7.0.1466 updated to 9.0.2021

[Staticguy]

Hello Dch48? How's it going? We haven't seen you in this forum for a very long time. Thought you just dissapeared? There's an custom installation for Avast to choose which feature(s) you want and don't want? Anyways, it's all up to the user's choice. I am still using Avast! 2014 Free and I am proud of it 

[REDACTED]

G'day all - I had suspected I might be tapping into a well of discontent here.  Having said that, I do wonder how much is generated by a fairly major change in the UI, similar to the fuss over the W7->W8 interface?  I know I have major problems moving away from the old W9x/W2K "classical" desktop, and that sometimes expresses itself by doubts over the "functionality" of the OS.  Certainly I got used to the UI in Avast! v7, it is easy to work with and I've found some GUIdance in it, showing me where to go for certain tasks.

And I do agree that just as W8 and W10 are... "better"?... OSes than their predecessors, so are v8 and v9.  Well, I hope they are!  But maybe some thought should be given to continuity of GUI look-and-feel so the update shock can be minimised.

And I'll reiterate my call for a Lite version.  Having worked through more than a few "multi-function" programs, I can state definitively that you cannot "remove modules you don't want".  Even when the unwanted module is actually not copied to disk in the install (which is unusual), all the hooks are still present, dangling in the breeze.  It really is exactly equal to buying a "printer" that copies, prints, scans and faxes.  It does everything, but none of those tasks are performed well: and if one function breaks, the whole lot falls over like a tree in a storm.

bootsy mentioned "old school".  The concept is one of rock-solid performance, usually at the expense of "convenience", and always with the thought of spending time evaluating each quality separately and with a view to long-term investment.

Ummm.  Oh yes.  Trojans vs Root-kits.  There's only one way either of them get onto any box. The user has to install them.  There is no recorded instance of any malware ever having climbed up through the modem or router and installing itself.  Not that the user doesn't have to explicitly double-click the exe.  Some very major software was designed--one might think deliberately--to do this task for us.  We don't appreciate that email "preview" is merely a different terminology for "open it briefly when I hover".  And when a major major software house decides to save us the effort of opening that attachment by ourselves...  And then there is scripting.  When users are unaware of what a script can do, and very happy they can make their emails so beautiful, why should anyone be surprised that the romantic message contains poison?  But the result is--at least implicitly--that the User has decided to open the attachment and install the contents.  There is a difference between Trojans and Root-kits: Trojans contain a "pay-load" which may be a Root-kit.  Root-kits do not usually organise their own transport...  But both have to be installed by the user.

I guess that's all I have to say.  Except, drake127: "Gotta Lite?"

Gordon.

[REDACTED]

Streaming updates are also unnecessary imo. Updating once an hour or every 240 min is plenty good. (And yes, I disabled all these things in v7.)   

Evryone is doing it now and it is the only way to handle the large amount of new malware found evry day

No, it's not. It's a new(er) option. And 'everyone is doing it' is not an argument.

20% of all malware ever created appeared in 2013   http://press.pandasecurity.com/news/20-of-all-malware-ever-created-appeared-in-2013/ [...]

We have been over this. More than once.

Updating once an hour or every 240 min is plenty good. 

Why not go back to the 1980 when they sendt out virus signature updates once a month on floppydisk

Some members here need to learn how to put on their big boy pants.

So what if you get an updated db an hour or two before I do, because I am checking once every two hours and you are having them streamed? What are the chances that in that 2-hr window (the longest window possible in this context) you are going to get one of the exact viruses included in that particular update, in that 2hr window?  Close to ZERO. Especially if you are a savvy user who does not engage in unsafe behaviors.

There is certainly nothing wrong with streaming updates if someone prefers them, but if you think that makes you significantly safer than checking every 2 hours, you must be constantly courting disaster.

[REDACTED]

Just my two cents for what it's worth since I no longer use Avast. One of the main reasons why I decided not to use the versions of the free Avast newer than v7 was what I consider to be needless bloat. I mean the new features like the software updater, browser cleaner, grimefighter, and all the other things that have been added on top of what used to be a very good and light AV. I just think the company is headed in the wrong direction and possibly losing users and potential users because of it.

Sadly, I agree. (I tried to PM to ask what AV you are using but apparently I don't have the creds to do that yet.) If you can PM me, I'd appreciate it.

[REDACTED]

G'day all - I had suspected I might be tapping into a well of discontent here.  Having said that, I do wonder how much is generated by a fairly major change in the UI, similar to the fuss over the W7->W8 interface?

While I agree people are resistant to change in a UI in general, there are some important points that play into accepting or rejecting that change. When a new UI makes a program easier to use and more intuitive, people quickly get used to the new UI and end up preferring it in a short time. When the changes create a less-friendly, less intuitive UI, it's a different story.

