7.0.1466 updated to 9.0.2021

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
81

99.9% on this forum are AVAST users… and read the rest.

because AVAST is not the top-rated AV by ANY independent lab tests
Since when are you able to know how tests are actually performed and how to look at the results?

Please. Are you implying there is a conspiracy among the independent labs to pull AVAST out and test it unfairly to attain a skewed negative result? Why not just admit you’re wrong, and you DON’T use the “best possible protection” because like the rest of is, good enough is good enough? (Oh yeah, b/c you put your foot in your mouth with that one since that’s exactly how those of us feel who use v7 vs 9 or 10.)

BTW you don’t have to go all the way back to Win95 to suggest an unsafe, outdated OS… XP will do. Oh wait, you use XP, so I guess that’s why you didn’t want to suggest that one.

Like I said… we all have our reasons for using the sftw we do.

82

No, that is not the question or even the subject of the thread.
It is not up to Avast to decide what people want.
They have the choice to support what they want and do not want and people can make decisions based on those trade-offs.
Avast has absolutely zero right to force a reboot and install.
Show me in the EULA where the user has given up this right to Avast ?

83

No, but it is ironic that Eddy brought that up when he himself does not use the best possible protection, since AVAST is not the best possible AV. Plus he uses XP, according to his posts, which means he also chooses to use an old and outdated OS - yet he is chastising people here for wanting to use an older version of AVAST. Go figure.

It is not up to Avast to decide what people want. They have the choice to support what they want and do not want and people can make decisions based on those trade-offs. Avast has absolutely zero right to force a reboot and install. Show me in the EULA where the user has given up this right to Avast ?

It will be interesting to see if AVAST learned anything from this. Let’s hope so.

84
No, but it is ironic that Eddy brought that up when he himself does not use the best possible protection
I just say one thing. You don't have any clue at all about how and with what I have setup the security. So either prove what you say or shut up.
85

I truly hope so…I DO have tremendous respect for the people on this forum who spend countless hours helping.
I also DO like Avast and want them to provide the best solution as possible.
I’m hyper sensitive to this subject because many, many, moons ago AVG upgraded from V8 to V9 overnight and bricked countless PCs…it was horrific.

I truly think Avast can accomplish their goal of migration by “softer” tactics that ultimately have the same end result.
I hope they are listening. 8)

86

Eddy, do you not use AVAST? … and XP?

87
My "point" is that Avast has no right to brute force an install.
@thekochs, Actually, they have every right. You also have rights. If you don't like what they rightfully did to keep your system safe, you can always exercise your right. Turning this into another one of your novels isn't going to change the facts. :)
88

No, they didn’t have the right to do that, regardless of the reason. One could make the case that supplying the user with a choice to update manually is the equivalent (in the eyes of the law) of a binding agreement that AVAST broke when it forced an update that was in direct opposition with the user’s stated choices for using that software. If a CEO whose computers became inoperable due to said update decided to sue AVAST for breach of contract, lost productivity and revenue, it would be interesting to see how it would play out in court. Especially when the proper remedy would have been even more easily deployed than a series of forced updates… a simple popup informing the user that version of AVAST was at end-of-life and would no longer receive db updates. An optional button to let AVAST update the machine could have been made available, if AVAST saw fit, along with a button to DECLINE, letting the user/admin decide his or her best course of action. And AVAST would’ve kept its user-base happy. No one loses. No one would be complaining [about this anyway]. A win/win.

89

@bootsy,
You have the same right as everyone else. If you aren’t happy, …

90

Walking away from a breach of contract is a right, but addressing said breach is a right too. You seem to be overlooking that one.

Users have the right of expectation that when a supposedly reputable company gives them choices about how they can use that company’s software, those choices will be honored unless the company alerts them otherwise, first. If people installed AVAST and it warned them that the program might update to a newer version willy nilly against their wishes, even if they chose manual updates, you can bet those users who need or want manual updates would have looked elsewhere for an AV. It is not a trivial configuration setting that AVAST ignored. And users have every right to respond to that breach, whether they ALSO choose to walk away or not. Hopefully instead of losing users AVAST will re-think it’s move in light of the RESPONSES… which it why it IS important users respond… so that AVAST can improve its customer support by NOT doing that in the future. If the company doesn’t respond to its user base, then ‘walking away’ will no doubt be the next right people exercise.

91

@bootsy: Read my reply#71 and RejZor reply #72 of page 5. Let me know what you think?

