's also not a matter of how many arguments they have but of the importance of the argument they have. You have zero reason to fight this hard to keep avast updating someone else's property... they have every reason in the world to not want their systems locked up and to not want their setting choices overridden at avast's whim. It's ridiculous you cant even compromise and say ok it would be a good idea if avast notified these people and gave them a choice. Your only solution is do what you want, when you want, screw the consequences, there is no other way.
Your avatar says it all but that isnt how the rest of the world operates.
-
To everyone complaining about users whining... they have a right to be here, they have a right to state their grievances and they have a right to be angry at an invasive policy causing lost time and resources. If you dont like to hear them then you can leave just as well.
Things don't get fixed by sitting around doing a circle jerk all over each other or blowing smoke up each other all day. They get fixed by pointing out flaws and if it just so happens to go against your POV it doesn't mean they are whining so grow up and accept that yes even the almighty avast can make mistakes and a sure sign of that is when multiple people are all saying the same thing... negative to you or not.
I personally would have never known about this issue unless people did come on here and complain because Im as up to date as anyone can be however it doesn't mean Im so blind by my own needs and wants that I cant empathize or understand someone else's issue.
-
Oh god, am i for some reason speakin (writing?) Chinese here?
You expect an old version to have exactly same design and support as the latest actual version. Sorry to burst your bubble, but things don't work that way. If you have the latest version and it doesn't work as it should, you have every right to complain and expect fixes. If you're using old outdated version, you are pretty much left at their mercy. If they decide to force upgrade you at some point, that's entirely THEIR choice and not your right of any sort.
One thing is terminating support and another forcing you to upgrade (for free!). If they'd just terminate support without any notification, that would be a problem, because you'd expect it to do it's job but it would just not update or do anything. Focing you to update simply does the opposite. Delivers a higher quality product with higher protection. But you won't care abiout this fact anyway and you'll just continue to complain about the same thing over and over despite countless facts and logical explanations.
-
they have a right to be angry at an invasive policy causing lost time and resources.
Lost time? They are wasting their time voluntary. It happened, it is done, stop whining and get over it. Lost resources? What resources are lost? No-one has lost resources.
Things don't get fixed by sitting around doing a circle jerk all over each other or blowing smoke up each other all day.
Agreed. So why are those whiners don't dry their tears and get over it? What is there to fix? Nothing went wrong.
RejZoR,
I can read what you type here. But I never realized I can read Chinese ;D
-
Hey All, For what it's worth I switched to Avast when it was version 4.0, back say around 2005-2006 I believe it was after trying Windows Live Onecare briefly and it missed a ton of virus on other family PC I was maintaining, ended up reformatting that one, and installing Avast free, (still use it today on all the machines) Runs A+, no problems cause of Avast on any of the systems, always update manually to latest program version though as they come out, to have the best possible protection, I feel have to be on the latest Engine, and program.
-
And you are thinking correctly. Only very latest engine and features provide superior protection.
-
Hey All, For what it's worth I switched to Avast when it was version 4.0, back say around 2005-2006 I believe it was after trying Windows Live Onecare briefly and it missed a ton of virus on other family PC I was maintaining, ended up reformatting that one, and installing Avast free, (still use it today on all the machines) Runs A+, no problems cause of Avast on any of the systems, always update manually to latest program version though as they come out, to have the best possible protection, I feel have to be on the latest Engine, and program.
Finally someone here is thinking correctly and thank god for that!
-
always update manually to latest program version though as they come out, to have the best possible protection, I feel have to be on the latest Engine, and program.
Sorry Patrick2.......Avast just decided for you when they think you should update.....Manual means nothing.
Amazing, all this and still the point is missed. :-[
What the issue IS......again what the ISSUE IS......is forcing a NON-EMERGENCY REBOOT and FORCED PROGRAM INSTALL.
YES, those of us who are complaining 100% understand the challenges of maintaining software revs and backwards support (I ran a software group for ten years)....it is a nightmare.....got it......understood...loud and clear.....your point taken.
So, please stop arguing why the world should move to latest Avast.....understood, newer is better.....but this DOES NOT give Avast the right to force program installs when the settings are specifically informing Avast not to. If Avast feels it is their "right" and/or desire to do this then why would they put an option for "Manual" update in Avast ? Show me in the Avast EULA where I gave this permission to Avast ? http://www.avast.com/en-us/eula If you read the language, the only comments about "updates" is that Avast at their discretion makes them "available". There is no direct or even implied right for them to do this.....so why would they ? I'll answer my own question......because they want to force folks to the new platform with no regard for other consequences. Yes guys, "consequences"....I was on Forum when V9 came out last Fall and frankly a very buggy, bloatware POS.....one VERY good reason to wait. If/When I elect to do software upgrades I prepare for them with recent HDD image backups, restore points, etc......not to wake up to see a PC has been rebooted and software updated. Also, I would not use the "update" feature within Avast anyway....I would do a clean uninstall and install.....everyone on this thread knows that is a MUCH more solid approach. So, I take it very personal when Avast intrudes without my permission....yes, because if I HAD PERMITTED....the flippin "Manual" would have been set to "Auto Update"....but it was not....for what I think are very valid reasons....upgrade on my timeline, my way that has best chance of success and I have fallback if something goes wrong.
Bottom line, Avast can accomplish the very same thing they want.....a forced upgrade...just stop posting VBS updates to older versions. Users will either upgrade or move-on....this method is not a heavy handed intrusive effort to users PCs and in the end accomplishes the very same thing they want.
BTW, I am in process of moving my home PCs to Avast 9 from Avast 8......wondering if I should wait for Avast 10.....but taking plunge on several machines. My argument above is not about the "need" it is about the intrusion.....thus, I would argue this side of it even if I was on Avast 9 already across all PCs. The "method" Avast is choosing is where I think they have crossed the line.....they are better than that.
-
Si, just stopping to update would somehow be better than forcibly updating to latest version...
-
promoting users
We're talking about free users.
Old technologies uses resources, bring compatibility issues, reduce overall protection, cost a lot of money...
Technology enterprises will always have to take a decision about "old support": Google, any other mobile device manufacturer, etc.
-
just stopping to update would somehow be better than forcibly updating to latest version...
Absolutely, just take step back and think about it.
I know you & Avast wants everyone on the latest......no argument why it "should" be better.
BUT....if you force (other than true emergency update needs) then you are pushing a by its nature very intrusive software package into a person's PC. If that person has their option set to Auto Update then fine, but if not and set to Manual then hands-off. These updates sometimes go very, very bad and since the nature of Avast is intrusive this could mean bad things to a PC. So, if the user has changed (because Default is Auto) to Manual then he/she has reasons.....good or not.
