I am so done with avast av!

[Loco4e]

I agree AVAST should NOT force an program update to any machine... For example what would of happen if Apple would of force os8 update to every Iphone user it will be a nightmare !!!! People choice not the company THE USERS KNOWS WHATS BEST FOR THEIR COMPUTERS even if they don't who cares is their problem not AVAST.

[REDACTED]

@dprout69, you're exactly right - it's about accepting the risk, which is a matter of knowing in advance what the risk is and being given a choice of what to do about it. If something absolutely must be updated for some reason, please, have it install nicely and allow the user to test the additional, er, features - one by one and revert if something breaks, until sorted out.

In my case, initially, it seemed to be "just" the browser that broke, which is pretty bad for a start. I ran Task Manager and watched it start up, then after a few seconds stop, every time. No rollback on the new Avast interface, which couldn't call its online help, couldn't see any obvious settings in the unfamiliar interface, so "oh sh##", Add/Remove Programs - and away to Blue Screen Hell, on my everyday machine. The one I wanted to protect. (Sigh.)

Avast (and let's be honest, it's not just Avast. Firefox is even further down Bloat Road, as are many others.) used to work so well, just kept out of the way and occasionally surprised you with a warning about something. That was all I really expected from the free version; I did look at the paid upgrade, but for an occasional domestic surfer it was a bit like hiring that security guard to patrol my front door when the simple Avast Free lock seemed to be keeping the undesirables out quite well enough for my minimal needs. I like lightweight. I like quick. It's why I went for Avast in the first place. (And Firefox, come to that.)

I noticed a couple of versions ago that the system tray icon seemed to be churning away a lot of the time, but although that was already slowing things down I decided not to upgrade the "front panel" any more until absolutely necessary and just to let Avast update its virus files. Turning on my monitor when I got back from the shops and finding that something had updated itself - and something as mission-critical as the AV! - was almost insulting.

Nothing has that right. It asks. I set the machine up like that precisely to prevent what just happened. I decide when to update, after reading the experiences of other people who have done so. Having seen several threads of discontent here, I would still have been a happy, and more-or-less safe, user of the simpler Avast now, had this fiasco not happened unbidden.

So now, if I'm lucky, maybe there's something on one of those old boot discs which can repair a registry (I'm assuming that's what it is) belonging to a non-running system. Or trying to find the file I found years ago on how to do a Repair Install - somewhere in the borked machine, I'm sure. Or, God have mercy, having to install the whole thing again and find all the installers for everything ... and set everything up again ...

Oh, and "since they are able to post and things are spelled correctly" ... Know exactly what you mean! Yes, I am indeed not a maniac AFAIK, although I might well have been slightly drunk this Saturday evening if I didn't have a shredded box to attend to. 

[RejZoR]

I agree AVAST should NOT force an program update to any machine... For example what would of happen if Apple would of force os8 update to every Iphone user it will be a nightmare !!!! People choice not the company THE USERS KNOWS WHATS BEST FOR THEIR COMPUTERS even if they don't who cares is their problem not AVAST.

Your logic makes no logic. If you know it better, why do you even bother using an antivirus then? You seem to (by your logic) know it better than experts at avast! virus lab. The reality is, users don't know a thing what's really best for them unless you're a PC guru in which case you'd have your AV fully updated to the latest possible version. And that's a fact.

[polonus]

Hi RejZoR,

I cannot see the reasoning for protesting against a program security update on a machine.
Why we do not hear anyone about Google Browser silent updates (a policy also performed for reasons of security).
No one is skipping a browser security update as far as I am aware of.
If the browser outweighs the old cycles one takes on a lightweight portable browser version, but does not stop updating.

If the poster is so reluctant about this. why has not he tweaked his registry
so that he could decide to always be back-ported when he like that?
Whenever the user knows what is best for his computer he should have the knowledge to do so.
When he does not know, he apparently does not know what is best for his computer.

polonus

[schmidthouse]

In addition, near sighted and misinformed/uninformed decisions threaten us all imo.....Out of date software, shields off, patches not applied.
 And that's simply unacceptable.