But in this case (i.e. thread and context) the UI has not been the top complaint. It's been nearly anecdotal. The top complaint has been... well, 'everything else'.

And I do agree that just as W8 and W10 are... "better"?... OSes than their predecessors, so are v8 and v9.  Well, I hope they are!  But maybe some thought should be given to continuity of GUI look-and-feel so the update shock can be minimised.

It was the functionality of the newer versions that kept me (and others here, judging from their posts) from using them. The changed UIs over time was just an added annoyance. 

And FTR the general reception of W8 has been poor. It is not considered a better OS than W7 except on touchscreen devices, and only because W7 is not a touchscreen OS; not because W8 is great. So while W8 might be handier than W7 on a tablet it's certainly not better on a laptop.

I understand the market is headed away from PCs and into handhelds, so touchscreen interfaces are familiar to people, and even if we are using AVAST on a laptop or DT, they might have thought a W8-style UI looked more ... contemporary. I prefer the v7 UI (not even 8 or 9). Though the UI alone will not turn me from a great program. But bloat will.

[Pondus]

So what if you get an updated db an hour or two before I do, because I am checking once every two hours and you are having them streamed? What are the chances that in that 2-hr window (the longest window possible in this context) you are going to get one of the exact viruses included in that particular update, in that 2hr window?  Close to ZERO. Especially if you are a savvy user who does not engage in unsafe behaviors.

There is certainly nothing wrong with streaming updates if someone prefers them, but if you think that makes you significantly safer than checking every 2 hours, you must be constantly courting disaster.   

When the bad guys start spread malware with mail / facebook it goes fast, and then evry infected computer start spreading the malware, so it goes faster and faster.....that 2 hour window can be the difference of infected/not infected when that mail arrive in your inbox

Mydom   http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mydoom

[RejZoR]

As far as i remember, version 7 doesn't have same cloud capabilities and Auto Sandbox is a lot more primitive compared to DeepScreen in latest version. Besides, i can't understand why people use old outdated versions of antiviruses where being up to date at all times is top priority above anything else. Otherwise you may just as well not use any antivirus...

[Staticguy]

RejZor I completely agree with you. They don't want to install up-to-date antivirus software and will stick to using very old aged out-dated antivirus and complain about these things and even they are worried about the sort of data collected and usage by Avast! via Avast Privacy Policy. Now I can't be bothered reading these sorts of things anymore.

I have been using Avast! since the 1st very 1st version of version 7 till now and I know what Avast is doing and always works to keep Avast! antivirus software the best it can be and I will be forever sticking to them. Avast is by far the most awesome and best product I have ever known.

[Eddy]

Especially if you are a savvy user who does not engage in unsafe behaviors.

A "savvy" user will not be using outdated security software.

There is no recorded instance of any malware ever having climbed up through the modem or router and installing itself.

You are totally wrong. I can't recall the names (CIH / Tjsernobil?) because last time I've seen them is 15-20 years ago. But there where (are?) several that do.

Ummm.  Oh yes.  Trojans vs Root-kits.  There's only one way either of them get onto any box.  The user has to install them.

Wrong again. A admin can do it for legitimate reasons.

The changed UIs over time was just an added annoyance.

It was for you. Most other people don't have a problem with it. If someone like how it looks or not is always a matter of personal taste. Main thing is that it is working.

Idea for avast:
Let users set their own colors, or create themes where people can choose from.
Personally I liked the Star Trek theme in the older version.

[REDACTED]

There is no recorded instance of any malware ever having climbed up through the modem or router and installing itself.

You are totally wrong. I can't recall the names (CIH / Tjsernobil?) because last time I've seen them is 15-20 years ago. But there where (are?) several that do.

CIH couldn't even climb a ladder.  It is a virus, limited (ATM) to W9x.  However I did see one day Nimda "climbing up the modem", but the computer owners had IIS installed and running.  The clean-up tech didn't bother to check the machine as he cleaned it...  Even without a NAT router, if the invitation isn't there, the malware cannot forge an entry permit.  It needs something like a server with active solicitation, or a browser on a hostile page.  So I stand by my statement.  There is no recorded instance of any malware ever having climbed up through the modem or router and installing itself.

Ummm.  Oh yes.  Trojans vs Root-kits.  There's only one way either of them get onto any box.  The user has to install them.

Wrong again. A admin can do it for legitimate reasons.

Ummmm...  So an Admin is not a user?  Er...        Where's the Face-Palm smiley?  Seriously, When Nimda reponded to the invitation from IIS, that was a user deliberately installing it.  The deliberation arose from both the owners not advising the techie, and the techie not checking what was running.  Remember that IIS can run as a service, so is not immediately visible.

I'm not a system sanitiser, for some very good reasons that don't concern anybody here.  However, I have been once--and may be again--a system admin.  That means I worked at, and got paid for, the sharp end.  The very sharp end.