If Avast truly does not want to support an older version just stop sending out VBS updates.....users will change.
The "issue" I have with this is I am a very techy guy and know first code always has bugs......so I wait.
The more complex or intrusive the software I wait even more.....until it is SUPER stable.
My point is Avast desire to "protect" people by forcing the update can actually cause more harm than good.
All good/honest/integrity software companies understand this......so does Avast, that is why they have the update option.
Thus, they need to stick to that integrity. If some "Manager" says within Avast "we need to move all these old users to V9" then fine.....stop the VBS.....do not mess with peoples PCs.
Think of it this way........what if I said "hey RejZoR you may be smart guy but I think I'm smarter....I'm going to reboot your machine and install things I think are better for you".......you'd flip out, right ? Your a techy, question.....with MS Updates....set on Auto on your machine or Auto Download and you choose to install ?......I'm guessing the latter.
So, a lot of words for a simple "YES" to your question........it is better to stop VBS updates if Avast does not want to support older version. This way, anyone who complains then you argument of newer is better is 100% valid and they have no ground to stand on.
I just think Avast should think "how" they do things.
-
You're saying like it installs the update silently and then just forcibly reboots the system in the middle of whatever you were doing. To my knowledge, that is not what happens. They just disregard the update control taht user has and udpates it like it's set to Automatic. It will still asky ou to reboot because of the update. So, how exactly is that probelmatic?
-
You're saying like it installs the update silently and then just forcibly reboots the system in the middle of whatever you were doing. To my knowledge, that is not what happens. They just disregard the update control taht user has and udpates it like it's set to Automatic. It will still asky ou to reboot because of the update. So, how exactly is that probelmatic?
That is exactly what I am saying.....if you read many of the other threads like me people woke up to a FORCED install.
It appears the Avast Emergency updater did a FORCE install.........there was no message, nothing. I woke one morning with 2 out of my 5 home PCs that all had V8 (V8.0.1497...which is last valid/stable V8) to a Windows login screen......once I put in Windows PW then Avast "completed" the V9 install.....I literally freaked out. All these 5 PCs with V8 were set to manual install. Checking the W7 Scheduler the Avast EMU had run during the night....obviously it forced a install.
-
You're saying like it installs the update silently and then just forcibly reboots the system in the middle of whatever you were doing. To my knowledge, that is not what happens. They just disregard the update control taht user has and udpates it like it's set to Automatic. It will still asky ou to reboot because of the update. So, how exactly is that probelmatic?
Problematic is that the AV is not yet installed properly until after reboot. Leaving the system unprotected until then. Since those updates can happen at any time avast sees fit I certainly wouldn't be happy having my computer sitting there for several hour w/o protection. That whole force update is just bad etiquette and reeks of arrogance.
-
For years my procedure is to follow the same procedure our techs use at work.
1. Prepare for update by reading, testing in a sandbox, etc. At home - mostly reading here.
2. Vital step which must be done is to make an image of the system partition.
3. Update and reboot.
I use this procedure for all Windows updates and antivirus major versions since these are the most critical to the system's well being.
Even the most hated and arrogant company, M$, allows us to update on our schedule and not on patch tuesday, so that we can read and prepare. Oh, yes, they did few behind your back (remember genuine advantage disguised as a security update? Some people called it malware). But for the most part they don't interfere.
When an update comes out of the blue, it's against my procedures, which I have no intention of breaking. I don't want to get away from Avast since it's great and fits my machine nicely. There's nothing better out there. But at this point I might just stay with 9 or disable it altogether if v10 will be forced.
All we need is an announcement that we must update so that we can prepare. A day or two or three would be sufficient.
An often repeated theory on this forum that everybody is stupid/ignorant/illiterate/careless simply doesn't hold.
-
Microsoft is the most hated and arrogant company, yet you still use their product? Idiotic much?
-
Problematic is that the AV is not yet installed properly until after reboot. Leaving the system unprotected until then. Since those updates can happen at any time avast sees fit I certainly wouldn't be happy having my computer sitting there for several hour w/o protection.
This is true only for firewall component (there are technical reasons that don't allow graceful update). All other drivers and services continue to operating normally until the restart.
-
Problematic is that the AV is not yet installed properly until after reboot. Leaving the system unprotected until then. Since those updates can happen at any time avast sees fit I certainly wouldn't be happy having my computer sitting there for several hour w/o protection.
This is true only for firewall component (there are technical reasons that don't allow graceful update). All other drivers and services continue to operating normally until the restart.
@Drake,
Does that then mean that if you're using Avast Free, a reboot isn't required ? (After the update, there is always a request to reboot the system.)
-
Problematic is that the AV is not yet installed properly until after reboot. Leaving the system unprotected until then. Since those updates can happen at any time avast sees fit I certainly wouldn't be happy having my computer sitting there for several hour w/o protection.
This is true only for firewall component (there are technical reasons that don't allow graceful update). All other drivers and services continue to operating normally until the restart.
I think several threads each pages long of comments warrants an official policy response from Avast Team.
So @Drake.....is Avast going to continue to ignore the Manual Setting and use EMU update to FORCE install non-emergency updates ?
As stated many times.....I get why you want to stop supporting older versions.....just stop the VBS updates but don't silent-force install/reboot a users PC. For me, if this is the official policy going forward I will need to move to another A/V....while I'm a fan of Avast as product & company I cannot take the risk of the affect of such a process on my PCs. In case you were not around AVG did this from version 8 to version 9 and bricked thousands of PCs....lost countless users...it was very ugly times. Taking control, installing and rebooting a PC is not a trivial intrusion....it is has proven out to potentially have serious implications. I sure hope Avast considers a less heavy-handed way to accomplish the migration.....I have given you an easy one. I do thank you for consideration of this matter.
-
If we are talking about versions that were obsolete maybe two years ago, then I would guess yes, there will eventually be a forced update.
Stopping the virus definition updates is not an option. First, I'm not sure there's a technical way to do that (it would have to be something working even on those old versions, and there's no time machine to go back and change them), second I don't believe it would help (if people didn't update the program for two years, most of them would also ignore any warnings - be it about the unsupported program version or outdated virus definitions; actually, we have seen exactly this with v4 - there's no point in trying to tell people the program is gonna go unsupported), third Windows would interfere here (Microsoft is trying to get rid of outdated security software, so a policy on new operating systems is that if your antivirus is expired or noticeably outdated, Windows simply shuts the antivirus off and uses Defender instead.... - so you're not really in control anyway).
