The error you mention is not a avast error but a windows one. The error almost always happen with buggy display drivers. Sometimes it is caused by a (partionaly) defective graphics card.
Since ThinApp is run under vmware, don’t blame avast. Blame ThinApp and/or vmware. That is where the problem most likely is.
All the thinapped apps works well without avast under WinXP Home/Pro, SP2 or SP3, Windows 7 with different graphics cards. They even runs smoothly in VMware guests (WinXP Pro SP2).
So maybe all these Operating Systems are bad, maybe all machines have defective graphics cards and or drivers (all differents, either native or VMware virtual), maybe VMWare and ThinApp are also bads…
But I repeat myself, none of the thinapped apps have any problem in any of these environment when Avast is not installed.
Plus, with Avast 5.1.889, I have new recoverable system errors when using WinXP explorer (maybe bad too?) that occurs randomly.
So my conclusion is: if Avast can’t handle properly the environments it’s supposed to protect, it can’t be trusted or even be used!
Tell me, what is the host requirement for Avast? A blank CD?
All the thinapped apps works well without avast under WinXP Home/Pro, SP2 or SP3, Windows 7 with different graphics cards. They even runs smoothly in VMware guests (WinXP Pro SP2).
On how many systems have you tested it?
Switching graphics cards new/other drivers are installed and often causes conflicts.
I have new recoverable system errors when using WinXP explorer (maybe bad too?) that occurs randomly
Nothing ever happens randomly on a system. It may seem that way to a user, but it is not random. Things always happen when a certain (or multiple) requirement is there.
Have you tried things on a clean (and properly) installed system?
If so, what is/was the result?
I posted in another area for startup and updating problems, but come on Avast this version is horrible. I have been using Avast from the git go but not much longer. I have Pro and paid for another year, but I can’t put up with my computer locking up at least once a week.
On how many systems have you tested it?
Switching graphics cards new/other drivers are installed and often causes conflicts.
Physical WinXP PRO SP2 with ATI Radeon HD 3450 graphics card (Catalyst 10.10)
Physical WinXP Home SP3 with Matrox G550 graphics card (PowerDesk 5.96.004)
Physical Windows 7 Enterprise with ATi Radeon HD 4670 graphics card (Catalyst 11.1)
VMware Guests WinXP PRO SP2, WinXP Home SP3, Windows 7 Ultimate hosted on machine 1 above
No graphics cards switches. All drivers have been reinstalled after proper reinstallation and cleanup of old drivers in Safe Mode. All VMware guests in testbed are fresh installations snapshots.
Nothing ever happens randomly on a system. It may seem that way to a user, but it is not random. Things always happen when a certain (or multiple) requirement is there.
Sure. But in any multitasking system where systems clocks and human activities are clearly out of sync, determinism is not that evident… Let’s say it’s not reproducible easily by a simple well known sequence like the one you describe.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316401
Oh, maybe I haven’t be clear enough. Error 0x0000007b is not a BSOD (STOP) message. It appears in a popup windows when I try to launch the virtualized app. The exact message is: “The application failed to initialize properly (0x0000007b).”
Concerning the so called known error “BSOD 0x00000050”, it has been reported in the forum that beta 5.1.x (x=667, 677 …?) was working with portable apps but I haven’t been able to retrieve the post so far… Nevertheless, I can’t rely on a beta version.
on machines tested, Windows 7 physical and virtual have no antivirus, so dont’ know for Avast. They are used to validate Thinapp packages.
Edit:
Have you tried things on a clean (and properly) installed system?
If so, what is/was the result?
The results are identical on clean Virtual XP guests and “populated” physical XP systems and on XP Home SP3/Pro SP2(See my first post).
The only parameters that make thinapped apps behave in a particular way are (Thinapp OS version=4.0.4 or 4.6, Avast Version=5.0.507 or 5.1.889, the ThinApp package itself).
With Avast Free 5.1.889:
- Some 4.0.4 ThinApped [s]apps fail with BSOD[/s], some fail to initialize with error 0x0000007b, some work
- All 4.6.0 ThinApped apps fail to initialize with error 0x0000007b (no BSOD)
- I encounter some system recoverable errors in Explorer (no portable apps this time...)
Hmmm, I reconducted the tests on virtual testbed… no BSOD with 5.1.889, only “failed to initialize”. Was it on a physical machine or a mistake in my tests? I cannot retest on physical systems for now.
