Well yeah, i didn’t like new Firefox features at first but then i just accepted them, adapted to them and now i like it again the way it is, despite the fact they changed so many things and not necessarely best to my liking. It’s how it is with all software. But you have to draw a line. You can keep an older version of audio editor or a photo editor if you like it more for some reason. Because tehy are just that, apart from few very rare image exploits, they are not probelmatic. But browsers and antivirus, that’s like the first line of defense. If this isn’t as up to date as possible, it doens’t really mattter what you have up to date behind them…
What twisted, convoluted logic, Building of straw man, rationalizing etc.
I am a long time user an supporter of Avast also, but the op and others have stated valid reasons why they did not want the updates that even ended up resulting a “brick” machine in one case. (how many others we haven’t heard from)
All the talk of why…, why not…, etc. are irrelevant and a divergence.
In the link provided to the Avast spokesman he gives his reasons why they did it, and admits that maybe they should have given advanced notice.
That is the bottom line here - there would be no problem if they had given advanced notice.
Many people who may be least able to afford to remedy it, may now have trashed machines. It was not necessary, and none of this rationalizing, and twisted reasoning makes it justifiable.
Hopefully they learn from the situation and do not do that sort of thing again in the future.
I can see an eventual warning about foreseeable incompatibility problems as an option in certain circumstances.
But I cannot see this where some user complains about an update incompatibility with an obsolete OS (XP).
Knowledgeable users must be aware of eventual incompatibility issues alongside certain other programs/tools/configs.
It is a sys admins every day job to do so.
You cannot blame the pianist when a certain work cannot be played on a particular piano.
It is because of that particular piano that is not suitable to be played that way.
You cannot play Beethoven on Honky-tonk.
polonus
AVAST, take note.
If the author decides that a specific program or version will no longer be supported - fine, that is within their prerogative to choose their direction - but there should never be a massive, undeclared and forced version update with absolutely no concern for the end user and absolutely NO choice given prior to it happening.
When a version reaches end of life, AVAST should send a popup alert that the AVAST version being used will no longer be supported “in 60 days” and virus db updates will no longer be available. That gives the user time to prepare for an update or change. The user should be offered the option to update to any supported version, not just the newest one, as hardware constraints could make the newest version impossible, or there might be other reasons why the user wants the next available version and not the newest one. The user should be able to choose.
If the program is not updated by the end of life date, a recurring popup could alert the user the program has now expired and its viral db is out of date and will no longer be updated. (Leaving SOME protection is better than none until the user updates.) This leaves the responsibility with the user where it belongs. When a user has specified in the config settings they do not want a program upgrade, AVAST’s only job is notification and offering to upgrade.
This is without a doubt - regardless of any good or bad reasoning for why it was necessary - ridiculous and unacceptable behavior. Avast's choices DO NOT trump the user's choices - ever!
That’s so self-evident it’s a shame it needs to be said.
To be specific and clear... I and others I've heard from today have older PC's that have been 'topped out' when it comes to the speed/memory options they have. These machines tend to struggle with these increasingly bloated and evermore memory hungry versions as they've been rolled out. They may not have the latest and greatest hardware, but these machines are well running and capable, and have many years of service left in them. [...]
One of several dozens reasons why someone might not want the newest version of ANY software, not just AVAST.
Every one of these PC's is running Windows 7, so there's no obsolete OS issues in play here. Each and every one of them [b]was[/b] running avast 6, and were ALL set with their program update options carefully and deliberately specified as MANUAL PROGRAM UPDATES ONLY. The operative word being "was"... until today when they were forced into a background update to the latest 2014 version - AND - absolutely no alerts, selectable options, or prior notification on any impending version change or expiring versions was ever seen.
Unbelievably short-sighted at the least. And unexusedly so since it’s not like AVAST is a computer-illiterate entity.
Productive machines turned to slugs in an instant.
In this litigious society AVAST will be lucky if they don’t get sued by some company who claims this move cost them hundreds of thousands in lost work revenue and IT costs.
I hope AVAST listens.
Avast should listen to its customers if they want to keep us,
Avast internet security V 5 used to be about 60mb, V 7 - 120mb ! I am tired of having to learn new GUI every other week - its counter productive if you have to learning where everything is at every few months- imagine every few months you need to move to a new town and re-learn where everything is at and how to get to places.
I dont think I need to explain for what reason I want to use an older version of Avast, Avast team should recognize the fact that there is a need by its CUSTOMERS/Users to use older versions, the more user friendly Avast will be the more customers it will have.
I kind of lost some trust in Avast when I specifically set my settings to manual update and moments later the program is telling me to restart the computer because it needs to complete the upgrade that I DID nOT ASK FOR!
Anyway, I am a paying customer and this is strike 2 for Avast in my book.