@RejZoR - I totally sympathise with your opinion on v7 sandbox.  I'm running W7HP SP1, and I am constantly amazed at the number of times I would expect some software to be sandboxed but it isn't.  I have told both Java and Avast! to let me know when the sandbox is in use.  It has never been used.

Avast! IMHO is still the premier AV package.  Unfortunately, some of the design team have this idea that we are all incompetent, and that causes us to think that maybe they're pointing the finger 180 degrees out of phase.  We find a version that offers the protection we want, with the functionality we look for, then the next version goes does a Microsoft on us.  Those who have had to clean the Outlook cesspit will know what I'm talking about: when menus are changed so comprehensively in new versions you need a manual to find what used to be intuitive; when functionality changes so fundamentally that you have to go back to school again...

Just for example, it is essential that users have the ability to quarantine some files from surveillance.  I have mentioned (https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=151078.msg1097792#msg1097792) my problems with Avast v7 interfering with my hosts file: this simply should never have happened.  I understand that the hosts file can be targeted, and there are certainly vectors that could overcome the read-only file attribute--but that is no reason for Avast! to throw it into the Chest.  The file is there for a purpose, and removing it severely compromises the system.  And I have not yet figured what Avast! saw there in the first place, unless it thought I shouldn't have "ssl.google-analytics.com" redirected to 127.0.0.1!  If any new version of Avast! makes exclusions difficult, then we find using that version difficult.  It's easy, really.  We just roll back to a version with the functionality we need.

OK, tomorrow's Sunday, it's very close and I have dogs to work out.

Edit: Eddy has a point.  Can we has skins?

Gordon.

[Eddy]

I did put a question mark after CIH for a reason.
As I said, I can't remember the names.

I do recall that after a clean installation of windows your system immediately got infected at the moment you connected to your ISP if you had no av installed.
You would get the message "Windows is shutting down in 60 seconds"

hmm wasn't it Blaster or something?

[REDACTED]

I did put a question mark after CIH for a reason.
As I said, I can't remember the names.

I do recall that after a clean installation of windows your system immediately got infected at the moment you connected to your ISP if you had no av installed.
You would get the message "Windows is shutting down in 60 seconds"

hmm wasn't it Blaster or something?

Indeed. Blaster it was and still is.

[REDACTED]

You still have option to keep major version you want but helps us to test only one build for each major version. That's become a big deal for us and helps us a lot.

And imo is more than fair and accomodating.

Bootsy, you do realize that is bull, right?

If a user had an older minor version of v7, and AVAST was worried about keeping one build for each major version, then why were users forced to update to a higher major version? Instead of the way it was done, they could have just forced the last minor version and accomplished their goal.

[RejZoR]

The fact is, out of 200 million users, only a small percentage is competent. The rest has to be treated as if they have no clue what so ever and product has to be fool proof. You have extra tweaks available if you want to fiddle with them but they aren't enabled out of the box.

As for the updating of program, backend architecture sometimes demands that. I'm suprised they still support avast! 4.8 (or have they finally discontinued it?). I mean, think of how many backward compatible services they have to run in parallel if they want to support versions all the way back to version 5. It will be 6 with this years release. That's very costly and ineffective. Now imagine if they'd have to support not just the latest version from each major release but also all minor builds in between. That's why they have the policy explained by avast! team member.

[REDACTED]

Hello,
On my computer the update was also done this morning without my permission (I was with Version 7.0.2021).
As for various reasons I'm still working on windows xp, this update made ​​my computer much slower, and internet browsing very painful.
Either avast find a solution to allow me to stay with the old version, or I'll leave for competitors

I have to chime in on this topic as the above situation is exactly my experience (replete with xp). Unlike others who may be unwilling to deal with the newer version's look, bloat, UI etc., I am willing to hate all that (and I vehemently do hate all that) as long as Avast! 2014 does not bog down my computer and make access to the internet impossible.

As of today I cannot uninstall/reinstall any older version of Avast! (I was using v8.0.2021) without the unwanted program update immediately taking place (despite my preference for program updates being set to "manual") so that if I reboot I am once again stuck with a version of Avast! that renders my computer virtually unusable.

Aside from feeling as though the Avast! devs became tyrannical in taking away my choice in the matter ... it strikes me as utterly irresponsible to force-feed a version that so many have issues with in terms of its (dys)functionality (problems and complaints fill a variety of forums).

I can tell you if MS forced Windows 8 on me without my permission and gave me no choice but to use it, I would go back to reading books and be done with it.

If someone can tell me how to regain use of my computer whilst using Avast! 2014 I will continue to hate the look of it so long as it does the job I've always trusted it to do. I'm using XP Pro SP3, FF v30 with no add-ons.

I've been an avid proponent of Avast! for many, many years and have referred countless friends and business associates. I actually do want to make this new version work. Any help will be appreciated.