Constructive Critisim to the Avast Team

Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security
1

Hiya the Avast team,
I am a computer tech/IT Consultant and for many years now I have recommended and installed the paid version of Avast on new builds, repairs or just when clients ask me to recommend an antivirus program be it for their business or home computers.

Disturbingly over the last 12 months or so Avast seems to be going the way Norton did (Lets face it Norton had the market years ago then went crazy trying to add every feature and scan it could and turned itself into “bloatware”, in a relatively short time technicians began to hate it, had to either uninstall or at the very least disable Norton to be able to repair/diagnose the computers with a notable amount of problems (both performance and program conflict) caused by Norton itself, most importantly they stopped recommending and installing it)

Businesses, and home users for that matter, especially in today’s economy cant justify or afford to replace computers every 3 yrs (how many are still running XP), so although its nice to have every bell and whistle there is, its (IMHO) far better to have a program that protects while still using the least amount of resources and time to monitor activities, so it doesn’t significantly affect performance.

So my request or at least something for you to think about is, fine have an antivirus program for the people with the latest and greatest computer but also don’t forget the loyal customers who don’t have the latest and greatest, provide a cut down? (maybe call it Avast Slim?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.

Please take this as intended, as constructive criticism from us guys out there on the front line, nothing is worse than recommending and then installing Avast only to see the performance of the computers go through the floor.

rgds
Syb

2

If you’re trying to imply that avast! is bloatware, you’re greatly mistaken. I also don’t know what extra components do you mean are considered bloatware. All the shields? In fact its just the way how are they displayed separately. In reality, they are basically 1 single shield just broken down into dedicated shields for additional customization. Only unnecessary stuff with avast! are the widget and the Chrome browser. And that’s it. Auto Sandbox and Sandbox are rather essential components now…

Bloat is when you start adding useless registry cleaners, all sorts of disk scrubbers that remove junk files, defragmenters etc etc. avast! doesn’t have any of that.

3

hmm,
First I am very surprised there was not a reply from the programmers!! hmm we are your users, your bread and butter!! if you don’t listen to those out there on the front line, well you have serious problems, do you really think you know it all? are you so naive and self centered that you think that every ones opinion is worthless compared to your own? that your users, who buy your software are not even worth talking to or even listening to?

Secondly look at AVG, it is a classic example of “bloatware” having a serious affect on the performance of computers it is installed to!! you want to go that track? well guess what its the road to destruction, grow up!! you don’t know everything, if you don’t heed the feedback from your users you will be no more, you will go the road that Norton’s did.

users are fickle, but smart, present them with software that makes them look bad or seriously affect the performance of their computer they will leave in droves!!!

rgds
syb

4

I think you have serious problem understanding the definition of word “Bloated”. AVG might be to some degree as they fill it with useless garbage like TuneUp thing and speed measurement etc. avast! doesn’t have any of that and as such it’s not bloatware in any way.

5

hi sybex,

Sorry you feel the way you do, at least for the moment anyway.

As you know, what used to be called bloatware was a program install that required a download of 100 Mb or more, or a large cd install, and took up 200-300 Mb when installed. Back when hard drives were only 1-2GB in size, this was a significant hit to free space, but now, what with 1-2 TB drives available, not so much.

I define bloatware now as a program having too many, and unnecessary, features. It is not defined in how much space it actually takes up on the hard drive as it was in the past. Unnecessary features would be functions or options the average user would never use; I do not see Avast! having such unnecessary features or options built into it. All the features built into the free version are necessary and needed.

The job of securing a system against malicious malware is very complex, and at times, very daunting. Every feature included in Avast! free is necessary and needed at one time or another (except for WebRep) to fend off the myriad ways malware will attempt to enter your system.

It is just that the paid versions have additional features for additional protection. As you say, some older systems cannot run the paid versions as well as the newer ones can.

As for providing an Avast! slim version, we already have that.

It is called Avast! Free, and it comes without the bells and whistles of the paid Pro and Suite versions.

Please do not mistake the title under my user name for my actually representing Avast! as a corporate representative; or think I got that title due to the fact that the more posts I make the higher the title or that I have earned this title on that basis alone.

An Avast! Evangelist is that in name only; I am not an employee of Avast! now or have I ever been such. We do have Avast! employees drop in here from time to time, user Tech is one of them.