92

Sorry, you & Avast are wrong on this one…flat out…I’m not sure what subsidy they provide you to defend them but money/perks well spent I see. So show me in the EULA where I signed my rights away to allow them to install without notice new software ? http://files.avast.com/files/legal/eula-avast-free-2014.pdf

If they truly want to “protect” their customers they will inform them of major changes and allow for the customer to decide. You know, I think they actually do this…my fault…it is called “manual setting” for updates. BUT, Avast ignores this unlike every credible software package of merit out there that honors this. I get it, Avast doesn’t want to support all these versions…fine, just stop providing the database updates. People will upgrade or change…done. However, the point is doing a force install and reboot to a machine for “upgrade” purposes is wrong…plain and simple. I truly hope Avast listens and does the right policy going forward.

93

First, I appreciate the fact that you suggested a fix rather than just criticize people who have pointed out the problem.

Before I comment, we are talking about (I assume) not just an old version, but an old version that AVAST is retiring. A version that will no longer be receiving updated viral databases. B/c (separately?) it sounded like you were trying to make the point AVAST should not make ANY older versions available, and I disagree with that (if that’s what you were saying). AVAST understands they will keep more users if they maintain the last x-number of versions.

So as to the versions they retire, before it gets to the point where your suggestion would kick in, it would be nice if AVAST sent a popup alerting the user to the fact that the version of AVAST they are using will be reaching it’s end-of-life “in 30 days” (60 would be better for admins, but 30 at least gives them some time) and will no longer be receiving viral updates after that date. That an update will be offered and required in order to remain protected. (edit: IOW to remain protected they need to choose to upgrade… not that AVAST would force it.)

Then in the last 2 weeks or so, an “Update Now” or “Update Later” button would be fine… if someone wanted to use an older version that is still supported, they could always click “Update Later” then uninstall the software at their leisure and install the version they want, manually. (As I certainly would, even if I installed the newest version… I never let a software company or the Web install programs for me.)

Now the question in this hypothetical is, does AVAST care if people choose to be lazy and run an old version that is not getting viral updates until they get around to installing a new AV, whether it be AVAST or a different AV? If AVAST wants to terminate all use of a retired version, they can make it unusable at the end-of-life date, as long as the original popup states it will no longer function after said date [and AVAST gives the user plenty of notice (min 30 days)]. That’s fair, it’s their software (esp the free versions), if that’s what they want. And the user will have to update through the UI or manually, or look elsewhere for an AV at that point.

If, OTOH AVAST hopes the longer a user sticks with AVAST the greater the chance they will upgrade to it again when they finally get around to upgrading, then after that end-of-life date passes a popup could continue to remind the user they are no longer protected and need to update. A nag. The longer the user sticks with the retired version, the more frequent the nag might appear. That’s fair too. And will remind the user their AV is no longer providing adequate protection against new malware.

As for the second post commenting people will just keep clicking Update Later button… an AV is not something users will ignore forever once it is no longer getting viral updates. And that part of it is really up to AVAST. Whether they want to make retired sftw stop functioning or not. As long as they give the user plenty of notice and don’t update the user against their will… the user will eventually either click the update button or install something else on their own.

And if AVAST allows the sftw to continue to function and the user does not upgrade, that’s on the user. But I can’t see too many people continuing to use an AV that is not getting viral updates.

94

It’s not even that complicated. AVAST stated that they wanted to maintain the last minor in several major versions. As I pointed out way back in post #43, “If a user had an older minor version of v7, and AVAST was worried about keeping one build for each major version, then why were users forced to update to a higher major version? Instead of the way it was done, they could have just forced the last minor version and accomplished their goal”.

95

I happen to agree with you 100% that this would have been the best solution for users in such a situation. But some people were using major versions they were retiring from what I understand, like version 4. (And Drake made it sound like retiring v5 may not be far behind, though that 5 and 6 were safe for the time being whatever that means, relatively speaking… I got the impression the decision to retire major versions was happening without much planning and spur of the moment, but that was just my impression.)

And software companies don’t generally update software to old versions, even when they are still supported. The more common model is to update users to the newest possible version available, thinking it will have fewer bugs and be more effective. The problem is, people who stick with older versions have reasons for that… sometimes hardware, sometimes other things… so while it would be nice if they had offered to upgrade v4 users to v5 to at least keep it as close as possible, that kind of thing isn’t likely to happen. (And certainly they won’t bother to write programs to designate updating to a supported build of the same [old] version.) If a user wants to use an older version of ANY software they generally have to track it down and manually install it.

