How many dead Vista bodies before Avast acknowledge a problem?

[NoelDP]

Since the issue is actually a crashed system, I don't think that users are waiting for the stable release. They either accept using a beta (if they actually know that the issue may be resolved), or they change to a different tool.

The problem is not a 'crash', it's simply that the system registers as being non-genuine. In RTM Vista, this makes the Desktop inaccessible, and also disallows access to the Control Panel - which confuses the heck out of people when you tell them to uninstall Avast, unless you point to the alternative methids of doing so. The problem is NOT confined to TRM or SP1, though - there are a small number of cases in SP2, so this needs also to be addressed. It's not as if any of these systems are new technology - SP2 came out in 2009 -  so why is Avast failing in its duty of care for its clients' systems?


Most users want to get access back to their ystem more than anything else - and a failed AV does not inspire confidence, so they are less likely to reinstall it than to get one of the alternatives (I've been pointing them to MSE as a consequence - I don't like AVG any more, and I don't have enough experience or faithin AntiVir, or anything else)

[Joe S]

I had this happen to me one time on Vista SP2. I simply typed on the key code and it solved problem. I haven't had problems with it since.
Joe

[Vlk]

If anyone having the issue could actually test the beta and report back if the problem is really solved, it would be greatly appreciated.

The proposal of the OP was exactly the opposite: Avast Team could/should participate at those MS forums to "publish" the new beta, minimize the impact of those "uninstall Avast completely and forget about it" suggestions, and finally Avast could have some more testers about the issue.

Since the issue is actually a crashed system, I don't think that users are waiting for the stable release. They either accept using a beta (if they actually know that the issue may be resolved), or they change to a different tool.

Avast should had released a new stable with at least this issue resolved (and any already solved critical problems), if not for the users of Vista "pre SP2", for the bad PR. All the "extra" (read, non-critical improvements) could have wait in the beta step. Just my opinion.

Just two things to note:
1. as someone above said, the result is not a system crash. It's Windows reporting as having detected an "unauthorized modification".

2. We would have released the update earlier if only the problem would have been solved earlier. The main problem was to actually get a computer with the problem simulated. If you look at the MSFT forums, you may fall into the impression that the problem affected pretty much all Vista users. But this is simply not the case.... we tried tens of various Vista installations, with various HW and SW configurations, and were simply not able to reproduce the problem. This is probably because the licensing checks are done only "randomly", as one of the MSFT forum moderators pointed out... which makes its testing very tough.

Thanks
Vlk

[ady4um]

Just two things to note:
1. as someone above said, the result is not a system crash. It's Windows reporting as having detected an "unauthorized modification".

OK, my apologies. Generally speaking, not all cases were complete crashes. But the bottom line still remained: a user in such situation was "highly bothered" or "highly uncomfortable" with a security tool installed while having Windows throwing those messages. Most users won't continue using their systems in such a situation, and uninstalling Avast was their most simple solution (hence, not using Avast and not waiting for an update and causing PR problems).

2. We would have released the update earlier if only the problem would have been solved earlier. The main problem was to actually get a computer with the problem simulated. If you look at the MSFT forums, you may fall into the impression that the problem affected pretty much all Vista users. But this is simply not the case.... we tried tens of various Vista installations, with various HW and SW configurations, and were simply not able to reproduce the problem. This is probably because the licensing checks are done only "randomly", as one of the MSFT forum moderators pointed out... which makes its testing very tough.

I agree that identifying the problem probably wasn't simple, since it was not under all Vista systems. But you have posted that the problem was resolved already a few days ago, and the final stable version was not still released. So the PR and technical problems continued for some days. Probably most users that had the problem don't even know that there is a new stable release solving the issue. In such "critical" cases (both technical and PR situations), my point was that publishing a new stable ASAP, and delaying the noncritical additions, would had stopped at least "some" of those BSODs and bad PR (specially when you can post in those other forums that a stable realease is available so to solve the initial problem, with no workarounds).

I'm sure that Avast Team has valid reasons to have it delayed some additional days until 6.0.1203 was finally published. Of course my opinion was based on what I know, and for sure I don't know "all" the reasons for the delay.

I only hope this "was" a problem, and that it won't come back . It will help if Avast Team can go to those other forums and make clear that a new stable release resolves it.

[NoelDP]

2. We would have released the update earlier if only the problem would have been solved earlier. The main problem was to actually get a computer with the problem simulated. If you look at the MSFT forums, you may fall into the impression that the problem affected pretty much all Vista users. But this is simply not the case.... we tried tens of various Vista installations, with various HW and SW configurations, and were simply not able to reproduce the problem. This is probably because the licensing checks are done only "randomly", as one of the MSFT forum moderators pointed out... which makes its testing very tough.

I agree that identifying the problem probably wasn't simple, since it was not under all Vista systems. But you have posted that the problem was resolved already a few days ago, and the final stable version was not still released. So the PR and technical problems continued for some days. Probably most users that had the problem don't even know that there is a new stable release solving the issue. In such "critical" cases (both technical and PR situations), my point was that publishing a new stable ASAP, and delaying the noncritical additions, would had stopped at least "some" of those BSODs and bad PR (specially when you can post in those other forums that a stable realease is available so to solve the initial problem, with no workarounds).

I'm sure that Avast Team has valid reasons to have it delayed some additional days until 6.0.1203 was finally published. Of course my opinion was based on what I know, and for sure I don't know "all" the reasons for the delay.

I only hope this "was" a problem, and that it won't come back . It will help if Avast Team can go to those other forums and make clear that a new stable release resolves it.

....And the body-count is still rising -and it seems to be getting WORSE rather than better.
PLEASE - someone from Avast actaully PARTICIPATE in the WGA Forums - it's not that difficult \;0

[Vlk]

....And the body-count is still rising -and it seems to be getting WORSE rather than better.