Eventually, the best "solution" could be to get rid of the program update option completely. There is already a lot of code (i.e. things that can affect the program behavior) in virus definitions, changing potentially daily - because to successfully fight malware, you need to be able to quickly react on new stuff. So distinguishing between "program" and "virus definitions" is a bit artificial already; it could be merged into one.
-
If we are talking about versions that were obsolete maybe two years ago, then I would guess yes, there will eventually be a forced update.
Stopping the virus definition updates is not an option. First, I'm not sure there's a technical way to do that (it would have to be something working even on those old versions, and there's no time machine to go back and change them), second I don't believe it would help (if people didn't update the program for two years, most of them would also ignore any warnings - be it about the unsupported program version or outdated virus definitions; actually, we have seen exactly this with v4 - there's no point in trying to tell people the program is gonna go unsupported), third Windows would interfere here (Microsoft is trying to get rid of outdated security software, so a policy on new operating systems is that if your antivirus is expired or noticeably outdated, Windows simply shuts the antivirus off and uses Defender instead.... - so you're not really in control anyway).
Eventually, the best "solution" could be to get rid of the program update option completely. There is already a lot of code (i.e. things that can affect the program behavior) in virus definitions, changing potentially daily - because to successfully fight malware, you need to be able to quickly react on new stuff. So distinguishing between "program" and "virus definitions" is a bit artificial already; it could be merged into one.
I would think it is simple to stop the VBS updates.....just change the Server where the Avast 9 (and 10) get the updates and leave the Servers where the older versions get the updates with the current (soon to be old) VBS file alone (ie. no updates).
I do get you "philosophical" point but in this case you need to provide a public statement on what you ARE going to support and what you are going to FORCE install with new program. It is not fair to assume that 200+million people don't care.....we do !!!!!! One of the first threads on this subject talked about what Avast "thinks" you'll support.....I would request a definitive line in the sand of what you'll not support and when....put it as a sticky in the top of the Forum. If people's PCs are going to be "controlled" you need to inform them of what/when....if they ignore that then so be it......but you can't have people just wake up with no notice and machines under non-emergency conditions have been updated. Take me as example, I'm a very techy person and while I read this Forum daily I intentionally wait to update program releases.....not just Avast but MS, iOS, etc....why ?......has saved me tons of headaches and possible unusable devices. Just look at Avast 9/2014 when released last Fall.....very premature IMHO....lots of serious bugs and also tons of bloatware that no one knew the impact....waiting six months reading the Forum allowed me to assess not only when I updated but also how this would be done and what I'd install. I think you'd agree a "program" install is better done in clean environment with backups already in place. You see the world from "protecting and reacting to things quickly"......but your protection can turn into my nightmare....even with best intentions things go very wrong with new program releases.
So, really what I'm asking is notices...even in Forum...on Avast's intentions. I was one of the AVG8 to AVG9 victims where they bricked PCs and luckily (because of luck of draw staged rollout) only hit one of my PCs overnight. Their solution was akin to a FarBar blow-away of AVG....which sometimes worked...sometimes the O/S was hosed....which was my case. They saw the issue within hours and pulled the rollout but the impact was already horrific to many....I just want Avast to protect yourself and your users from this type mistake and not be so eager to pull the trigger....give some notice and runway. However, I get it that we are talking older versions....but I've been in the tech business 30 years and unless you have a formal policy on how you handle some manager in Avast is going to decide to just pull the trigger across the board for marketing reasons.
Anyway, just a suggestion.....I'm hoping the importance and risk of this discussion allows Avast to truly think through a definitive and publicized strategy. Thanks in advance for your consideration and reading of the thoughts.
-
If we are talking about versions that were obsolete maybe two years ago, then I would guess yes, there will eventually be a forced update.
Stopping the virus definition updates is not an option. First, I'm not sure there's a technical way to do that (it would have to be something working even on those old versions, and there's no time machine to go back and change them), second I don't believe it would help (if people didn't update the program for two years, most of them would also ignore any warnings - be it about the unsupported program version or outdated virus definitions; actually, we have seen exactly this with v4 - there's no point in trying to tell people the program is gonna go unsupported), third Windows would interfere here (Microsoft is trying to get rid of outdated security software, so a policy on new operating systems is that if your antivirus is expired or noticeably outdated, Windows simply shuts the antivirus off and uses Defender instead.... - so you're not really in control anyway).
Eventually, the best "solution" could be to get rid of the program update option completely. There is already a lot of code (i.e. things that can affect the program behavior) in virus definitions, changing potentially daily - because to successfully fight malware, you need to be able to quickly react on new stuff. So distinguishing between "program" and "virus definitions" is a bit artificial already; it could be merged into one.
1) I've worked with IT many years and also have an IT background myself. First thing I can tell you is that ANYTHING is possible. I've been told by IT a number of times something can't be done, gone home, wrote up the basic code and slapped it down on their desk the next day. If anyone in a technical capacity at your company is telling you something cannot be done, then they should be replaced. Go find someone with some creativity that can think outside the box. Plain and simply, the computers are contacting you and information is being exchanged. Once the version of the application is identified you either choose to update or not depending on what version the user has. Then broadcast a message saying that your definitions have been updated, or your sales ads or a message saying that this version is no longer supported and will not be updated. If you can send people sales ads you can certainly control other aspects.
2) Again, it's about personal choices... if a user receives a message either through the application or via email and chooses to ignore it and that message tells them either they are no longer protected or they will be forced to upgrade then comes on here and complains because they failed to act after being told for a month, then no one is going to have any sympathy for them and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. To say thousands of users have their computers locked up because a couple of boneheads ignored your every attempt at contact is silly. Due diligence, not reckless abandon, is the solution required now.
3) That would again fall under personal choices... if a user lets their coverage lapse and Microsoft then turns on windows defender for them then
a) The problem now lays in the hands of Microsoft and the user and you are in the clear and Microsoft can then deal with the backlash of invasive tactics
b) Defender would most likely be a better option if some user lets their coverage lapse so far behind
Again, it isn't right to crash people's computers "for their own protection" and I think the user's have made that abundantly clear. Many people have left already and stated their discontent on their way out the door and more are talking about leaving. The only people defending this policy are the same individuals that stand behind you no matter what decision you make and have made their bias clear to all on many issues (ra ra ra - siss boom ba), but when you have random people coming forward (like me, this issue doesn't even affect me other than the fact that I just dont like it in principle and find it hard to believe it was even put into place) and person after person (newbs) signing up for an account just so they can tell you how awful they think this decision is and to express to you that their computers which were fine yesterday are now junk, then that is a clear representation of there being a problem.
-
Forced update or not, you can't convince me with any argument that you had no time for 3 years to validate the new(er) version and update accordingly. Because any argument just hinting into that direction would mean you're just plain lazy. I understand when people wait for month or two after brand new major release for things to stabilize and calm down. But doing so for 3 years and still not being able to update to a newer version. Sorry, no, no and no.
