Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: lakrsrool on June 22, 2008, 08:19:04 PM
-
I was wondering how I am now on version 4.8 when I have never asked for an upgrade and have now and always have had my setting for program upgrades set to "MANUAL".
My concern is always by resources considering I have only 96 RAM and am using WIN98SE on a Pentium II with only 400 Mhz speed and I have found that whatever Build for version 4.7 that I had worked just fine with no issues (I had upgraded past whatever 4.7 I had once and had problems so just stuck with that version all of this time) and been on the same version for well over 2 years.
I looked in the forum about the possibility that all users were upgraded automatically....
I can't be sure when this happened but I do know that for several months now when ever I get a VRDB update it brings my system to a standstill until it is done which it had not done in years past. Everything else looks the same and the only thing that alerted me to this change was the splash screen when starting Avast which has changed. I do think that the Virus updates slowing my system drastically has been going on several months before the program upgrade to 4.8 because I don't recall the splash screen change until just recently.
Anyone have any ideas why my version was upgraded to the current one without my knowledge and settings to "manual" program upgrades?
-
There are some updates that are forced due to changes in processing, but I'm not sure if that is the case with 4.8.1201.
I have to say I would be surprised you didn't notice that it had been updated as a) it would have taken time for the program update to download and b) would have required a reboot and would have notified you of the reboot requirement.
The VRDB has essentially remained the same from 4.7 to 4.8 so it should be no different.
So if everything remains the same then I would say you have nothing to worry in relation to resources. What you need to do is not have the VRDB run when you don't want it to do so. But it only runs once every three weeks so it shouldn't be that onerous.
I have mine set to run when my screen saver is on, so it will never run as I don't use a screen saver. So every three weeks (the default interval for generation) I select the VRDB, Generate Now, that way it runs when I want it to do so. I start it off and go for a coffee, etc. mine takes about 10 minutes.
-
Actually this would have had to have happened since May 16, 2008 as this is when version 4.8.1201 was made available.
I have to agree with you that I should have noticed the upgrade as I understand there would have been progress scan bars I should have noticed. I could understand maybe someone using my computer and noticing a notification that an update were available but I don't even have the program update settings set to "notify" I have now and always only had the "program update" set to "manual" which I found once I set the setting to this that I no longer am supposed to get and no longer did get a notice of program upgrades available.
Also I have a dial up and the transfer rate is usually around 3-7 kb per second which would take a fairly long time to upload the upgrade.
I did notice when I booted this morning I did get a message that I will typically get when the registry and OS needs to reset after an install has been done. That kind of surprised me, so I would have to conclude that this happened 2 days ago when I was last using the internet.
As far as the VRDB I have found out the only way it works "automatically" for me is to set it to when the "screen saver" is on. It never would work with the "computer idle" setting I presume because my screen saver made it look like my computer was never idle.
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous. So far I haven't had any issues however.
Maybe there are additions since the version I had that are beneficial and it is a blessing in disguise. ;) It's been reported that the scan time is faster, I'll check that out.
-
Did you repair your installation at any time? If so, it will be upgraded.
It never would work with the "computer idle" setting I presume because my screen saver made it look like my computer was never idle.
No, idle means 8 seconds without keyboard and/or mouse utilization.
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous. So far I haven't had any issues however.
I see no reason to keep 4.7 instead of 4.8...
-
As far as the VRDB I have found out the only way it works "automatically" for me is to set it to when the "screen saver" is on. It never would work with the "computer idle" setting I presume because my screen saver made it look like my computer was never idle.
The reason I suggested what I did was so as the VRDB 'didn't' run automatically as you are complaining about it was grinding you system to a halt, but you have edited that part out of your original post. So by running the VRDB at a time of your choosing it won't impact your system as you fire it off and take a break away from your computer.
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous. So far I haven't had any issues however.
Maybe there are additions since the version I had that are beneficial and it is a blessing in disguise. ;) It's been reported that the scan time is faster, I'll check that out.
To remain with an old version isn't a good idea as a) there may be optimisations that help improve performance, b) at some point avast won't work if something essential gets changed and will only work with the latest version. This happened some time ago with the virus signature updates, the way this was done was improved and the new system didn't work with old versions of avast.
With any security based application it is essential to keep it up to date or you might as well abandon it.
Personally I would be searching for a way to increase my RAM, there are some suppliers that still provide old RAM.
-
Actually this would have had to have happened since May 16, 2008 as this is when version 4.8.1201 was made available.
No, not really, it works in a different way - it's not connected to a release of a new update.
Yes, somewhen during the last week (Friday?) the version 4.7.1043 (if I remember correctly) has been "blacklisted" as it's been causing some technical troubles - so everybody who was still using this old version was updated to the latest program build during the subsequent VPS update.
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous.
Well, you are right that most of the new 4.8 features do not work on Win9x, but:
- the memory usage (increase) connected with those unsupported new features will be very, very small (if any)
- you'll get the updated engine - which means new unpackers, for example - which brings slightly higher detection
- besides new features, the existing ones are often improved somehow (could be speed or size optimization) - so the program might actually start/work faster in the new version, even though it's slightly "bigger"
-
Thanks Igor. Another 'mystery' solved ;)
-
As far as the VRDB I have found out the only way it works "automatically" for me is to set it to when the "screen saver" is on. It never would work with the "computer idle" setting I presume because my screen saver made it look like my computer was never idle.
The reason I suggested what I did was so as the VRDB 'didn't' run automatically as you are complaining about it was grinding you system to a halt, but you have edited that part out of your original post. So by running the VRDB at a time of your choosing it won't impact your system as you fire it off and take a break away from your computer.
My mistake :-[ I'm using the wrong acronym I meant to say my system would grind to a halt for the past 3-4 months whenever a Vps update was done (hope I've to the acronym right this time ;)). I never know when the VRDB is done because I've always had it set to run when "idle". I had the VRDB set to run with screen saver and it worked for a while but then stopped working (not updating every 21 days) so by going back to run with "screen saver" on solved my problem in that regard.
As far as the Vps updates it didn't use to kill my system when the update started going back more than 6 months ago. I read where version 4.8.1169 has improved the updater (assuming this relates to Vps updates). It seemed like on my last Vps update my system was not quit so overwhelmed as much although it did remain "sluggish" and it is kind of difficult to really tell for sure but I think my computer was a more responsive during the time Vps was probably updating the Virus database. I always know (especially in the past 3-4 months before this most current version) when Vps was getting updated because my hard drive would be getting hit non-stop which resulted in the system pretty much grinding to a halt until a little after getting the message the Vps update was done. This last time I don't think I noticed the hard drive getting so overwhelmed as before.
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous. So far I haven't had any issues however.
Maybe there are additions since the version I had that are beneficial and it is a blessing in disguise. ;) It's been reported that the scan time is faster, I'll check that out.
To remain with an old version isn't a good idea as a) there may be optimisations that help improve performance, b) at some point avast won't work if something essential gets changed and will only work with the latest version. This happened some time ago with the virus signature updates, the way this was done was improved and the new system didn't work with old versions of avast.
With any security based application it is essential to keep it up to date or you might as well abandon it.
Personally I would be searching for a way to increase my RAM, there are some suppliers that still provide old RAM.
Yes I've thought about adding RAM but then it occurs to me that it maybe wiser to just eventually buy another computer some day. ;D
As far as upgrading I have learned in some cases I can no longer update program versions due to lack of OS support in my case... but with that said...
I totally agree with you on updating Avast and had updated at some point between 4.6 to 4.7 but a second 4.7 update had given me problems and considering my old system and low resources I was always reluctant after that to update the Avast program.
So far so good, I haven't had any problems and perhaps some things are working even better possibly (knock on wood).
Thanks for all the help, this forum is really great. 8)
-
Actually this would have had to have happened since May 16, 2008 as this is when version 4.8.1201 was made available.