[RejZoR]

Well yeah, i didn't like new Firefox features at first but then i just accepted them, adapted to them and now i like it again the way it is, despite the fact they changed so many things and not necessarely best to my liking. It's how it is with all software. But you have to draw a line. You can keep an older version of audio editor or a photo editor if you like it more for some reason. Because tehy are just that, apart from few very rare image exploits, they are not probelmatic. But browsers and antivirus, that's like the first line of defense. If this isn't as up to date as possible, it doens't really mattter what you have up to date behind them...

[REDACTED]

What twisted, convoluted logic, Building of straw man, rationalizing etc.

I am a long time user an supporter of Avast also, but the op and others have stated valid reasons why they did not want the updates that even  ended up resulting a "brick" machine in one case. (how many others we haven't heard from)

All the talk of why...., why not...., etc. are irrelevant and a divergence.

In the link provided to the Avast spokesman he gives his reasons why they did it, and admits that maybe they should have given advanced notice.

That is the bottom line here - there would be no problem if they had given advanced notice.


Many people who may be least able to afford to remedy it, may now have trashed machines. It was not necessary, and none of this rationalizing, and twisted reasoning makes it justifiable.


Hopefully they learn from the situation and do not do that sort of thing again in the future.

[polonus]

I can see an eventual warning about foreseeable incompatibility problems as an option in certain circumstances.
But I cannot see this where some user complains about an update incompatibility with an obsolete OS (XP).
Knowledgeable users must be aware of eventual incompatibility issues alongside certain other programs/tools/configs.
It is a sys admins every day job to do so.
You cannot blame the pianist when a certain work cannot be played on a particular piano.
It is because of that particular piano that is not suitable to be played that way.
You cannot play Beethoven on Honky-tonk.

polonus

[REDACTED]

For whatever inane reason, the powers that be in the company have decided that the explicit choices made by the users of their products are to be totally and utterly ignored. Users make their own program and update choices for valid and specific reasons. No matter what those reasons are, they should never be overridden [emphasis added]

AVAST, take note.

If the author decides that a specific program or version will no longer be supported - fine, that is within their prerogative to choose their direction - but there should never be a massive, undeclared and forced version update with absolutely no concern for the end user and absolutely NO choice given prior to it happening.

When a version reaches end of life, AVAST should send a popup alert that the AVAST version being used will no longer be supported "in 60 days" and virus db updates will no longer be available. That gives the user time to prepare for an update or change. The user should be offered the option to update to any supported version, not just the newest one, as hardware constraints could make the newest version impossible, or there might be other reasons why the user wants the next available version and not the newest one. The user should be able to choose. 

If the program is not updated by the end of life date, a recurring popup could alert the user the program has now expired and its viral db is out of date and will no longer be updated. (Leaving SOME protection is better than none until the user updates.) This leaves the responsibility with the user where it belongs. When a user has specified in the config settings they do not want a program upgrade, AVAST's only job is notification and offering to upgrade. 

This is without a doubt - regardless of any good or bad reasoning for why it was necessary - ridiculous and unacceptable behavior. Avast's choices DO NOT trump the user's choices - ever!

That's so self-evident it's a shame it needs to be said.

To be specific and clear... I and others I've heard from today have older PC's that have been 'topped out' when it comes to the speed/memory options they have. These machines tend to struggle with these increasingly bloated and evermore memory hungry versions as they've been rolled out. They may not have the latest and greatest hardware, but these machines are well running and capable, and have many years of service left in them. [...]

One of several dozens reasons why someone might not want the newest version of ANY software, not just AVAST.

Every one of these PC's is running Windows 7, so there's no obsolete OS issues in play here. Each and every one of them was running avast 6, and were ALL set with their program update options carefully and deliberately specified as MANUAL PROGRAM UPDATES ONLY. The operative word being "was"... until today when they were forced into a background update to the latest 2014 version - AND - absolutely no alerts, selectable options, or prior notification on any impending version change or expiring versions was ever seen.