If anyone asks me, avast! team should really only allow one older version and update every other older version without users having any control over it apart from being asked to restart the system, after the program update has been performed. So, when new version 10 will soon be released, version 9 should still be allowed, but anyone still using version 8 or older would be updated to latest version whether they like it or not. When version 11 will be released next year, version 10 would still be allowed and anyone still using version 9 would be updated to latest version. If you haven't bothered to update your antivirus in 1 year, you never will. Plain and simple fact.
EDIT:
Oh for god sake, cut the nonsense with "it isn't right to crash people's computers "for their own protection"". Now you're saying like they're intentionally crashing systems. WTF!? If system crashes because of avast! update, it would happen either way, whether you update it manually or by automatic update. If system was destined to crash (because all the right parameters aligned for crash to happen), it would either way. And at that point, does it really matter if you're next to it when it does or you see it crashed after you wake up in the morning, lets say 3 hours after the crash? It makes zero difference and makes it a very poor argument that some of you keep on re-using again and again.
It's not like installer or updater notifies you: "Hey there, i'll crash now, so don't update me". It doesn't. It just happens or it doesn't. And with such massive user base and so many different system configurations, it is bound to happen at one point to a certain % of users. It's unavoidable and thinking it can be avoided just means you're delusional.
-
@RejZoR,
In post #43, you latched onto few of my opinion comments in post # 42.
But I guess you did not notice or did not read or did not understand my most important point - the need for advanced notice to give us an opportunity to image the system partition.
Or do you consider that a stupid or trivial request?
In case you wonder why the need for an image, you may want to read about these old bloopers
Avira: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/avira-antivirus-update-cripples-millions-of-windows-pcs/12129
McAfee: http://www.cnet./buggy-mcafee-update-whacks-windows-xp-pcs/com/news
-
Forced update or not, you can't convince me with any argument that you had no time for 3 years to validate the new(er) version and update accordingly. Because any argument just hinting into that direction would mean you're just plain lazy. I understand when people wait for month or two after brand new major release for things to stabilize and calm down. But doing so for 3 years and still not being able to update to a newer version. Sorry, no, no and no.
If anyone asks me, avast! team should really only allow one older version and update every other older version without users having any control over it apart from being asked to restart the system, after the program update has been performed. So, when new version 10 will soon be released, version 9 should still be allowed, but anyone still using version 8 or older would be updated to latest version whether they like it or not. When version 11 will be released next year, version 10 would still be allowed and anyone still using version 9 would be updated to latest version. If you haven't bothered to update your antivirus in 1 year, you never will. Plain and simple fact.
EDIT:
Oh for god sake, cut the nonsense with "it isn't right to crash people's computers "for their own protection"". Now you're saying like they're intentionally crashing systems. WTF!? If system crashes because of avast! update, it would happen either way, whether you update it manually or by automatic update. If system was destined to crash (because all the right parameters aligned for crash to happen), it would either way. And at that point, does it really matter if you're next to it when it does or you see it crashed after you wake up in the morning, lets say 3 hours after the crash? It makes zero difference and makes it a very poor argument that some of you keep on re-using again and again.
It's not like installer or updater notifies you: "Hey there, i'll crash now, so don't update me". It doesn't. It just happens or it doesn't. And with such massive user base and so many different system configurations, it is bound to happen at one point to a certain % of users. It's unavoidable and thinking it can be avoided just means you're delusional.
Then I'm sure glad you don't work for Avast.....hopefully they will balance the risk/reward of these actions.
No, I'm not delusional......these new A/Vs by the nature of what they do are intrusive to the O/S....so they can/do on their own merit cause issues/bricks....do Google...it's happened....even Avast 9/2014 was a POS when released.
I've watched countless posts where Avast 2014 did cause the requirement to reload O/S.....many not Avast fault, many are.
These incidents have gotten fewer as V9 has matured/stabilized and of course your going to tell me how 200+million people don't have issues only the insignificant few who post on the Forum do.....blah, blah.....not insignificant to those few.
Point is.......you need to be careful and take steps to recover your system when doing a A/V "program" update.
So even you are saying that an older version should be allowed......SO, the only argument is "when" and "how" Avast cuts the cord to older versions.....common ground of agreement. What I am saying is brute forcing a code update and reboot to a person's PC is just wrong and NOT the way. I have now posted the Avast EULA two times and asked where Avast has this right or where I have signed this right away......and no one has commented.....why ?......because I have not signed it away nor have they included the right to manage my PCs in that fashion. Avast has an easy avenue to accomplish exactly what they want without doing it through heavy handed technique and all the mega-posters who are paid/incentivized to keep belching out the corporate BS does not make your logic right......especially when several of you guys are still on Windows XP. I do get it.....you are paid to beat down the comments of people who object....sorry, won't work with me. I would hope what are very intelligent people like yourself can understand the distinction of not staying on an old software version versus the line Avast crosses with forced updates. My only point in all this is Avast should figure out a better exit strategy than using the EMU as a way to force install and reboot peoples PCs for non-emergency agendas.
-
Who owns the product and who determines what is considered an emergency ?
This isn't meant to argue a point but get your reaction to that question.
-
Of course i'm saying that. Unless if you can provide me a method where you could migrate all 200 million clients to a new version without causing a distruption in protection between old and new version. That's why. But since you clearly don't understand logistic problems behind it, I now know why you're repeatedly giving arguments that have very little with reality. It's not possible to release an update and deliver it to all 200 million clients in half an hour across entire world and after that time, entirely discontinue the old version. It's just impossible.
Giving a 1 year gap, gives even the most demanding users and admins enough time to adjust. If they can't in such time, then a security company that is delivering the product has to decide for them. Because they are clearly not fit to make such decisions if they failed to do it in 1 year time. Because that is plenty of time by all means.
Igor explained how it went with avast! 4.8. Despite notifying users well in advance there were still so many problems with it. So complaining over not notifying users, it just doesn't matter. Like i said, if you can't do it in 1 year time, you never will. Running 3 versions old security software because you think you know it better than a company that has been in security for over 20 years, then they have every right to forcibly update you whether you like it or not. If you'll stop using avast! because of this reason, i don't think they really care at this point, because if it wasn't for this, you'd come back and complain because you'd get infected later. With an outdated antivirus... or some other excuse/argument.
-
If we are talking about versions that were obsolete maybe two years ago, then I would guess yes, there will eventually be a forced update.
