Constructive Critisim to the Avast Team

The thing is, it’s not bloated. In fact 90% of ppl scream at things t be bloated that aren’t even close to that state. Ppl think that more features automatically means bloat. Or slightly higher resource usage. You can have shitloads of features and in case of AV, if they are all security related, that’s not bloat. High resoure usage is also not bloat. Bloat is when you stick loads of basically randomly picked unrelated features and stuff them into one app. Thats what bloat is.

Edited above post to make it a little clearer.

Every function in Avast! is needed and works together to increase protection and security. That is not ‘bloatware’ to me.

mchain, I would like very much to be able to start such a thread in that section, but I was under the impression that section was for board related topics.

Maybe we could stretch that by indicating the subject sort of came up elsewhere on the board?

By the way, the only Murphy’s Law I am familiar with is the one we were cited in our early days of helicopter flight school. “Our” referring to us WOCs. Draftees, many of us. Not sure I understand what that has to do with taking good care of one’s property and making it last for a long time.

Of course you’re not an Avast programmer. Nobody has claimed so, but you’re still repeating that same sentence… “some parts of avast! are required for the proper working”.

Yes, of course that’s true, but as I said… most likely it’s not a big deal to make AutoSandbox as optional component in a custom install. That is just my personal opinion, so there is no need to argue about that. :wink:

Tech, If you still want to argue with me, please use a private message instead. ;D

Well I speak from personal experience. I am using XP OS that was purchased in 2002 so that makes my laptop 10+ years old and functions as smooth and safe as the day I purchased it.
And I’ll continue running XP as long as possible. I have had no viruses/malware or any unwanted “stuff” infection since 2003. Keep the OS updated, the installed software updated and “read before you Click”
I don’t believe for one second an OS becomes unsafe with age…It becomes unsafe with “stupidity” and lack of Good Internet practices.
IMHO :wink: :slight_smile:

Shoot, I meant Moore’s Law instead, as it is a relevant enterprise/commercial practice for computer hardware innovation and progress.

Thanks for pointing that out, ManyQs. My bad here. Sorry about any confusion.

Oh yes, Moore’s Law. I should have thought of that. Old brain doesn’t work quite as well, if it ever did work well.

Yep, that one I’m familiar with, too. In fact, that came up just recently in a tech piece on possibly the BBC site. Not sure, but some writer type made some reference to that Moore fella. That wasn’t too long ago and maybe I can find that. May have notes on that bit of writing.

Anyway, thank you for the correction. Sorry I didn’t think of that myself. Really should have. The Murphy reference certainly had me perplexed while I had time to consider it. But you brought back a few old memories of those days way back when life was really, really weird. And not just mine. That was a weird, weird world back then. But sliding off-topic and best stop before the forum police give me a ticket for driving outside the lines.

[quote="
[ post:25, topic:672485"]

Well I speak from personal experience. I am using XP OS that was purchased in 2002 so that makes my laptop 10+ years old and functions as smooth and safe as the day I purchased it.
And I’ll continue running XP as long as possible. I have had no viruses/malware or any unwanted “stuff” infection since 2003. Keep the OS updated, the installed software updated and “read before you Click”
I don’t believe for one second an OS becomes unsafe with age…It becomes unsafe with “stupidity” and lack of Good Internet practices.
IMHO :wink: :slight_smile:
[/quote]
I have the same setup as schmidthouse, and have absolutely no complaints.

Okay, I haven’t had much time to dig into my notes, or check for older articles and such, but just off the top of my head I can think of this:

Microsoft won’t allow XP users to install IE9 and I know for sure that we have seen posted on this site that older browsers aren’t as safe as newer ones. I’m sure a lot of you folks have read that on other tech sites, as well.

So if users of XP are stuck with IE8 and don’t want Chrome or other choices there is a problem, right?

And then we might consider this business that Microsoft chooses not to support XP users anymore. There’s no security risk there?

I’m just shooting from the hip at the moment. Been busy and haven’t had time to dig up sources. Sorry.

@ ManyQs
The URL in your signature gives me the following warning:

http://puu.sh/1nRR7

(The warning comes from TrafficLight)

My husband’s computer is Windows XP and he has IE9.

I highly doubt it:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/forum/ie9-windows_other/ie9-for-xp-why-doesnt-internet-explorer-9-work-on/e8113f20-b149-4763-b4d4-562d1da524b6

I appreciate the feedback, bob3160, but were you informed as to what exactly that company found? Thank you.

These scans show clean.

http://urlquery.net/report.php?id=125581

https://www.virustotal.com/url/47742db532a97885c1649720438fd4e0c86423612b7ec2b5884bdc49a901eb0c/analysis/1352439803/

http://www.urlvoid.com/scan/speakezforums.com/

http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/speakezforums.com

http://vscan.novirusthanks.org/analysis/646f63fd0d9c76ce4f8927b931687d08/c3BlYWtlemZvcnVtcy1jb20=/

Scanned with ipvoid and came up with this → http://hosts-file.net/?s=208.100.54.31
Scan on 5/13/2012 showed detected. New scan 11/9/2012 shows clean.

Thank you for checking and posting, Charyb.

Actually, I received some similar feedback a few days ago before that which was posted by bob3160, but I only had time to do some quick checking into that TrafficLight product and what I thought I was seeing was they had to install something on my computer for me to get any results and at that time I didn’t have time to check into the company and its reputation and all that necessary research, so I had to move on.

I’m hoping to make some time this weekend to do more research on those TrafficLight folks and what they do and all.

But I’d never heard or read that anyone saw that website as a danger, so something may not be quite right at TrafficLight, or they have found something nobody else has found and it really is a danger but is too sneaky to have been caught by anyone else, including Avast.

But I sure appreciate the extra effort for checking and posting that, Charyb. Thank you.

Your welcome.

I don’t normally spend this much time looking. There are usually others who know what to look for and can locate the problem.

If you didn’t know, Trafficlight is by BitDefender.

I posted in their forum asking them to check for a false positive. I will let you know when I hear something on this.

Edit: No response on their forum yet but the detection has been removed.