Is it? I was looking at the WGA forum but didn't find anything specific. Are you seeing anyone with the problem and avast 6.0.1203?

Thanks
Vlk

[NoelDP]

When someone is sinking, do you ask them which lifeboat they are on?

[patbertaux]

If anyone having the issue could actually test the beta and report back if the problem is really solved, it would be greatly appreciated.

The proposal of the OP was exactly the opposite: Avast Team could/should participate at those MS forums to "publish" the new beta, minimize the impact of those "uninstall Avast completely and forget about it" suggestions, and finally Avast could have some more testers about the issue.

Since the issue is actually a crashed system, I don't think that users are waiting for the stable release. They either accept using a beta (if they actually know that the issue may be resolved), or they change to a different tool.

Avast should had released a new stable with at least this issue resolved (and any already solved critical problems), if not for the users of Vista "pre SP2", for the bad PR. All the "extra" (read, non-critical improvements) could have wait in the beta step. Just my opinion.

Just two things to note:
1. as someone above said, the result is not a system crash. It's Windows reporting as having detected an "unauthorized modification".

2. We would have released the update earlier if only the problem would have been solved earlier. The main problem was to actually get a computer with the problem simulated. If you look at the MSFT forums, you may fall into the impression that the problem affected pretty much all Vista users. But this is simply not the case.... we tried tens of various Vista installations, with various HW and SW configurations, and were simply not able to reproduce the problem. This is probably because the licensing checks are done only "randomly", as one of the MSFT forum moderators pointed out... which makes its testing very tough.

Thanks
Vlk

A few more bruises in the Avast 6 - Vista conflict to report here, if it can be any help - and if you can help me, even better !

Configuration : Windows Vista Edition Familiale Premium (don't think you'll have trouble translating that!) on a Sony Vaio VGN-CR11Z/R (4 years old)in France. And whatever versions of Avast Free available over these last 4 years.

First error 0XC004D401 mid-June when I'd just installed the new Avast 6, problems solved early July thanks to replies to a post on the Free/Pro/Suite Forum : restoration of Vista, disinstalling/ reinstalling Avast. For details, please look at the topic "Avast 6 update and Vista".

Very pleased, all back to normal, problem solved... Version 6.0.1203 up and running.

This morning, wham! bang!, same error out of the blue while I was working on the computer. On checking, I discovered that Vista had just uploaded an update of Windows Defender.

I seem to have got things working again, but have put updates from Windows and Avast on hold for the moment, as I'm not sure I've got everything right.

Sorry I can't be more technical - my computer training goes back to the year hard disk drives were invented (oh what a giveaway  ). I've read forum posts for 2 or 3 hours now to no avail, but am willing to be a guinea pig for testing solutions.

Any ideas ?
Thanks in advance

 

[ady4um]

@patbertaux,

The workaround is the following:

1_ Use the clean uninstall tool of Avast under Windows Safe Mode;
2_ Update Windows Vista with ALL the needed updates and reboot (and repeat the update+reboot until no updates are displayed);
3_ Double check that you have Vista SP2 applied;
4_ Double check your Validation Status after all the updates.

Whichever step above (partially) fails (like, for example, the Validation Status after SP2), then you need to comply and start from step "2" above again.

After ALL updates are applied and Vista is Validated, download the latest Stable version of Avast, install it and reboot.

It is a PITA, but it "solves" the problem, at least for now.

I don't know if you have the complete knowledge for all those steps (since you mentioned your computer training is not *that* good). I am simply mentioning the steps that worked for other users with this problem.

If you still need specific help, please open a new topic so to make it easier for forum users to help you.

[jadinolf]

My laptop has Vista as its OS.

Never noticed any problems with avast!

[Nesivos]

If you’re a Windows watcher, circle this date on your calendar: April 10, 2012.

That’s the date when mainstream support for Windows Vista officially ends.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/can-windows-8-finally-vanquish-the-ghosts-of-xp-and-vista/3570

People may seriously want to consider dumping Windows 7 Beta (i.e. Vista) ASAP.

[Dch48]

If you’re a Windows watcher, circle this date on your calendar: April 10, 2012.

That’s the date when mainstream support for Windows Vista officially ends.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/can-windows-8-finally-vanquish-the-ghosts-of-xp-and-vista/3570

People may seriously want to consider dumping Windows 7 Beta (i.e. Vista) ASAP.

They can't completely dump support for Vista in 2012 when XP support is continuing until 2014. I don't think the writer has his facts straight.

[DavidR]

Interesting that Vista's mainstream support ends April 10, 2012 and two years before XP in April 2014; with rumours of the release of windows 8 also April 2012

[off-topic]
XP had extra life because of a few things, when netbooks came out Vista was a busted flush too much resource use, so XP was revived. Plus there are still a lot of business users with the Pro version and that is on extended support life cycle.

But it is no surprise to me MS want rid of this failed OS, Vista never really took off.
[/off-topic]

[ady4um]

[off-topic]
...But it is no surprise to me MS want rid of this failed OS, Vista never really took off.
[/off-topic]

[off-topic]
It is not because of Vista. MS "failed" to release the OS that was supposed to be released after XP by the time they really wanted to. So when it finally came out (as Vista) with several years of delay, the new policy was/is that the "previous release" support ends 3 years after the "latest release" is published (or something like that; I currently don't remember the exact wording). So, 3 years after "Windows 8" would be released, the support for Seven will also end. After XP, MS will never support again the same OS for 13 years.
[/off-topic]

[turmoyle2000]

As I understand it mainstream support for Windows Vista ends in 2012, but extended support continues until 2017.