Stopping the virus definition updates is not an option. First, I'm not sure there's a technical way to do that (it would have to be something working even on those old versions, and there's no time machine to go back and change them), second I don't believe it would help (if people didn't update the program for two years, most of them would also ignore any warnings - be it about the unsupported program version or outdated virus definitions; actually, we have seen exactly this with v4 - there's no point in trying to tell people the program is gonna go unsupported), ...
Wait a minute. What do you mean --- stopping the virus definitions updates is not an option and that for starters, there's possibly no technical way to do it? Isn't this exactly what was done way back in the avast 4.x days when the Windows 98 users were given the heads up that the avast support for Windows 98 days were numbered and that we'd better prepare accordingly? Back then the message was properly gotten out, spread and drilled that come the certain deadline, avast support for Windows 98 would end ... no ands, ifs or buts and those who didn't heed the warning and prepare accordingly would have no one to blame, but themselves for having an unprotected computer.
With me being a Windows 98 user at that time, I of course preferred that that not be happening, but I had to admit that at least avast was doing the right thing in giving us a Heads Up / Warning with plenty of time to either upgrade our OS, buy another computer or do whatever it was that our Plan B would be.
Courtesy of the heads up that we got with plenty of time, I did eventually finally managed to get my hands on a Windows XP computer in time before the 'avast support for Windows 98 cutoff' deadline.
So getting the message out CAN work if done correctly.
That said, IMO ... THAT is what avast should have in the current situation. Instead of a surprise force fed version upgrade, a heads up / warning should have been gotten out that avast support for v7.x would end at so & so deadline. People could choose to act and prepare accordingly or ignore the heads up. But, then come the deadline, those who chose to ignore the heads up would have no one to blame, but themselves. avast would then be within their right to pull the plug on the virus definitions for v7.x.
As good as avast 2014 might be, a force fed version upgrade would pose a risk of inconveniencing many users who didn't consent to it and now were encountering problems.
-
@RejZoR,
In post #43, you latched onto few of my opinion comments in post # 42.
But I guess you did not notice or did not read or did not understand my most important point - the need for advanced notice to give us an opportunity to image the system partition.
Or do you consider that a stupid or trivial request?
In case you wonder why the need for an image, you may want to read about these old bloopers
Avira: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/avira-antivirus-update-cripples-millions-of-windows-pcs/12129
McAfee: http://www.cnet./buggy-mcafee-update-whacks-windows-xp-pcs/com/news
....and here is AVG: http://lifehacker.com/5705582/avg-2011-update-crashes-64-bit-windows-7-pcs-heres-a-quick-fix
Point is.......by the nature of what these A/Vs must do....become integral to O/S they intrude on a lot of sensitive areas.
We are in a day and age where with these nasty attacks on PCs these A/Vs have to be what they are......BUT to say that a PC would already crash if the A/V program update caused it is TOTAL AND UTTER BS.......you just have to do a Google to find out how wrong that statement is. SO, if Avast wants to "protect" its user base in all sense of the word then they should understand the potential impact and "protect" me by allowing me to manage the process......which I thought I was doing by setting to MANUAL.
-
Sounds like an argument that's never going to get settled to the satisfaction of all sides.
Green becomes Blue and Black becomes white. Ultimately the answer will still be
what ever the maker of the product thinks will be best for it's customers and in this case the safety of their computers.
Write, wrong or, indifferent, no amount of argument or discussion by either or both sides will change that fact. :o
-
Who owns the product and who determines what is considered an emergency ?
This isn't meant to argue a point but get your reaction to that question.
It is a good question..........in my opinion and EMU "emergency" is when Avast finds out they have a rogue VBS or code update that is going to cause or has caused problems in PCs.......it is not to upgrade from older versions to newer.
As you know as a techy, small tweaks in code are usually helpful....it is the mass change from one version to another that can bork things up. Good example of this is all the suggestions to do clean un-re-install....seems a needed step from major version changes of Avast.
-
Sounds like an argument that's never going to get settled to the satisfaction of all sides.
Green becomes Blue and Black becomes white. Ultimately the answer will still be
what ever the maker of the product thinks will be best for it's customers and in this case the safety of their computers.
Write, wrong or, indifferent, no amount of argument or discussion by either or both sides will change that fact. :o
Agreed.........I'm only posting here because I DO like and want Avast to be the best.....and have first hand experience (via AVG) of what this type action can do to the user......right now Avast had handful complaints....why ?, because they did not brick peoples PCs...........which did happen in MASS by other A/V companies. My point is that there can be other options to force the migration as pointed our without a avenue that provides risk to both the users and Avast. What would happen to Avast's market share if they rollout a forced update and it borks thousands or more PCs. So, my point of all this writing and complaining is that there should be a better way.....they are engineers and smart people for goodness sakes...put some thought into it...I'm sure they are up to the task. I just cringe when I see how dismissive folks are that this "method" could cause tragic results.
-
put some thought into it...I'm sure they are up to the task.
I'm sure that's what they are doing. By now, I also think they've had more than
sufficient input to make an educated decision. :)
-
Forced update or not, you can't convince me with any argument that you had no time for 3 years to validate the new(er) version and update accordingly. Because any argument just hinting into that direction would mean you're just plain lazy. I understand when people wait for month or two after brand new major release for things to stabilize and calm down. But doing so for 3 years and still not being able to update to a newer version. Sorry, no, no and no.
If anyone asks me, avast! team should really only allow one older version and update every other older version without users having any control over it apart from being asked to restart the system, after the program update has been performed. So, when new version 10 will soon be released, version 9 should still be allowed, but anyone still using version 8 or older would be updated to latest version whether they like it or not. When version 11 will be released next year, version 10 would still be allowed and anyone still using version 9 would be updated to latest version. If you haven't bothered to update your antivirus in 1 year, you never will. Plain and simple fact.
EDIT:
Oh for god sake, cut the nonsense with "it isn't right to crash people's computers "for their own protection"". Now you're saying like they're intentionally crashing systems. WTF!? If system crashes because of avast! update, it would happen either way, whether you update it manually or by automatic update. If system was destined to crash (because all the right parameters aligned for crash to happen), it would either way. And at that point, does it really matter if you're next to it when it does or you see it crashed after you wake up in the morning, lets say 3 hours after the crash? It makes zero difference and makes it a very poor argument that some of you keep on re-using again and again.
It's not like installer or updater notifies you: "Hey there, i'll crash now, so don't update me". It doesn't. It just happens or it doesn't. And with such massive user base and so many different system configurations, it is bound to happen at one point to a certain % of users. It's unavoidable and thinking it can be avoided just means you're delusional.
Rejzor
1) Two things you don't force... an operating system update and an AV update... why, because by their very nature they are intertwined, crucial to each other, intrusive in that they, by themselves, alone or together, are affecting everything on your computer, and they have the ability to wreak havoc if something goes wrong.
