NEW VERSION: 2016.11.2.2262

[Skakara]

Yes we did this in the past, but we changed it last year, because it was causing troubles. To ensure the best quality we always want to have the "release" binaries in beta channel first for few days to see if it's stable, before we push it for general use.

Yes of course we have our internal QA, automated/manual testing, but we are never able to simulate all scenarios, machine configurations etc that exist in the real world. Here is the great help of the beta community.

I hope this makes sense..

Here's yet another example of how engineer-mind works. You don't seem to understand the end user side at all. Users only see that there's 2 releases with same version number, they don't care nor possibly understand how it works internally in avast labs. Like forum veteran DavidR said, there's constant confusion in forum about the versions because of what you do currently.

[REDACTED]

Boring update

[DavidR]

Yes we did this in the past, but we changed it last year, because it was causing troubles. To ensure the best quality we always want to have the "release" binaries in beta channel first for few days to see if it's stable, before we push it for general use.

Yes of course we have our internal QA, automated/manual testing, but we are never able to simulate all scenarios, machine configurations etc that exist in the real world. Here is the great help of the beta community.

I hope this makes sense..

Considering the version number hasn't changed, what is the point of having the "release" binaries in beta channel first for few days to see if it's stable, if nothing has changed. When you could keep it in beta for a few more days to confirm stability.

If something had changed then I could see the point of it staying in or being released to the beta channel, but for the same reason (if something had changed) surely the program version should also see an increment .2263, etc.

[Asyn]

I agree, that it would be easier to follow (for average users) if build# for beta and final differs.

[Dwarden]

this new update is bad, broken and should not ever reach end user ...

or the installer or it's content is messed

[Secondmineboy]

this new update is bad, broken and should not ever reach end user ...

or the installer or it's content is messed

Not a single issue upgrading from the UI on Windows 10s latest stable Build

[petr.chytil]

this new update is bad, broken and should not ever reach end user ...

or the installer or it's content is messed

Dwarden,
please, could you be more specific? Do you have an issue with the release installer? Online or offline version? Which edition, OS?
Thanks!

[Dwarden]

this new update is bad, broken and should not ever reach end user ...

or the installer or it's content is messed

Dwarden,
please, could you be more specific? Do you have an issue with the release installer? Online or offline version? Which edition, OS?
Thanks!

the both updater and installers failed, I will send you PM

[REDACTED]

I reported yesterday that after updating Avast I could not load Chrome, although I had tried re-booting several times.
Well today I can load Chrome. Also, interestingly, MS-Mail would initially only load in safe-mode.
I noticed also that the Avast update changed many of my Chrome settings and added in plug-ins that I had previously deleted so I suggest users check their own settings..

[bob3160]

I reported yesterday that after updating Avast I could not load Chrome, although I had tried re-booting several times.
Well today I can load Chrome. Also, interestingly, MS-Mail would initially only load in safe-mode.
I noticed also that the Avast update changed many of my Chrome settings and added in plug-ins that I had previously deleted so I suggest users check their own settings..

What settings in Chrome were changed

[REDACTED]

unfortunately,when I launch avast IS,it freezes my computer.
windows 10,xps 13

[Dwarden]

repeated attempts to use 2262 installer and restarts finally resolved my 'update' issue

sadly the case what went wrong is unknown (no dumps, logs seems ok)

yet I can tell everyone good news, one of major AvastSvc.exe resources leaks is now fixed in 2262 

[REDACTED]

Why, Why, Why are beta builds released to regular release versions without a build change. This practice confuses the hell out of people.

I humbly offer a silly suggestion.  Why not have all beta versions have the build number end with a "b" or "B"?  for example, 2016.11.2.2263B? Which will then change to 2016.11.2.2263RC when nearly ready, which will then become 2016.11.2.2263?  This way, we can follow the progress with no confusion...

Gordon

[NON]

Thanks for the update.

[midnight]

Updated with no issues.