Unbelievably short-sighted at the least. And unexusedly so since it's not like AVAST is a computer-illiterate entity.

Productive machines turned to slugs in an instant.

In this litigious society AVAST will be lucky if they don't get sued by some company who claims this move cost them hundreds of thousands in lost work revenue and IT costs.

I hope AVAST listens.

[REDACTED]

Avast should listen to its customers if they want to keep us,
Avast internet security V 5 used to be about 60mb, V 7 - 120mb ! I am tired of having to learn new GUI every other week - its counter productive if you have to learning where everything is at every few months- imagine every few months  you need to move to a new town and re-learn where everything is at and how to get to places.

I dont think I need to explain for what reason I want to use an older version of Avast, Avast team should recognize the fact that there is a need by its CUSTOMERS/Users to use older versions, the more user friendly Avast will be the more customers it will have.

I kind of lost some trust in Avast when I specifically set my settings to manual update and moments later the program is telling me to restart the computer because it needs to complete the upgrade that I DID nOT ASK FOR!
Anyway, I am a paying customer and this is strike 2 for Avast in my book.

 

[REDACTED]

In reality, the use of a 3 major versions out of date antivirus program provides you with dubious protection.  If the action of Avast to self-update has resulted in your choosing to remove it, perhaps that may actually be best for all concerned.

Philosophically, I can see both sides of this issue.  However, I'm leaning toward jwtavwvt's point of view in the original post.

Yes, you've chosen to download and install a web-integrated self-updating antivirus solution on your system.  Yes, the self-updating feature is central to, and a major selling point of, the product.  And, I don't think any promise was made that it would stop self-updating just because a new major version was released, but...

Anyone would expect that it should obey your settings choice to prompt rather than automatically update.

Avast Engineering - if they deem the product is no longer viable for whatever reasons - rather than just force an update, should prompt the user if the "Ask when an update is available" option is checked NO MATTER WHAT.  Something like:

Your version of Avast is no longer viable and is incapable of protecting you from modern threats. 
[Update to latest major version]  [Uninstall]

I imagine they'd make the first button much bigger and shinier than the second.

Never forget that there was a time when all software that forced its way into your system, that duped users into installing things they didn't actively choose, was considered malware.

-Noel

[polonus]

Well I think a lot of these problems could be avoided by placing the responsibility back at the user concerned by offering a "manual update routine" next to automatic updating, if one so chooses for that option the door-stopper state of a computer would be his or her own choice in case something went dramatically wrong.
Most browsers still have the manual update next to automatic updates, but there should be a way to interrupt the automatic updater for advanced users/developers/testers etc......
Some software choose to update automatically because the majority of insecure and n00b/average users don't seem bothered to be responsible for their own security and so it was gently taken out of their hands (e.g. "we know best for you as seemingly you cannot look after or aren't interested in your own browser security properly yourselves").
In the opinion of some automatic updating schemes is malicious as for others the halting of automatic updates (through changes to the registry by malcode for instance) is malicious. 
Those that feel strongly about this should clarify their position out on the "avast! wish list".

I personally feel stronger about an opt-in policy for additional software rather than an opt-out.
The most annoying nuisance lately is the aggressive crap-bundling by some downloaders and software installers alike.
No one likes to be guided through a Conduit-cleansing removal routine to experience what a annoying persistent pestilence this is, and software is hesitating to qualify it as the malware it really is for Conduit has very apt judicial support department to sue the socks out of everybody that wants "to call a spade a spade".
So again I say we should see everything in real perspective,

polonus

[REDACTED]

Just keep in mind that a VERY GOOD reason for choosing "prompt me" vs. "automatic update" is that not every update goes smoothly and there may be times when you just can't stand to have your computer taken down by an automatic update.  I believe that scenario is mentioned in the original post of this thread.