2) Avast is not taking into account a full embodiment of what their actions might have caused and/or didn't care and did it anyway. A cost/benefit analysis was looked at and they said, but we think it's in the best interest so do it... as such did exactly what you said, for your own protection, we are willing to take the risk with your data and equipment and crashed them, which they went through before last year when they did this same thing because of Microsoft and evidently didn't learn their lesson.
3) According to you, everything everyone has been telling you is a poor argument so pick your battles because you're killing any credibility you may have left.
4) As I try to understand even what I think is nonsense, I'd like to ask you two core questions:
a. If I understand correctly, your entire argument is that protecting people for their own good means it's ok to force an update on them (if that isn't it then I'd realllly like to know why you even care). So you have some sense of protecting all of us poor defenseless folk... but then you make the next argument that you are not ok with someone just being lazy and screw em, they don't even deserve any kind of notification (keeping in mind that probably makes up a large % of people who even use computers). So on the one hand you force yourself upon people and that's ok (regardless of consequences), but when it comes to any kind of customer service, empathy, caring, just being a decent person, then sending out a note is just too much with which to bother. Doesn't that seem like a contradiction in your core philosophy? Some people are saved and others explode and it's all dependent on who you think matters? Are you saving us from ourselves or not?
b. Let's take a scenario where you work for a company, completely arbitrary... Rejzor Corp., Inc. A subsidiary of Saddam Hussein Enterprises. Ok, so your company goes out of business because your CEO was caught in a spider hole and hanged... you then have to find another job. So you go to work for another company and you are sitting in a meeting looking for a solution to something and they say any ideas... you say let's force it down their throats, they will bow to my whims or die.
The meeting organizer responds and says that's not an option what else do you have?
My question is this... assuming we don't live in a world where dictators run companies... and forcing it down the infidel's throats is not an option... what other alternatives do you suggest?
-
put some thought into it...I'm sure they are up to the task.
I'm sure that's what they are doing. By now, I also think they've had more than
sufficient input to make an educated decision. :)
Yet no-one from Avast posts a definitive policy....just vague & pithy comments.
There are couple comments that say "we think", etc....but nothing concrete.
IMHO opinion a more serious matter than they truly have thought thru.
-
put some thought into it...I'm sure they are up to the task.
I'm sure that's what they are doing. By now, I also think they've had more than
sufficient input to make an educated decision. :)
Yet no-one from Avast posts a definitive policy....just vague & pithy comments.
There are couple comments that say "we think", etc....but nothing concrete.
IMHO opinion a more serious matter than they truly have thought thru.
I really wouldn't hold your breath on that one... they are really not too hands on with these forums. Might come in and post a one liner and never follow up with it but I really have never seen them respond with anything tangible.. just my personal observations here for the last year
-
Instead of a surprise force fed version upgrade, a heads up / warning should have been gotten out that avast support for v7.x would end at so & so deadline.
A warning, regardless if anyone pays attention to it, would have been the ethical thing to do. However, as stated by Avast in the other thread, Avast has not stopped supporting v7. People who had v7 were migrated without permission to v9 only if their current install of v7 wasn't the last minor release. Evidently Avast continues to believe v7 is a viable product, otherwise all support for v7 would have been cut off and that currently has not happened. As I mentioned before, if Avast was going to forcibly migrate users, they could have mitigated the impact and achieved their goal of consolidation by upgrading users only to the last minor version of their current install.
-
Well, why not install avast! 4.8 while we're at it? Downgrade v7 to v4.8 just for the full measure... Coz keepin it old is apparently the right way to do security. Am i drunk or something?
-
Well, why not install avast! 4.8 while we're at it? Downgrade v7 to v4.8 just for the full measure... Coz keepin it old is apparently the right way to do security.
Why not indeed. If, I did what you suggested above, then I would be making the change. That means I had a choice. I made the decision. The forced migration was not my choice or decision. In a sense, you are agreeing with those of us in principal. We should have choice, we should make the decision.
Am i drunk or something?
Unless someone has forcibly upgraded your BAC. That is your choice, your decision. Which is the way it should be.
-
A user has the decision to disable programs update unless avast! decides to do so.
avast! has complete control over their program and would have done it for their specific reasons.
On the other hand, you may be frustrated, though, you'd rather have a more recent release which is able to give you far better protection than the previous versions, rather to be infected.
On top of that, many other AV vendors don't support previous versions and stop providing database updates to them + support after a year of the new versions release.
The EULA clearly states:
3. Upgrades and Updates
Upgrades and updates of the Software shall be provided to you by AVAST as long as and to the extent
in which AVAST in its exclusive discretion makes such upgrades and updates available to the users of
the free version of the Software.
Link : http://files.avast.com/files/legal/eula-avast-free-2014.pdf
I'd pose the question:
Why are you against avast! being updated to the latest version for the best protection?
-
I'd pose the question:
Why are you against avast! being updated to the latest version for the best protection?
That's been answered many times in this thread and multiple others.
-
I'd pose the question:
Why are you against avast! being updated to the latest version for the best protection?
That's been answered many times in this thread and multiple others.
I've seen statements but no proof/evidence that the issues you are having are in the latest release version.
Have you personally tested the latest stable release or latest BETA to see if you have the same issues?
Have you reported the issues which are not fixed via support tickets?
I'm not saying that they are not any issues but rather wouldn't it be better to diagnose the issues with logs with the latest version and get the issues solved on the latest version?
-
@Alikhan,
Regarding your last sentence in your post #67:
Considering your possible misunderstanding of most of this thread, I'd like to know from you:
HOW to YOU manage to make an image/backup before a product upgrade without a notification that said upgrade will occur? What specific magical image backup product do you use that allows you to do this, obviously needed, activity?
-
I do read and try to understand all the opposing viewpoints and DO agree you should stay on top (timeline is subjective) of latest security. Also, my comments are not meant to be personal in any way and I do have high respect for the folks who spend their time on this Forum and help others........so please take what I've said and saying as good debate.
With that said.................. :)
A user has the decision to disable programs update unless avast! decides to do so.
So what good is my disabling if Avast just overrides ?
avast! has complete control over their program and would have done it for their specific reasons.
Yeah, the "reason" was to force people to new version by program update instead of just stop supporting old version.
The point of this whole argument is the "HOW" it is done....not the need to.
On the other hand, you may be frustrated, though, you'd rather have a more recent release which is able to give you far better protection than the previous versions, rather to be infected.
Once again, you miss the point of peoples argument/issue.....it is the "HOW" it is done....not the need to.
