That's the problem, even mentioning the patch location, when that area doesn't give any detailed information on the circumstances surrounding the problem which the patch resolves.
Well, there are "some" details, not "all" though. The user can ask, and/or search the forum for more info/examples/solutions.
I suspect some people are going to apply a patch which isn't going to resolve the problem and who know what ramifications that might have.
That might be true, but I clearly said that I am NOT recommending applying ANY patches to general users (although, it will happen in some way or another in a future program update).
Under the situation presented by the OP, I still though that it was a possible path to choose. Choosing that path (applying any of those patches where it fits) is still under the responsibility of the final user, and they should know what they are doing. I also mentioned the other "option" they have: waiting for the next program update.
It is all right saying the patches have been tested and other users, but only in the circumstances that the patch was designed to resolve.
Technically, you are correct, and I agree with you that ideally the patches should only be applied under certain specific circumstances. But
under the situation presented by the OP, the option might be not being able to use Avast at all. So, either they at least try those patches, or they move on to a different AV directly.
Sorry, but I don't think we should be directing anyone to the patches location, unless it is clear what their problem is and which patch has been designed to resolve that problem.
I already saw many recommendations about the patches, and not always all the data was there to say that the original problem was indeed the same that triggered the creation of the patches. The problem described by a user might not be exactly the same, but under no real alternative solutions, some applicable patch might still be a solution.
I responded directly to your post, where you specified the problem I found/had that resulted in the patch talking about ap2011-24-07-001 here, and I said none of those posting in this topic had the same symptoms that I did.
Yes, understood. I was NOT the first one in this topic to mention that specific patch. I just wanted to make it clear that I did not
recommend any patches. I publish the available information for the use of such user simply "waiting" to receive some kind of answer after uploading memory dumps.
I happen to agree with the OP. If someone is requested to upload a memory dump, takes the time to upload it and present the case here, I think at least "some" kind of practical answer should be presented (not always would be a satisfying answer). At least there should be a response saying "we indeed got your file/report/upload/dump and we are analyzing it", or "the problem will be solved only in the next program update", or "we need more info, like..." or any real answer, even when it may be "we have absolutely no idea why your system crashed" for example. There are cases where the upload may have failed, and the uploader don't have any means to know it, so at least a simple confirmation that the file was successfully received and it is readable is not, IMHO, too much to ask.
I never said I complied with anything and no one in this topic has even mentioned defrag tools, if they did then there might be a case for trying the patch specific to those defrag tools.
It was an example. My point was that there is a problem between Avast 6.0.1203 and "some" defraggers, and while maybe a specific defragger is not mentioned/listed there in the patches, the solution may apply too. So this is an example of a described problem not being "exactly" complying to the situation that originated a patch, but where the patch might help anyway.
DavidR, I agree with you. This is not "for everyone". Even some of those users with the same "exact" problem might not have the knowledge to correctly apply the relevant patch. But let's face it: in certain cases the information about the patches is better than "no answer" (hence,
apparently "no solution").
Someone might (wrongly) think that is better not to give the information at all, and to leave a user with no possible answer (as the OP in this topic). Someone might (wrongly) think that it is better not to offer any patches at all, just because "in some situations" the patches shouldn't be applied, leaving ALL users with no solution at all.
I tend to think that the patches are important and relevant enough to be available before the next program update. If they are not stable enough, then the devs should improve them.
For those users that might use them where they shouldn't (the patch says it is specifically for XP, the user has Seven and he decides to apply it anyway), then I tend to think that it is still better that the patch is available (and users know about it). Every user is still THE OWNER of the system, and the responsibility is on his/her side, together with the possibility of moving on to another AV tool without trying any patch (or *any* other possible solution to the problem, for that matter).