And many would have if they would have known 2 things:

  1. that they had to … and
  2. which build of their chosen version was still being supported

I had no idea the last build of each major version was the only build supported until Drake said it here. I just HAPPENED to be using the last major build of v7 and lucked out. Again, AVAST needs to communicate these things to users.

96

I should add that I do understand AVAST has to streamline maintenance, esp on its free programs… so I don’t expect them to write a gazillion different upgrade programs to please everyone. I understand the one size fits all approach is virtually necessary … but since one size DOESN’T fit all, that’s why they cannot force updates against a user’s settings. And it would be nice if they communicated to users which versions/builds are supported, and when the end-of-life dates will be. This could even be an update of the website info with a popup telling people to check there.

Then users could take the necessary steps so that AVAST would not HAVE to update people against their will b/c they already would have done the updating themselves. We all want to be in compliance after all! Just don’t pull the rug out from under us… give us info and let us help ourselves.

97

This is how I see this thread. Nobody is saying that v9 is not better than any older version. The crux of the complaint is that people who have turned auto updates off in older versions were still apparently force fed v9. After reading all the posts on all the various sides of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that they have the right to be upset with the forced updating. They should have been presented with some form of notice recommending the update and giving the reasons for it. It should also be a choice.

Sometimes there are advantages to keeping older versions of software. Compatibility with an older Windows version is just one. Personal preference is another valid one. In a different, but related context, drivers very often do not need to be updated and in many cases shouldn’t be if no problems are being experienced. Some newer drivers also have bugs and you need to roll back to the previous version. For those reasons, hardware vendors do not force driver updates on anyone.

The bottom line is that people should be able to use whatever they want if it is still supported by the vendor and works sufficiently well for their needs.

98

Bootsy! So how long/how many years you will keep using Avast! 7? Let’s say for example Avast! gives users with old aged outdated avast! users advance notices saying that they will completely drop support and drop VPS support for avast! 4,5,6, & 7 start of next year and only Avast! 8,9, 2015 (soon to be released as final) will be supported? Will move straight away to Avast! 2015 or move to Avast! 8 or 9?

99

So we have now reached page 3 of a topic devoted to 'Crying over spilled milk".
That milk by now has been stirred so many times it’s starting to turn into butter.
Soon, we’ll have buttermilk. When you consider a user base of 220 M, the number of
those participating in this thread, is minuscule.
Since the few apparently have nothing better to do with their lives, the sage continues.
The end result was already spelled out in reply #3 but it wasn’t what those that are dragging out this thread
wanted to hear.
So we’ll apparently continue with more meaningless chatter. I hope to live long enough to see reason prevail and
those that wanted to keep their computer less protected, realize that there eventually needs to be an update to your program.
Even Microsoft realized that XP couldn’t be supported for ever.
Get real and realize that there are times when change is for the better and holding on to something old isn’t the best thing to do.
The current version of your anti virus program should never turn into an antique.

100

If the notice was that v7 would reach end-of-life in Jan 2015, I would continue using AVAST until last week or so of Dec, giving AVAST as much time as possible to work bugs out of the current, newest version. Then I would try it one more time to see if anything changed. If I was still unhappy with it my 1st choice would be one of the 2 leading AV’s (I won’t mention by name out of deference to the fact I am on an AVAST forum), but the one I like doesn’t work with Comodo FW and I like my Comodo FW. So I would either do more research to see if anyone has been successful at marrying those two, or go with my 2nd choice, which I know works with CFW, but I did not like the UI/configuration choices as much as I like AVAST v7.

But by the last few days of Dec I would be using a different AV, one way or another. It may not be AVAST, however.

And btw, I plan to try the newest version of AVAST regardless in maybe a year, as I don’t like using an AV that is TOO far out of date. For others, too far out might be v7 now… for me I am willing to ride it another year, unless I start having problems and my secondary OD scanner starts finding things v7 starts missing. But as long as it’s doing a good job, no need to fix what ain’t broke.

@Dch - agreed completely.

@bob3160 - It’s funny how you complain about the subject matter of this thread being a waste of everyone’s time… as if someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read it. Referring to the views on this thread as being “miniscule compared to the # of users” is a lame attempt at minimizing the obvious interest in this thread… we know only a small portion of users participate in the forums at all, and the sheer number of views proves the subject IS of interest to MANY people, even if not you… So read it and weep. Or stop reading it. But your complaints about it are the only parts of this thread that are truly useless to AVAST in terms of feedback, and to the other readers who would like to see this resolved in the future, hoping that perhaps some of the suggestions here might be taken into consideration by AVAST in the future. So feel free to continue to bluster and blow, but you are only blowing all over yourself.