On top of that, many other AV vendors don't support previous versions and stop providing database updates to them + support after a year of the new versions release.
Awesome, you agree with us that this is the better method and that unlike previous post in this thread other A/V companies have figured out that this technically possible. Great...thx for the validation of our point.
The EULA clearly states:
3. Upgrades and Updates
Upgrades and updates of the Software shall be provided to you by AVAST as long as and to the extent
in which AVAST in its exclusive discretion makes such upgrades and updates available to the users of
the free version of the Software.
Cool, I'm an attorney now and just love when people want to debate legal terminology....gets me all tingling inside. :D
The UELA says "makes...available".....the user acceptance does not infer nor imply the user has given up their rights to control acceptance of these updates.....that is the "legal" point. Avast people are very smart and I'm sure they have very good lawyers and they stayed away from asking for control of your PC....why ?.......they would open themselves up for liability.
Why do you think they give the Users a Custom install or have check boxes for the Chrome or Dropbox or install push software subsidy of the month ?.......because they know crossing the line of forced (un-authorized) installs opens up liability. Is Avast scared of me suing them ?......of course not.....they are worried that this type intrusion can catch the eye of Microsoft. I'm sure even Google "makes" Avast put the checkbox when they were pushing Chrome. Point is Avast knows that line in the sand very well. I personally think using the EMU for non-emergency updates crosses that line as well....grey area I'd admit since the EMU is only a vehicle for "updates"......guess the question is what you define as "emergency" which @bob1360 posed. Not sure I'm qualified to answer that but I do know pushing a version update for support removal or marketing purposes is not it.
I'd pose the question: Why are you against avast! being updated to the latest version for the best protection?
Everyone has their reasons on why & when......I won't argue the virtues of V9 or previous or that V10 may even be better.
But yet again, I argue and if you truly read the other posts without emotion you will see that the concern is HOW Avast forces transition. My comments just center around this method has risks to its users and there are less intrusive ways to get the same thing done.
-
For the past many previous years I did not certainly hear/read users using a very very very old out-dated antivirus program and downgrading avast! 2014 to Avast! 4,5,6,7,8 :o. Truth be told and will always be true. Using the very latest avast! antivirus software is the best possible way to keep your computer infection free and following common sense on how to keep your computer safe from malware.
Since using avast!7 and now using the latest version of Avast! 2014. Avast! antivirus Free program has never ever ever never ever let me down in keeping my laptop safe and infection free and I have my 100% trust and confidence in them and I love them for it for all the hard work and an excellent business they are doing. I have no regrets at all for doing many switches of free/paid antivirus software and finally staying with avast forever.
Avast! Team and developers you have an awesome day every day and an awesome year ahead :)
-
Using the very latest avast! antivirus software is the best possible way to keep your computer infection free and following common sense on how to keep your computer safe from malware.
Not going to argue your point but with a caveat...."once it is stable". The question is do YOU want to be in control of moving to the latest or have Avast take that decision out of your hands and overnight install the new version, reboot your machine and hope you had everything backed up and nothing goes wrong ? My point is choosing Manual or Automatic is the decision you make to that very point and should be adhered to by Avast.
I also agree with your comments on Avast.....I was hoping my comments would be looked at more of "hey, you know these users have a point....maybe better way to handle this".........but it has started a firestorm of "upgrades should be done whether you like it or not and if you don't then you are clearly not smart enough to know so we'll do it anyway". Wow ! :-[
-
@thekochs: I will always do what is right for me and I will always agree for the job that avast! team is doing. Avast team is always doing the right thing in keeping their own software to become an effective and an awesome program every day,week,month, and year. I am doing my own job and avast doing their own job. I always follow the avast forum to find out if any new program update is coming soon and I make advance preparation when the final version is released. I always take control of my laptop to prepare to install the latest version of avast at all times doesn't matter if it's an minor update or major upgrade and I will always install the most updated program of avast. My update setting is always set to "ask when an update is available" and I don't set it to manual or automatic. When an minor update comes up I update via Avast GUI and when an major upgrade comes up I do a complete uninstallation of avast via add/remove, use it's avast uninstall utility, and do a clean install of the major upgrade.
Using an out-dated version of avast is a BIG "NO NO NO" and "completely out of the question" for me.
-
So the saga continues and the answer is still the same:
"Sounds like an argument that's never going to get settled to the satisfaction of all sides.Green becomes Blue and Black becomes white. Ultimately the answer will still be whatever the maker of the product thinks will be best for it's customers and in this case the safety of their computers.Write, wrong or, indifferent, no amount of argument or discussion by either or both sides will change that fact. "
-
Using the very latest avast! antivirus software is the best possible way to keep your computer infection free and following common sense on how to keep your computer safe from malware.
Not going to argue your point but with a caveat...."once it is stable". The question is do YOU want to be in control of moving to the latest or have Avast take that decision out of your hands and overnight install the new version, reboot your machine and hope you had everything backed up and nothing goes wrong ? My point is choosing Manual or Automatic is the decision you make to that very point and should be adhered to by Avast.
I also agree with your comments on Avast.....I was hoping my comments would be looked at more of "hey, you know these users have a point....maybe better way to handle this".........but it has started a firestorm of "upgrades should be done whether you like it or not and if you don't then you are clearly not smart enough to know so we'll do it anyway". Wow ! :-[
You need 3 years and 3 versions to go by until you are able to find out that 2 versions old one was stabilized? What!?
Besides, those update controls (Manual and/or Automatic) are for current version and are NOT absolute control for all versions back. Which means that you can freely control all updates within currently relevant version (lets say all v9 builds) so you can control if you want a newly released update to be installed now or maybe in next 2 months. But it doesn't give you absolute control for older versions that shouldn't really exist and be used anymore...
-
Using the very latest avast! antivirus software is the best possible way to keep your computer infection free and following common sense on how to keep your computer safe from malware.
Not going to argue your point but with a caveat...."once it is stable". The question is do YOU want to be in control of moving to the latest or have Avast take that decision out of your hands and overnight install the new version, reboot your machine and hope you had everything backed up and nothing goes wrong ? My point is choosing Manual or Automatic is the decision you make to that very point and should be adhered to by Avast.
I also agree with your comments on Avast.....I was hoping my comments would be looked at more of "hey, you know these users have a point....maybe better way to handle this".........but it has started a firestorm of "upgrades should be done whether you like it or not and if you don't then you are clearly not smart enough to know so we'll do it anyway". Wow ! :-[
You need 3 years and 3 versions to go by until you are able to find out that 2 versions old one was stabilized? What!?