Some of the frustration you may feel may come from having clients that will not move to faster and more capable systems; know that Avast! still supports Windows 2000 SP4 Rollup 1. But support for Win 2000 will end sometime in the future, and the same will be true for XP. Until then, we need to find a solution users of older systems can be happy with, not to mention older OS’s are more vulnerable as well.

6
provide a cut down? (maybe call it [b]Avast Slim[/b]?) version that will not affect to an noticeable degree the performance of their existing computers.
you get that if you do a custom install, and deselect what you do not want
7

Sybex.
Interesting comments.
I think,in this day and age there is a tendency to add more bells and whistles to every update to try and stay in front of the opposition.
The result of this is that the program becomes more unreliable until those problems are sorted.
I don’t think Avast can be accused of adding Bloatware.The updates are necessary to deal with the current Malware that plagues us
I do think,however,that more testing should be done before these updates are issued.
I have a love,hate relationship with Avast but it is still the best.
I would rather there are less updates but fine tune the present program.
Regards

8

By the way, it’s impossible deselect some components in a custom install (e.g. AutoSandbox, Cloud Services)…

9

Some components could only be disabled but need to be installed.
What’s the advantage of disabling autosandbox and cloud services is out of my mind…

10

Interesting enough I found that avast! AIS 7 actually rendered web pages noticeably faster in Firefox with a ton of extensions when using W8-RP than with Windows Defender in W8-RP which is actually Microsft Security Essentials reworked to be compatible with W8. WD for W8 is about as slimmed down an anti-malware program as you are going to find with regard to features. I used WD in W8-DP, W8-CP and W8-RP. When I finally got around to replacing WD with avast! AIS 7 I ran a Full System Scan on both of my computers using WD in W8 and they came up clean.

Since then I have downgraded to W7-SP1

When I upgrade to from W7-SP1 to W8 RTM I will keep using avast! AIS 7 rather than WD primarily because I found it is lighter on my system with regard to browsing in Firefox. Is avast! AIS more secure? Could be, but like I said it found no Malware after using WD for W8 for at least six months. I can’t speak to Google Chrome or IE in W7-SP1 or W8 since I do not use normally use them. Once in a while I do use IE since some websites are still not compatible with Firefox. Not too many anymore but there are still some.

11

i think this boy need a job.

12

Better to not have to work. I highly recommend it to anyway who can afford not to have to work.

13

You removed my comment from the context. Of course those components can be disabled, but it’s a whole another story. AutoSandbox doesn’t need to be installed, but for some reason it’s impossible to deselect it in a custom install.

14

The autosandbox is more of an integration with the File System Shield than a stand alone shield, perhaps that is why it doesn’t feature in the custom scan elements.

If you look at the Additional Protection, AutoSandbox, just click the Settings button and it takes you to the File System Shield Expert Settings on a tab for the AutoSandbox.

15

Some components are integral part of the program and you cannot remove them without crippling it entirely.

16

user_1000, RejZoR answered it for me…

17

Tech, I don’t know why you want to argue about this… but most likely it’s not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install.

Case is already closed and this is offtopic.

18

I’m not arguing. I’m not an avast programmer.
Just saying that some parts of avast! are required for the proper working. Maybe they’re not eligible.

19

This thread and some of the comments have me starting to think about the question of who fuels change on the Internet? Is it the customer? Is it the developer? Is there another element that fuels change? Can we always argue that change is because of technological advancement?

I’m not a young fella, so I can recall when it was a good thing to be especially careful of how one took care of that 55 Chevy and made it last 10 years or more.

But that thinking seems to be totally at odds with what we are being taught/told on the Internet. We seem to be hearing/reading that a computer is garbage after 3 or 4 years. That an OS is unsafe after 3 or 4 years. The same for a browser. Why is that?

What happened to pride in taking good care of something and making it last a long time? Even computer hardware and software? Why is “change” now taken for granted? How can “change” keep speeding up without eating itself? Without overrunning itself?

20

Hi ManyQs,

As the OP has yet to respond to the numerous comments regarding the ‘bloatware’ (edit: he says) that is now Avast!, this may be a new topic for you to open, albeit in the General Category section, with you as the originating poster. Nothing wrong with what you posted, but that idea about change might be better dealt with over there. Good questions otherwise.

We have many highly qualified users here; many of them are in the IT industry or are retired. Certainly, the window of opportunity to learn a lot is present here.

Research (Google) ‘Murphy’s Law’ to get an idea of why this happens, tho.