As an example, I'm a person who uses his computer for critical business virtually all the time.  I always set everything to update manually.  Then I also take the responsibility to allocate time regularly to DO those updates.  Thus I have a fully up-to-date computer that doesn't chance breaking my workflow at the worst possible time.

I think the takeaway advice to Avast here is this:  Don't dumb things down so much that adept, advanced users can't control the product to do what they need.  The "laymen" crowd will likely leave it set to the default settings, and it's fine to default them to "all automatic", as long as there ARE settings serious users can change, and as long as those settings ARE rigorously followed by the software.

And in case it isn't obvious:  If the Disqualification / Emergency Update process isn't capable of what I described above, it should be changed to work that way.

-Noel

[REDACTED]

OK, a progress report on the freshly bricked PassingCloud PC (PCPC?) and a request for help, if anyone at Avast HQ is reading this thread. (And if so, I hope this business is giving somebody a few grey hairs.)

Running a registry repair utility (ReHive) from a boot disc didn't solve it. The program corrected what it could in the files it found, but could not make the machine run again (it still generated BSODs after rebooting). Fortunately, this time (unlike when some rogue software decided to override my preferences and update itself) I had an image of the prior setup, so restored it.

The first Repair Install, having found the assorted CDs etc. that I thought I wouldn't be needing again, did not work either. I've never before seen Setup reboot into Safe Mode before declaring that it cannot run in Safe Mode, but I have now. Restore. This morning, I have been running another Repair Install, which again rebooted into Safe Mode, declared it couldn't run in Safe Mode, and re-rebooted again. Back to the Boot Disc, and I removed the switch in boot.ini responsible for switching to Safe Mode, and rebooted again. Improvement: Setup continued, switched to graphics mode and continued setting up. Hope!

For a few minutes. Halfway through the "Installing Windows" phase (it says another 34 minutes, but the thermometer graph is at about 2/3 complete) Avast strikes again. Up pops a window titled "AVAST Software Uninstall Utility", telling me that it wants to run in Safe Mode and asking "Do I want to reboot NOW into Safe Mode and run it from there?" or "Do I want to run it from here, not in Safe Mode, anyway?". It has somehow interfered with the Setup process which was looking good, and again is not giving me the option I need (i.e. "No, go away, I'll run you later"). The Setup process continues behind it, but still fails to boot properly - now, whenever it starts, it just reboots quietly (no BSOD).

No. I do not want to run the Avast Uninstaller AT ALL at this stage. I want to get my system working again, then I'll run the Avast uninstaller from Safe Mode later, when I can actually reach Safe Mode again. So, if anyone at Avast can tell me from where in the startup process, exactly, this uninstall utility is being started, so that I can get rid of that call and actually finish setting up my Repair Install before continuing with the Uninstallation from Hell, I'd be grateful. It would be helpful to know where the actual file is, too, so I can run it later. I assume this isn't the uninstaller I downloaded from a link on this forum, which I had intended originally to run when Phase 1 of the uninstallation process unexpectedly crashed my system in flames.

BTW, the posters here banging on about "obsolete operating systems" and "several versions out-of-date software" are missing the essential point. My "obsolete" machine, with its "archaeologically interesting" OS and software, was carefully set up by someone who knew what he was doing (me) and driven by the same person. It has been online all day, every day for years, and has not succumbed to anything unexpected in all that time. IF Avast had asked me to update, as it should have, that knowledgable operator could have imaged the whole thing beforehand, as I do for all other upgrades, and all these headaches would have been avoided as I worked out what was broken and how to fix it. I have no problems with Avast AV's competence (it's been excellent), but no way am I letting it back in if it's going to disregard my settings.

[bob3160]

Sounds as though that little tool you used somehow included the avast uninstall utility in what ever magic it worked on your registry.
Don't you have a backup that you can restore? If not, you may be forced to re-install the OS.
I'm notifying a Moderator to see if Avast can add anything to this convoluted attempt of restoring your computer.