Besides, those update controls (Manual and/or Automatic) are for current version and are NOT absolute control for all versions back. Which means that you can freely control all updates within currently relevant version (lets say all v9 builds) so you can control if you want a newly released update to be installed now or maybe in next 2 months. But it doesn't give you absolute control for older versions that shouldn't really exist and be used anymore...
All my PCs were on V8 Build 1497....which was the last official stable build of V9. This means I am within one year of V9 release...and if I look (which I have) to when V9 I would call stable....I am probably within about six month window. If you want me to list known problems that effect me specifically of V9 that until Spring release were not fixed I will but don't think anyone wants that info and rat hole. Also, Avast even said they are STILL SUPPORTING last version of V8 & V7....so your point is not valid......if they are supporting then why are they using EMU update to FORCE install and reboot. These points are not arguable.....they are fact...you and others only retort is that I should have been on V9....that point is not even relevant to the point/issue...........which AGAIN for the millionth time is HOW....again HOW....Avast does or plans to force migrate users to newer version.
@RejZor, you are an extremely tech savvy guy, so is @bob1360 and the other mega posters so stop for a second and take your emotion (or agenda) out of it and think for a second on this. If I agree (I do) that being on a newer stable A/V is better then the question (objection) posed here is how much time is given on older versions and how this is done. You have stated basically "FU" to the users......would you like that type of treatment from Microsoft or other software vendors to your PC ? I'm guessing every one of you guys use test PCs or VM loads or something to protect your assets while you play with BETAs. Peoples PCs are very important to them and A/Vs are now by nature very intrusive and CAN (proven to happen) bork a machine. SO, AGAIN......all I am asking is for Avast to look at HOW they force a migration. The answer they cannot stop VBS updates to old versions is total BS.....others have done it and even Avast has in older versions.....in fact, very simple to do. IMHO people stick on these old versions because they "see" the VBS coming in and think the old A/V is just running that alone and newer program A/V adds nothing.....which is wrong (of course Avast has not helped themselves with all the BS bloatware in new versions...but I digress). I would guarantee that if people saw their VBS updates stop they'd then be forced to make the move. Anyway, my point is that if Avast truly is worried about "protecting" their user base then they should see a forced program update from one version to another as a potential high risk item. However, if you want my personal opinion...they are more worried about saying they have x-more people on x-rev so they can keep those statistics high of user base that everyone throws in your face.
We can keep going on with this for infinite pages.....does not bother me......I've got all time in world to post.
In summary (for this post)......you won't get argument from me that "stable" newer is better but if you are saying that a forced install and reboot of a person's PC is good thing then I will never change my opinion.....and deep down I don't think you believe that either......you just want to argue your point. Also, I can tell you with 100% knowledge that Avast's EULA neither gives them the right to do this nor by use of their program on my PC have I given them the right to. There are no "caveats" in the EULA on this nor in the Manual/Auto setting. I'm a intellectual property lawyer for the tech industry (used to run software team, under grad EE, Masters CPE) and if you don't believe my expertise hire or send the EULA to a lawyer you know and ask him/her......but you are going to hear the answer I'm telling you.
Again, for you & others......this is nothing personal so I hope all this is taken as good conversation but I can tell you my "intent" in all this was not to just complain or post for the sake of it....it was truly to point out a method I think provides risk to the user and Avast as well as a simpler/better way to handle.
Regards.
-
Is this repeated information ever going to stop ???
Your keys on your computer must have gotten worn out from all the typing by now.
This is never going to get solved to everyone's satisfaction and all the information has been passed back and forth countless times.
-
Is this repeated information ever going to stop ???
Your keys on your computer must have gotten worn out from all the typing by now.
This is never going to get solved to everyone's satisfaction and all the information has been passed back and forth countless times.
Trying to control his keyboard now? He wants to type let him type... what's it to you?
-
Is this repeated information ever going to stop ???
Your keys on your computer must have gotten worn out from all the typing by now.
This is never going to get solved to everyone's satisfaction and all the information has been passed back and forth countless times.
Agreed........I'm now typing in "JEDI" (ie. letters worn off keys but still know where they are).
In fact, think it is almost getting easier on these threads.......I can cut-n-paste from my old posts. :)
I only respond because it does not seem like the retort responses are even reading my point.
Why ?........no one sees I'm on V8 1497, no one sees I'm not arguing the virtues of new A/V, the point I make seems to be lost or not read....or that I'm attacking Avast for moving support away from older versions (I'm not).
As long as folks keep throwing back the argument the best way to protect stupid/lazy users for their own good is to take control of their PC then I'm going to keep posting.
-
Knock yourself out. Make yourself feel good.
It's not going to change what's already been said and decided by both sides but, what the heck. ::)
-
Knock yourself out. Make yourself feel good.
It's not going to change what's already been said and decided by both sides but, what the heck. ::)
:'(
Understood.....but proves Avast's "agenda" is not to be in the best interest of their users but rather pumping up their own marketing #s.
It puzzles me that a company dedicated to protecting users would put them at risk for sake of marketing #s.
This is especially frustrating because an easy policy/method change can accomplish the very same thing and not put their customers at risk.
-
Sorry, but now you're just contradicting everything you've ever said.
It puzzles me that a company dedicated to protecting users would put them at risk for sake of marketing #s.
How is updating outdated software to the latest version "putting them at risk"? They did the exact opposite of that. You just make no sense with these random arguments. Running old outdated version is somehow fine and efficient and keeps users secured (how exactly is beyond me), but updating those users to the latest version because otherwise they'd still be using the same outdated version for the next 3 years is somehow putting them at risk. Lol much?
-
Sorry, but now you're just contradicting everything you've ever said.
It puzzles me that a company dedicated to protecting users would put them at risk for sake of marketing #s.
How is updating outdated software to the latest version "putting them at risk"? They did the exact opposite of that. You just make no sense with these random arguments. Running old outdated version is somehow fine and efficient and keeps users secured (how exactly is beyond me), but updating those users to the latest version because otherwise they'd still be using the same outdated version for the next 3 years is somehow putting them at risk. Lol much?
OK....I was calm until now............... >:(
Do you even read my posts or just pick out sentence or two ?.......obviously you do not.
I'm NOT ON a 3 year old product !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm on a VALID V8 build 1497.........can you READ ?
AND it is FLIPPIN, simple the risk is that if this FORCED, non-authorized update borks thousands of PCs then Avast loses their marketshare. Did you even read the links to other A/Vs guys who did this ? Of course not........you are not reading cr@p.......you are so wrapped around Avast subsidizing you for your efforts that you'll say anything. You are losing credibility by every post you make.
-
I think this thread has run it's course, avast team have previously answered the topic and flogging a dead horse isn't going to make them change their process for a handful of users.
Time to lock this thread