Attn: Drake127 & Development Team Re: Old Versions Of AVAST & Mandatory Updates

To the AVAST Dev Team and to Drake127:

The recent decision by AVAST to update machines that were running unsupported versions to the newest version of AVAST, even when those machines were set for manual updates, created extreme hardship on many users, some of them admin’s. People using older versions of AVAST do so for their own valid reasons; sometimes hardware constraints, sometimes other germane considerations.

As users we understand the need for AVAST to retire older versions but this should be done in a fashion that does not override user settings or create unnecessary hardship on users. Hardships that ultimately result in ill will towards the AVAST brand and a potentially decreased user-base.

To point: many people who were involuntarily upgraded to the newest version were simply using an unsupported build of an older, still-supported version. This from Drake127:

https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=156014.msg1130913#msg1130913

We (sort of) support* only last builds of any major release, currently it’s 1474 for v7, 1497 for v8 and obviously 2021 for v9. Any other builds are subject to be banned (which happened this week). We are still deciding what to do about remaining v5 (677, exceptionally not the last one) and v6 (1367). The updates set to manual are respected for these builds (and some other conditions apply) and you should be safe with them (as far as I can influence the decision).

*) take into consideration
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 03:43:22 PM by drake127 »

This is such valuable information that users did not have.

If users of old versions simply received a popup that their build was being retired and they either needed to upgrade manually to build x to stay in compliance, or they could click the UPDATE NOW button to update to the newest version, all this would have been avoided. If that would have been too costly logistically, the popup could have simply said, “WARNING: THIS VERSION OF AVAST IS BEING RETIRED ON [THIS DATE]. SEE [WEBSITE LINK HERE] FOR MORE INFORMATION” …

…and the link could have provided the info Drake’s post contained… which major versions were being retired completely (e.g. version 4 and all its builds), and which builds were continuing to receive db updates (e.g. v7.0.1474). End-of-life information would also be important to include at the link, particularly for the next upcoming versions on the chopping block.

In this case the people using version 4 could have upgraded manually to v5 or v6 (since v5 may not be around long)… but to the next most viable version in order to minimize potential problems… or to any other supported version. Including the newest one, if that was their choice.

But under no circumstances should a machine be involuntarily upgraded by AVAST when it is set for manual updates. If a version gets retired and it’s still running on a machine, a popup nag can warn the user the version of AVAST they are using is no longer receiving viral db updates and they must upgrade to remain protected.

Additional suggestions from various users:

  1. If someone does click an UPDATE NOW button in the GUI, they should be given the choice of a custom install to avoid installing modules or features they don’t want. (thanks pmstewartt)

  2. GUI options should be offered to those running touch screens vs traditional, and Windows 8 vs W7 and previous OSs. One size no longer fits all. (pmstewartt)

  3. Controls for leaving modules and features out should remain 100% configurable. Some of us only want an AV, period. Not a Web rep, phishing, software updater, built-in FW, etc and not everyone uses IM, P2P, etc, so shields should also remain configurable.

  4. The option to OPT-OUT of anonymous data gathering should be put BACK as it seems to have been eliminated starting with v8. (At least the notice that one can opt-out of data gathering is missing from the installation screen in v8. If it indeed remains, great.)

  5. Cloud services should remain optional as some people for their own reasons want all AV functions (particularly the file scanner) local. Cloud services are great for handhelds with a constant OL connection, but there are two schools of thought when it comes to AVs on computers and cloud services… esp for users who spend a lot of time offline. Most cloud models defer to a cache of ‘the most likely threats’ offline, while some users want the complete db locally. That point aside, there are privacy concerns connected to cloud services. Some people do not want information uploaded from their computers, even if they are just generated sig files. Opinions differ, so users should have a choice. (And no, privacy policies don’t make a difference to privacy advocates as there is no effective oversight and a long, rich and sad history of constant violations on behalf of even the largest and ‘most respected’ companies and corporations.)

  6. As said above, 30-day end-of-life notice should be provided via a popup for versions being retired. A link to information about the remaining supported versions should be provided to give the user all the info s/he needs to make an informed decision about which AVAST product to install next. Not everyone can or wants to use the newest version at any given time.

  7. AVAST should never update a user’s machine when it is set for manual updates. EDIT: which brings me to…

  8. The ability to turn OFF AvastEmUpdate.exe. As it stands users are having to hack it off. Not just b/c they don’t want the program updated against their wishes, but because it has created problems in many cases, hogging resources and slowing the computer.

While users appreciate the fact that support of free versions must remain streamlined to be cost-effective, we hope the AVAST team will take these requests – some incorporated already into past versions – into consideration going forward. Thanks very much for reading.

Do we really need another thread on the same topic ???

Just update the damn thing and stop complaining. Seriously. People insisting on what will soon be a 4 generations old security solution. Why do you even bother to use a security software at all?

Think we beat this to death but it would be nice to have Avast Team themselves provide a reply.
At least what their formal plan of record to deal with old versions is.

I seriously can’t be bothered to read these sorts of questions anymore because users who don’t update to the latest version don’t understand “all about security”. For example: Just install a 10 year old security program and if you have a malware samples and run many malwares and i am pretty sure the 10 year old version of a security program WON’T even catch it. We tried giving these users warnings and hazards about running out-dated programs. Just giving you some common sense!!! That’s all!!!

FYI: This post and this post https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=156801.0 you are simply writing stuffs not related to avast issues and simply filling up this section of this forum full of these in which users who have updated their avast! 2014 to the latest version doesn’t want to read this sort of comments.

Since the last thread was 100+ posts due to being mired in a flame war, no AVAST team member could be expected to read through it. Now all they have to read is the first post to get the essence of what is being requested, regardless of the flack tracked in (once again) afterwards.

If you would put your generous egos aside and recall the facts, you might remember AVAST supports (at least with viral db’s) a number of older versions. So unless they have a pending announcement that all versions will be retired immediately except for v9’s latest build and its v10 RC cousin, the user-base that is still using those older versions has every right to be here and look for support (not ridicule, attacks, sarcasm and eye rolling), as this IS the AVAST support forum for ALL AVAST users – not just the users running versions you find preferable.

Maybe AVAST doesn’t care about the headaches it caused by a forced update, or that the user in most cases would have updated manually had they known they needed to. Maybe it doesn’t have any intention of alerting users to end-of-life for older versions … but this is the place for the user-base to provide feedback, and that’s what this thread is.

Informing users of end-of-life dates at the very least is common sense.

@ Staticguy … v7.0.1474 which was the topic of the original thread and also the most popular older preferred version it would seem, is not “10 years old.” It is 2yrs old from 2012. Exaggeration does not make for a good argument. This has been beat to death in the original thread. Ten times over…