No, not really, it works in a different way - it's not connected to a release of a new update.
Yes, somewhen during the last week (Friday?) the version 4.7.1043 (if I remember correctly) has been "blacklisted" as it's been causing some technical troubles - so everybody who was still using this old version was updated to the latest program build during the subsequent VPS update.
Yes it was Friday that this happened (if I recall as well) but I do keep a record of when what I upgrade to and I had actually been on version: 4.7.827. According to my records I had upgraded to version: 4.7.844 but that version had problems and I went back to 4.7.827 and stayed with that version as I was apprehensive to upgrade any further after the problems I experienced with 4.7.844. I will always hold off backing up my system for awhile when I do upgrades on any software so I keep the opportunity available to be to restore back to older "image" of my system.
I have not had any issues with 4.8.1201 to this point but I was wondering in cases where the user may want to go back to a prior version in the case of problems are older program versions available to be installed over the current version?
In the cases of upgrades I assume what is happening is that the upgrade is installed "over" the older version. In the case of installing an "older" version over a "newer" version (assuming this can be done as related to my question above) is there an issue regarding this as I would assume some aspects of the upgrade would have to be removed in order to effectively so to speak "re-install" an older version again (with a newer version present)?
This would all be in the case where a problem cropped up to late after I had backed up my hard drive image and had no recourse to "undo" the upgrade of course :-\ (which thankfully has never been the case).
My concerns, other than compatibility (which so far seems not to be a problem), is the fact that in more current upgrades a lot of code is added which my system with WIN98SE doesn't even use since some of the additions are not operational with WIN98SE which to me means a bunch of code and program size that is unnecessary and takes up more RAM that isn't needed to be taken up (important to me with 96 RAM) thus overhead that is superfluous.
Well, you are right that most of the new 4.8 features do not work on Win9x, but:
- the memory usage (increase) connected with those unsupported new features will be very, very small (if any)
- you'll get the updated engine - which means new unpackers, for example - which brings slightly higher detection
- besides new features, the existing ones are often improved somehow (could be speed or size optimization) - so the program might actually start/work faster in the new version, even though it's slightly "bigger"
Thanks Igor for the info, I'm always apprehensive upgrading software with an old system with limited resources... what you have said makes me feel better already. ;D
This forum is the greatest and is just one more of the many reasons Avast is the best (I recommend every time I get the opportunity).
-
I don't know if you have it set to Auto, Ask or Manual VPS updates ?
Well I will let you in on a secret, the best policy as far as VPS updates are concerned, leave it set to the default value Auto.
Why, because a) they are incremental and only measured in KBs rather than MBs and most importantly b) the Auto update is CPU throttled so as not to take the CPU above 30% so you are able to continue with whatever it is that you are doing. However, I don't know if this trick of limiting the CPU use works with win98 or not.
For me also on dial-up and set to Auto I see no impact however, when set to Ask or Manual when I select Update I too get a small period of time when the Update takes the majority of the CPU activity. I know my system is more powerful than yours, but if I notice it you would more so.
There is no such CPU restriction for manual (or Ask) VPS updates as you are in control of when you permit it to update and wouldn't kick it off when you were busy ???
Looking at your signature for someone complaining of not having much RAM you have a lot of applications that could well be running in the background.
-
I don't know if you have it set to Auto, Ask or Manual VPS updates ?
Well I will let you in on a secret, the best policy as far as VPS updates are concerned, leave it set to the default value Auto.
Why, because a) they are incremental and only measured in KBs rather than MBs and most importantly b) the Auto update is CPU throttled so as not to take the CPU above 30% so you are able to continue with whatever it is that you are doing. However, I don't know if this trick of limiting the CPU use works with win98 or not.
For me also on dial-up and set to Auto I see no impact however, when set to Ask or Manual when I select Update I too get a small period of time when the Update takes the majority of the CPU activity. I know my system is more powerful than yours, but if I notice it you would more so.
There is no such CPU restriction for manual (or Ask) VPS updates as you are in control of when you permit it to update and wouldn't kick it off when you were busy ???
Looking at your signature for someone complaining of not having much RAM you have a lot of applications that could well be running in the background.
Good question and points... I should have mentioned... I have always had my VPS updates set to "Auto" for the biggest reason that I want to have them on my system as SOON AS THEIR AVAILABLE!.
Manual I would likely never have them as soon as available. The "ask" might not be an idea however. For the past few months I have just known when my system nearly stops and the hard drive is going crazy that I have a VPS update coming in and I basically just wait it out. ;)
Since I have always used the "Auto" update setting in regards to what you mentioned about "Auto" setting: "Auto update is CPU throttled so as not to take the CPU above 30%". That's a really cool feature.
Do you know how long that has been the case. As I said I've always used "Auto" but only noticed the huge "drag" on my system for only the past 3-4 months (before that I really didn't notice anything at all and haven't added anything to my system for a long time that I can remember anyway)? Now that I think about it I might have started using teatimer (spybot) about that time. :-\ (I might try turning that off awhile and see if this helps but I really don't think that would be an issue really).
Regardless that's nice to know about the 30% CPU "throttle" on the "Auto" setting for updates (which as I say I have always used) IF IT WORKS WITH WIN98SE (which as you said your not sure). It would seem to me to maybe solve my problem. It's almost as if this kind of thing was working all along until a few months ago because the VPS updates changed so much as far as how they caused no problems with "overhead" in the past.
Is there anyway to find this out as far as that 30% CPU throttle working with WIN98SE?
It couldn't be due to a program version change since I was using the same Avast version when I started noticing the VPS updates slowing my system significantly the past few months more than it did before that time frame.
I kind of wondered if VPS updates are being downloaded as a "whole" and maybe the file sizes are just getting really big but it doesn't seem to make sense to me that the updates would be done this way but rather just add to the existent file on the bases of file name and what is new.
Btw, how do the VPS updates work in this regard? I have always wondered about that....
Thanks again David.
-
Good point - I am afraid the "CPU limiter" feature is not present on Win 9x either, so there's no 30% CPU throttle there.
Not that it depends on any NT specific features... but still Win 9x is a simpler OS, with regard to process/thread scheduling, and this feature is kind of a hack - so we were afraid it might cause very undesirable effects on Win 9x.
The slowdown you are talking about doesn't really have to be connected with CPU usage - but also with disk activity (depends on what is fast and what is slow on the system - CPU or disk subsystem).
-
The restricted CPU has been in for a while in 4.8, I can't recall exactly what build.
Unfortunately as Igor mentions it isn't available with win98 (thanks for the info Igor).
The VPS remains the same, incremental updates only those you actually need (as I said KBs rather than MBs), it checks the VPS version you have against the latest and downloads only those after your version, so it isn't a full VPS download which is in the region of 15MB.
-
The CPU limitation predates avast 4.8 and certainly was present in the later 4.7 releases (not that it helps lakrsrool).
To further confirm igor's comment see this post (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=33145.msg283041#msg283041).
It goes some way further to explaining what lakrsrool is seeing. The CPU and memory intensive nature of the VPS updates will likely not just be "hogging" the CPU but due to the memory limitations will be causing a lot of activity to the paging file too.
I have an old laptop with only 96Mb memory running WinMe and I find it best to just leave it alone when I start it up until the avast update process brings it up to date.
-
Regarding the 'rollback' - no, it's not possible to go back to the original "forbidden" version. You may ofcourse go back to some version between the forbidden and the latest - by way of uninstall and install.
These forced updates are very infrequent, though - they happen only when the current version is known to be stable and when the old version count is quite low.
-
...and when it contains some serious problems, as was the case with v4.7.1043. Even though used only by a miniscule fraction of our users, due to some bugs in its updater, it was still consuming substantial bandwidth of our updating servers...