On 16 october and 20 october I downloaded an Avast Free setup file sized 83.272 kB. with digital signature of 15 october 11.51.45h.
I had many problems with this installation on 3 XP Machines.
Today I downloaded 2 new Avast free setup files:
avast_free_antivirus_setup_online.exe, digital signature 17 october 14.08.32h sized 4649kB and
avast_free_antivirus_setup.exe, digital signature 17 october 14.09.07h , sized 83442 kB
All of them state to be version 9.0.2006.159 and language independent.
OK, I can understand the difference between a full setup and a online setup (never knew they existed b.t.w.) but there also seems to be a
difference between the files signed 15 oct and 17 oct. At least the file sizes are different, and maybe the program itself is…
Is it only Virus definitions or is one corrupt? Did you make a correction on 17 october. Should I install that version rather than the 15 october one?
What is the difference?
If the file was corrupt, I suspect that you wouldn’t be able to retrieve that information, e.g. a modified version of a digitally signed file would no longer be valid. I guess it would be the same for corruption as the file wouldn’t be the same.
So virus definitions update is a most likely reason, but an engine update could be another. Personally if you have two files that are the same I would always go with the latest version.
You may also see that some of the avast executable files are 9.0.2006.160 whilst others are 9.0.2006.159, this is currently the case in my 9.0.2006 installation. Notice I haven’t added the last element of the version number as that is the normal way of referring to the avast build number, any change in the third element .2006. or earlier elements would usually mean a program update would have taken place.
I haven’t seen a 160 build. All three are 159. But different sizes. And the first (of 15 oct) is a known troublesome one. If the difference is only Virusdefs, why are there no new files after 17 october? To me its seems that on 17 october there is a new 159 build released wich may have fixed some problems…
But if that is the case than it should have been called 160 of 161 or something else higher than 159.
But when you install it, you may find that some of the internals may have .160 or will be updated shortly after installation, that is why I’m saying the 4th element of the version number is insignificant. When asking for a version number this forth number generally isn’t needed.