In reality, the use of a 3 major versions out of date antivirus program provides you with dubious protection. If the action of Avast to self-update has resulted in your choosing to remove it, perhaps that may actually be best for all concerned.
Philosophically, I can see both sides of this issue. However, I’m leaning toward jwtavwvt’s point of view in the original post.
Yes, you’ve chosen to download and install a web-integrated self-updating antivirus solution on your system. Yes, the self-updating feature is central to, and a major selling point of, the product. And, I don’t think any promise was made that it would stop self-updating just because a new major version was released, but…
Anyone would expect that it should obey your settings choice to prompt rather than automatically update.
Avast Engineering - if they deem the product is no longer viable for whatever reasons - rather than just force an update, should prompt the user if the “Ask when an update is available” option is checked NO MATTER WHAT. Something like:
Your version of Avast is no longer viable and is incapable of protecting you from modern threats.
[Update to latest major version] [Uninstall]
I imagine they’d make the first button much bigger and shinier than the second.
Never forget that there was a time when all software that forced its way into your system, that duped users into installing things they didn’t actively choose, was considered malware.
-Noel
Well I think a lot of these problems could be avoided by placing the responsibility back at the user concerned by offering a “manual update routine” next to automatic updating, if one so chooses for that option the door-stopper state of a computer would be his or her own choice in case something went dramatically wrong.
Most browsers still have the manual update next to automatic updates, but there should be a way to interrupt the automatic updater for advanced users/developers/testers etc…
Some software choose to update automatically because the majority of insecure and n00b/average users don’t seem bothered to be responsible for their own security and so it was gently taken out of their hands (e.g. “we know best for you as seemingly you cannot look after or aren’t interested in your own browser security properly yourselves”).
In the opinion of some automatic updating schemes is malicious as for others the halting of automatic updates (through changes to the registry by malcode for instance) is malicious.
Those that feel strongly about this should clarify their position out on the “avast! wish list”.
I personally feel stronger about an opt-in policy for additional software rather than an opt-out.
The most annoying nuisance lately is the aggressive crap-bundling by some downloaders and software installers alike.
No one likes to be guided through a Conduit-cleansing removal routine to experience what a annoying persistent pestilence this is, and software is hesitating to qualify it as the malware it really is for Conduit has very apt judicial support department to sue the socks out of everybody that wants “to call a spade a spade”.
So again I say we should see everything in real perspective,
polonus
Just keep in mind that a VERY GOOD reason for choosing “prompt me” vs. “automatic update” is that not every update goes smoothly and there may be times when you just can’t stand to have your computer taken down by an automatic update. I believe that scenario is mentioned in the original post of this thread.
As an example, I’m a person who uses his computer for critical business virtually all the time. I always set everything to update manually. Then I also take the responsibility to allocate time regularly to DO those updates. Thus I have a fully up-to-date computer that doesn’t chance breaking my workflow at the worst possible time.
I think the takeaway advice to Avast here is this: Don’t dumb things down so much that adept, advanced users can’t control the product to do what they need. The “laymen” crowd will likely leave it set to the default settings, and it’s fine to default them to “all automatic”, as long as there ARE settings serious users can change, and as long as those settings ARE rigorously followed by the software.
And in case it isn’t obvious: If the Disqualification / Emergency Update process isn’t capable of what I described above, it should be changed to work that way.
-Noel
OK, a progress report on the freshly bricked PassingCloud PC (PCPC?) and a request for help, if anyone at Avast HQ is reading this thread. (And if so, I hope this business is giving somebody a few grey hairs.)
Running a registry repair utility (ReHive) from a boot disc didn’t solve it. The program corrected what it could in the files it found, but could not make the machine run again (it still generated BSODs after rebooting). Fortunately, this time (unlike when some rogue software decided to override my preferences and update itself) I had an image of the prior setup, so restored it.
The first Repair Install, having found the assorted CDs etc. that I thought I wouldn’t be needing again, did not work either. I’ve never before seen Setup reboot into Safe Mode before declaring that it cannot run in Safe Mode, but I have now. Restore. This morning, I have been running another Repair Install, which again rebooted into Safe Mode, declared it couldn’t run in Safe Mode, and re-rebooted again. Back to the Boot Disc, and I removed the switch in boot.ini responsible for switching to Safe Mode, and rebooted again. Improvement: Setup continued, switched to graphics mode and continued setting up. Hope!
For a few minutes. Halfway through the “Installing Windows” phase (it says another 34 minutes, but the thermometer graph is at about 2/3 complete) Avast strikes again. Up pops a window titled “AVAST Software Uninstall Utility”, telling me that it wants to run in Safe Mode and asking “Do I want to reboot NOW into Safe Mode and run it from there?” or “Do I want to run it from here, not in Safe Mode, anyway?”. It has somehow interfered with the Setup process which was looking good, and again is not giving me the option I need (i.e. “No, go away, I’ll run you later”). The Setup process continues behind it, but still fails to boot properly - now, whenever it starts, it just reboots quietly (no BSOD).