If you are willing to test 6.0.945 here’s the link http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=70655.0
5.1.xxx did have some lingering glitches. Please don’t give up without at least trying 6.0.945 I have found it to be more stable than 5.1.xxx Avast has moved on to 6.0.xxx and are currently working out all the kinks before final release.
Please don't give up without at least trying 6.0.945 I have found it to be more stable than 5.1.xxx Avast has moved on to 6.0.xxx and are currently working out all the kinks before final release.
Ok, then.
Some more tests. For these tests, I’ve used two virtual apps, the minimal one as described in one of my previous posts (cmd.exe) and a full GDI one. Let’s call them MINIMAL and FULL respectively. Both packages have been created with ThinApp 4.0.4 and 4.6.0.
The results:
Avast 6.0.945 Beta + ThinApp 4.0.4:
MINIMAL=OK
FULL=OK
Avast 6.0.945 Beta + ThinApp 4.6.0:
MINIMAL=“The application failed to initialize properly (0x0000007b)”
FULL=BSOD STOP 0x00000050
Avast 5.0.507 Release + ThinApp 4.0.4:
MINIMAL=OK
FULL=OK
Avast 5.0.507 Release + ThinApp 4.6.0:
MINIMAL=OK
FULL=BSOD STOP 0x00000050
I’ve also tested the Avast 5.0.677 Release.
Avast 5.0.677 Release + ThinApp 4.0.4:
MINIMAL=OK
FULL=OK
Avast 5.0.677 Release + ThinApp 4.6.0:
MINIMAL=OK
FULL=BSOD STOP 0x0000000A
So far, the 6.0.945 seems to be based on the same branch as 5.0.x which behaves “better” than the 5.1.x stuff. Better here means that at least all ThinApp 4.0.4 packages work.
But, the problem remains in Avast 6. ThinApp 4.6.0 (or any ThinApp > 4.0.4) packages don’t work.
FYI, one of the differences between ThinApp 4.0.4 and 4.6.0 is that 4.0.4 use “stubs” to launch apps where 4.6.0 doesn’t. Those stubs may help Avast antivirus to make its job. Unfortunaly, those stubs are one of the things we want to avoid now to increase the control over virtualized applications.
Going back to 4.8 does not solve any problem’s, it actually introduces new problem’s like your av will no longer be supported so stop posting this crap danny,you have been told about this before. If someone has a problem with the current build that cannot be solved it maybe suggested to try the version 6 build’s or maybe uninstall certain feature’s to get them working but there is no reason to go back to 4.8.
Going back to 4.8 does not solve any problem's, it actually introduces new problem's like your av will no longer be supported so stop posting this crap danny,you have been told about this before. If someone has a problem with the current build that cannot be solved it maybe suggested to try the version 6 build's or maybe uninstall certain feature's to get them working but there is no reason to go back to 4.8.
can you stop posting stuff like that, advising the beta when [b]there's an issue on the stable version[/b], or worse, advising to revert to 4.8
like @logos said avast 6 have issues too so you cannot do anything…
danny96 avast 6 has very few issues and the one’s it does have are different to the 5.1 problem’s, what we are trying to explain to you is that there is a process of elimination to go through for trouble shooting and not just tell people to go to a different version, especially 4.8.
i would like to point out that corporate avast users are still on 4.8 and avast says “thats not a problem” 4.8 is the only supported version for ADNM… so either… avast is giving corporates the finger… or your info is incorect… either way your tone… and you ment to kinda represent avast? god help us…
williamstam this part of the forum has got nothing to do with the corporate side of avast and that is something you will have to take up on the correct forum page http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=10.0, what does this matter to you anyway? as on the ADNM forum page your telling people to stay away from avast as they dont care about corporate user’s.
i know… im just pointing out that 4.8 is still… “very much alive” in avast world… so if avast deems it fit for corporate clients… then who are you to say its not suported etc?
4.8 completely sucks… dont get me wrong… but if 5.0, 5.1 and 6.0 dont work for the dude… its well worth trying 4.8. might give the avast engineers a good place where to start looking for the prob.
4.8 is not going to be supported for long for normal user’s, it has nothing to do with the adnm version’s which will also be updated to newer version’s soon to from what iv just read.
And another thing ! avast is not giving anyone the finger and my information is correct plus i do not represent avast so i can take whatever tone i wish and if you want god to help you had better start praying because im going to hell, that’s where all my friend’s are ;D
