Any comments on the new avast update [4.7.1029]?

Hi all,

according to our logs, the new version has been downloaded by almost 1 million users but still there’s no complaints (or even comments) about it at all.
Is it really working that good? - Usually, there’s at least a couple of people who have some problems… :wink:

Cheers
Vlk

infrastructure changes in the scanning engine bringing higher detection rates
I'm interested about this line from the changelog. Is it possible to explain about the improvements?

(Indeed no problems with this release for me ;D)

Running smoothly, without problems, as always. It’s perfect.
Keep up the good work.

I second this question :smiley:

Working very well “Down Under”
http://www.myspacedev.com/img/smilies/sign/sign0173.gif
as usual

Well, it’s a lie. :slight_smile: Well, the lie is that it is a feature of v4.7.1029. Instead, it is a feature of the latest couple of VPS updates (0760, 0761). There were some important improvements in the script scanning engine, elf (linux executable) scanning engine and a couple of other important changes.

We decided to put it to the program revision history because it was released roughly at the same time as the 1029 build (even though it should work OK even in the previous versions of avast).

So… hopefully, you’ll have a chance to see improved performance of the engine.

Cheers
Vlk

Vlk, i just found a small problem. But not in teh problem but rather on your webpage (Download section for Home Edition). http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html

avast! 4 Home - Arabic version (length %setupara_exe_len%)

The file size is not displayed, only variable for the size. Or is file just not uploaded yet?

Vlk, you obviously didn’t manage to fix the Outlook ‘Message Display Problem’ that we uncovered. Just wanted to make sure that was the case and that presumably a fix is scheduled for the next release…??

If I remember Vlk’s previous response it went something like, “I have been able to replicate it, but it isn’t going to be a simple fix.”

Yes I already was confused because I always assumed scanner updates were preformed with the VPS updates. Wouldn’t call it a lie, since the improvements are actually made. After all the huge database additions and now also engine updates I’m really looking forward to see how avast preforms :slight_smile:

Thanks for the explanation Vlk!

It’s working here also. Where is the changelog at? Just curious.

http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-4-home_pro-revision-history.html

avast! 4 Home - Arabic version (length %setupara_exe_len%)

Yeah, I know. This need to be fixed by our webmaster (who’s not online during weekends :))

Vlk, you obviously didn't manage to fix the Outlook 'Message Display Problem' that we uncovered. Just wanted to make sure that was the case and that presumably a fix is scheduled for the next release..??

No we haven’t managed to fix this, as I said, it will need some deeper changes (maybe Igor, when he comes back from the beach, will look into it).
BTW it’s not really an Outlook provider issue (at all). Basically, it happens every time there’s a disabled check box or radio button in a skinned dialog (together with the XP Silver theme). See e.g. the avast settings dialog, it happens there too (e.g. the Report file page).

After all the huge database additions and now also engine updates I'm really looking forward to see how avast preforms

That makes us two… :wink:

Cheers
Vlk

Am I missing a trick here? If I have a long path in ‘Exclusions’, there seems to be no way of seeing that path in full after it’s been added…also, is it the same in the Pro version?

Thanks

Just click on it twice like you’d like to rename it and then scroll to the end…

Vlk, i think i found another bug…

Start Simple interface and click “Folders” checkbox. Marked two options are not browsable even though they are there.

http://shrani.si/files/bug1244315366.png

Thanks. However, a simple scroll bar would be nice in windows like this.

No problems with Vista, could not replicate RejZoR 's problem

Exclusion Question: I’m excluding areas of the hard disk where I keep large files that I don’t want to scan: Like DVD files I’ve produced, ISO images that I’ve produced and so on. I also have approx 6500 .jpg images that I was going to exclude - is this wise in your (anyone’s) view? I understood .jpg’s to be infectable file types these days…

Thanks.

I’m testing Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit…