Avast install trashed my system and now wont boot

[Lisandro]

Take a look here too:
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=4818.msg34805#msg34805

[Crispy]

i remember i messed up my computer before too and couldn't get back into windows at all but i found this link that tells u how to run win xp system restore using a command prompt and it worked..

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304449&sd=tech

"Windows XP includes the System Restore tool, but you cannot start the System Restore tool from a Recovery Console prompt. Therefore, you may want to start the System Restore tool when you cannot start your Windows XP-based computer normally or in Safe mode."

[Tomo]

Well, after over 38 hours of trying EVERY restore trick known to man, still no go!  All data on the drive was backed up, so decided to do and over-install.  I lost all DESKTOP and PROGRAMS info!

It'll take me several more days to completely rebuild the system--but the good news is, it is rebuildable! 

This really should not have ever happend anyway (Yes, I guess its my fault for missing the NAV un-install issue) And yes I'm bummed that I ever stumbled across the link to Avast!  I lost a TON of productivity over a day and a half!!!

It was suggested earlier in the thread that the warning be more prominent--I'll even take it a step further and suggest more code that "prevents" installation if NAV is present on the target machine!

Having said all that, and admitting that ultimately it was my mistake--I'm still looking for an alternative anti virus app to NAV and I'm scared to death to attempt to install AVAST again.

Am I crazy? Can Lightning strike twice? Once Bitten Twice Shy? Will someone please take the time to tell my why I should try it again or move on to something like Mcaffee or AVG or other pay for application
Thanks
Tom O

[DavidR]

Because if you start from a clean install of your OS, there will be no NAV present so no conflict. There are many ex NAV users who are now happy avast users, you only have to check the forums to see that for yourself.

What you should also consider is some form of backup and recovery strategy. I use a program called Drive Image (there are others) now bought out by Symantec and combined with Ghost. This is disk imaging software and essentially it makes an exact image of your hard drive/partitions, etc. I run it once a week and I save a copy to my second hard disk or you can also save it to a DVD, should you ever need to recover from a disaster like this, I can restore my last image in minutes. This has saved my bacon on a number of occasions and was well worth the cost.

[ardvark]

Hi Tomo...

To be honest, I think 4.7 is in the process of getting all the bugs ironed out as I feel it was released WAY too soon from BETA testing. I can say that I don't think you will come across the same problems installing Avast onto a fresh copy of XP but I can't guarantee that you won't either. It will depend entirely on your willingness and comfort level to try Avast again in light of your experience. The decision should be entirely yours and I don't wish to lead you in a particular direction.

I'm sorry this has happened to you and again I reiterate my call (as I made earlier in this thread) to include a warning during the install phase of Avast about potential conflicts with other AV's. I don't think that would be too hard to program in.

Best Regards...

[DavidR]

To be honest, I think 4.7 is in the process of getting all the bugs ironed out as I feel it was released WAY too soon from BETA testing.

Would you care to share on the bugs you mention ?

During the beta phase there weren't that many issues and as far as I'm aware the only one outstanding was the folder permissions in win2k and the possible servers.def file becoming corrupt. Neither of which should give any serious issue for Tomo on a clean install.

There is also a beta 4.7.855 (not a general release beta), which I believe is being used by those with win2k who experienced the folder permission issue.

[Lisandro]

I reiterate my call (as I made earlier in this thread) to include a warning during the install phase of Avast about potential conflicts with other AV's. I don't think that would be too hard to program in.

But this is already there... if you have a second on-access scanner (the major common ones: Norton, Kaspersky, NOD32, Antivir, AVG, etc.) avast will warn you about this.
But, again, avast can't be the guilty party IF the second (older) antivirus installed wasn't correctly uninstalled and left trash behind 

[DavidR]

But this is already there... if you have a second on-access scanner (the major common ones: Norton, Kaspersky, NOD32, Antivir, AVG, etc.) avast will warn you about this.

I'm not sure at what point it checks for other AVs, but I get the idea that it is not prior to starting the install but during the install when it may disable elements of avast to try and avoid a conflict, it is at that point were you may be alerted.

If there was a routine that ran the check first and if found advise uninstall and boot of other AV and exit the setup process. If nothing is present continue the avast setup.
Yes it may be difficult to find every remnant of either a failed uninstall or registry keys, etc. left behind, but it may save this type of issue where nothing is uninstalled.
It is not so much about guilt and more about prevention.