No. I do not want to run the Avast Uninstaller AT ALL at this stage. I want to get my system working again, then I’ll run the Avast uninstaller from Safe Mode later, when I can actually reach Safe Mode again. So, if anyone at Avast can tell me from where in the startup process, exactly, this uninstall utility is being started, so that I can get rid of that call and actually finish setting up my Repair Install before continuing with the Uninstallation from Hell, I’d be grateful. It would be helpful to know where the actual file is, too, so I can run it later. I assume this isn’t the uninstaller I downloaded from a link on this forum, which I had intended originally to run when Phase 1 of the uninstallation process unexpectedly crashed my system in flames.
BTW, the posters here banging on about “obsolete operating systems” and “several versions out-of-date software” are missing the essential point. My “obsolete” machine, with its “archaeologically interesting” OS and software, was carefully set up by someone who knew what he was doing (me) and driven by the same person. It has been online all day, every day for years, and has not succumbed to anything unexpected in all that time. IF Avast had asked me to update, as it should have, that knowledgable operator could have imaged the whole thing beforehand, as I do for all other upgrades, and all these headaches would have been avoided as I worked out what was broken and how to fix it. I have no problems with Avast AV’s competence (it’s been excellent), but no way am I letting it back in if it’s going to disregard my settings.
Sounds as though that little tool you used somehow included the avast uninstall utility in what ever magic it worked on your registry.
Don’t you have a backup that you can restore? If not, you may be forced to re-install the OS.
I’m notifying a Moderator to see if Avast can add anything to this convoluted attempt of restoring your computer.
Thanks, bob3160 - that was quick! If the Mods can put out a shout to the uninstaller writers, the finishing post may be in sight.
Backups, well, all the data is OK, but I haven’t needed to back the system up for years, and the last ones would have Avast on anyhow, assuming I can find which old HDD they’re on. Generally I only make images before messing with something pretty major, so I can catch any problems that result. And, oh, boy, if I have to reinstall a clean XP at all, it’ll be on a virtual machine, so I can keep a properly set up copy without really trying (like, “Click”, done!). It takes me so long to set Windows up to my liking, going through it shutting all its doors (that I know about …), turning off most of the “features”, replacing the shell, getting all the scripts set up (etc., etc.) that once it’s done (months or years later) the darn thing is part of me. That’s why I’m going to beat my head against this repair until it works. (That, or cry.)
No, when the little registry tool didn’t fix the problem, I restored the “BSOD” image I’d made beforehand, so the Repair installs were working with what the crash had left them. If I can’t repair that condition, I’ve got a couple of other “unfixed” ones imaged as well now - the ones with “Can’t Set Up in Safe Mode” failures. I always image at each step, which is why this unplanned upgrade without my go-ahead has given me such a problem.
If whatever is starting the uninstaller is in the registry, I’d assume that means there’s a “run once” in there somewhere which I’ve never needed before. Perhaps I’ll be able to edit such an entry out with a different registry tool - I’ll need to look through my boot discs and see what’s there - if I know the exact “address” in registry geography. Editing registry files from Dos is not for the fainthearted, but hell, in for a penny. I’ve started this now and I’m in a mean mood.
As I say, I d/l’ed the uninstaller mentioned on one of these posts, but hadn’t had the chance to run it at all yet, so it shouldn’t be that one; I’m assuming it’s a “finalising” stage in the normal AV uninstall, set to “run once next boot” and in safe mode? If so, if I know what the instruction is and where in the registry it wants to be, I can write it back in place when the system’s running again and finish off the darned uninstall. (“Pretty please?” :-* :-*)
Yeah, “convoluted” is right, both for my dogged persistence and my writing about it. Mind you, as someone old enough to have built my first computer out of (mostly) small-scale chips way back when, I honestly find it not much short of a miracle that the huge, insanely complex systems that we use these days manage to work at all, never mind as reliably as they mostly do. Even my near-10-yr-old box has “giga-” in front of everything in it, but “just works”.
Well …
I'm assuming it's a "finalising" stage in the normal AV uninstallActually it's not because this would also wipe out all of your personal settings which a normal install or update doesn't do.
And now you did need to.
I don’t mean to be critical, but that statement alone says a lot about how knowledgeable you are at running your system. Not everything that can happen - in this case from the very software you thought was protecting you - can be anticipated in the moment. That’s the very reason for doing backups, which otherwise seem a waste of time and effort.
Don’t expect disaster, but plan for it.
-Noel