[Lisandro]

I'm not sure at what point it checks for other AVs, but I get the idea that it is not prior to starting the install but during the install when it may disable elements of avast to try and avoid a conflict, it is at that point were you may be alerted.

If there was a routine that ran the check first and if found advise uninstall and boot of other AV and exit the setup process. If nothing is present continue the avast setup.
Yes it may be difficult to find every remnant of either a failed uninstall or registry keys, etc. left behind, but it may save this type of issue where nothing is uninstalled.
It is not so much about guilt and more about prevention.

I agree... I wish this if this is possible.
Now avast programmers will have to look at any other antivirus in the world to avoid conflicting... well, maybe avast can't be punished if the user doesn't know what he's doing. My opinion.

[DavidR]

A Simpler option would be to Display a interactive warning, something along these lines.

To avoid possible conflict which could lock your system.
'Ensure you have uninstalled any resident anti-virus program and rebooted before installing avast.'
Continue with avast installation
Yes - No
(No exits setup, uninstall other AV, reboot and run avast setup again)

That way you wouldn't have to check for every AV in the world or even the Major ones.

[ardvark]

Would you care to share on the bugs you mention ?

Sure...

When I upgraded from 4.6 to the "public release" of 4.7, directly after the reboot, my internet connection went down to the tubes. I could get online but could not get web pages or e-mail to come up or work properly. And after I uninstalled Avast, everything worked fine again. Would that not be a "bug?" Or is it just a figment of my imagination?

As a result, I don't use Avast anymore and I sure in the heck don't blame Tomo for being skittish in trying Avast again either! It only takes being burnt once and I don't consider having to reformat and replace all my data an acceptable reward for simply trying to change antivirus programs, hence my idea for a specific warning box during the installation phase. Of course, Avast is not to blame for Norton's left behinds but Avast shares the rap when someone's OS goes belly up.

I still stick around (to assist with the more generic problems) because I like to help people and to thank Alwil for even offering a free AV and for all the months I used 4.6. and I will continue to do so.

Best Regards...

[DavidR]

When I upgraded from 4.6 to the "public release" of 4.7, directly after the reboot, my internet connection went down to the tubes. I could get online but could not get web pages or e-mail to come up or work properly. And after I uninstalled Avast, everything worked fine again. Would that not be a "bug?" Or is it just a figment of my imagination?

Yes I would absolutely call that a bug (and a right royal pain), but I would have to say I didn't see that didn't see that many experiencing that exact problem. There were people who experienced a problem with the move from 4.6 to the early version/builds of 4.7 but those problems were identified quickly and very few were effected because of the 7 day span of the program update cycle.

I and many other forums members went through the beta release for several weeks without experiencing a problem, the only problem I experienced was being a dial-up user when updating from beta to public release you are almost downloading the whole program again instead of an incremental update.

Yes there were early problems with the public release of 4.7 but I believe they were quickly rectified, with the exception of what I mentioned previously.

[ardvark]

Hi DavidR...

I'm glad you and the other members were spared of the misfortunes that I went through...

It's quite possible I misinterpreted the scope of the problem, I just felt, in a general sense, that 4.7 was released before it was completely refined.

Best Regards...

[igor]

I don't think so. There were some issues with the avast! folder access rights, but they can be easily (well, depends on the user level, of course) fixed. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any additional issues with 4.7.

I don't really see how avast! could have caused the original poster's problems. Before the first reboot, avast! was not yet active - the installer basically just put the files into the folder and registered them to be started when Windows boot next time. That never happened, however, because of the corrupted registry hive...

[alanrf]

ardvark,

I have no wish to understimate the problems you experienced with 4.7 and I did experience some brief "oddities" with access myself but then I choose to go with the beta tests.  However, none of the users I support (who wait for my signal to upgrade) experienced any problem at all with the upgrade.

To be very clear, I always told my development teams that failure to reproduce a user's problem did not mean that it did not exist and that the user still felt the pain.  We had the good fortune to be in a corporate environment where (even though it was worldwide) we could usually get someone to the user's system to investigate it. 

I have considerable sympathy for the folks that try to help through these forums and especially for the avast team trying to diagnose problems such as that in this thread but I think you would agree that such extreme problems as this are very rare (and as always speak to the need for everyone to have a recovery strategy - however basic). 

Anyway, I hope that you will stick around to help out ... maybe you might even give avast another try.