I have updated Avast on my uncle’s WinXP machine.
Of course it went wrong, any sort of errors.
My uncle, who is old and not a PC guru would have been stuck with it but I remembered of the uninstall tool provided by Avast.
So with some effort I managed to remove Avast.
Now, do you think somebody who had just “emergency removed” a newly installed software is going to install it back again just to see if this times it works?
I don’t think so. That means bye Avast. Maybe nobody cares of it, given the usual “it is free, why do you complain” and the “there are million users anyway”.
User error my #@@.
Apparently you people don’t get it.
I did nothing but letting Avast update itself.
If it is not “recommended” then why Avast has got the auto-update feature?
It is not about giving up easily, it is about:
It is not “normal” to get errors after an update. When it happens, you cannot trust the software any more.
it is not “normal” that a software hangs at boot and refuses to uninstall from control panel. Yes, you can probably fix the issue given that you spend hours on it. Maybe. Maybe next time you can’t.
Once you have worked around the issue, why should you go looking for more installing the same bugged software AGAIN?
Finally, the fact that older versions of Windows aren’t fully supported, despite the “optimistic” system requirements, is getting annoying.
I think Avast does a marvelous job of testing! This is the best AV without question. The only critique that I have is that that Splash screen after every reboot, trying to update over Avast 6, with the only option to do an uninstall with the Avast utility and than a re-install should have been caught and fixed before general release. (So many people had this bug.) But at least Avast is working on it, and it should be fixed in the next build.
I get it …lots of frustrated people this week…My link was for AVAST version 6…re-install it and wait out the storm…
what are the alternatives? their not as good…
It is recommended for most updated to utilize the auto updated future, but as with most software when making a version change, 5-6 or 6-7, a clean install of the newer version has better results.
So far both the issues seem to be user end error, related to the fact Avast 7 is just released and needs more care when installing, myself have installed it on 30+ computers widely varying in specs and OS’s and have not had a single problem.
This is true, Avast should have a legacy version that still gets proper security updates I am not sure why they do not.
I would actually suggest that an auto-update to the new version be removed and instead notify the user that the new version is available.
So why are you still using Windows which has had issues after auto-updates?
Lots of programs do this when something does not install properly. That is why many programs tell you to do a clean install instead of upgrade.
You can use the avast uninstall utility to easily remove it if it has problems and do it within minutes.
Older versions of Windows? Versions over 10 years old that Microsoft is dropping or has dropped support for? You want software companies to write software to support those legacy operating systems when Microsoft does not?
Also to true any thing older then Windows XP is not with support, I myself still work on them but strongly recommend any and all my clients look in to upgrading to a new computer, or in most cases just newer, one that is running XP
I agree lorenzo, a lot are missing your point…Avast should have handled the update better…There are a lot of us who are just computer users…we expect our software to work…If it tells us to update, we do it and assume it will continue to work…We shouldn’t be expected to have to learn complicated uninstall and re-install instuctions…I know a lot of people’s updates were successfull, and a lot were not…many that were not, did what most people would do, followed directions…Maybe avast didn’t have this ready to push out…let’s hope they are hearing from the senior members of the forum…
@lloydc
I could not leave my old uncle with Avast 6 installed waiting for another issue.
There are MANY users out there who either don’t even read the error messages or they don’t know what to do.
So, since after dealing with the failed update I did not have time to do anything else, he is currently without any antivirus.
@Paul Rodgers @DarkRadience
You both have a career as comedians.
It is VERY funny to read you two blaming “the user” for this fail.
Sorry yea the point Avast did fail here with the update it should have been more tested and the unstable behavior that many are seeing would have been weeded out.
EDIT: Avast is at over all fault for pushing a update that clearly needed more testing, the problem is still end users, IT workers like myself have not seen any errors or dissatisfaction from Avast 7.
Please point out where I have blamed the user. I have told others that it is recommended to perform a clean install instead of an in place upgrade. I have never said it was their fault that they are having problems.
This is not a testing fail, but a procedure fail. In version updates should be done automatically, but new versions should always be clean installed.
I’d like to point out that many users didn’t have problems while updating, and others didn’t have problems while installing anew. But, the opposite is also true; many users had problems updating, and many users had problems while installing clean. So saying this is only a procedure fail… Well, it may, but avast announcement explicitly said that a program update is possible, and there was not explicit recommendation to install clean. Many users received a tray notification “click to update” and that was it.
Some problems are unavoidable beforehand. But, if the clean install procedure would be enough to avoid problems, then many users shouldn’t be having problems like a repetitive final screen as part of the installation procedure on “every” reboot (or at least, after several reboots). There are more examples; problems after a clean install.
This example of the repetitive screen after reboot may be a “little bug”, and I’m not sure how much additional test would had been necessary so to avoid it in the final release. Yet, several “little bugs” (not only in the program itself) caused some amount of “veteran” users to recognized that this was not the best program update in the long history of Avast good quality.
personally i think the RC version was too rushed…too little exposure time to the beta testers.
this is because i do not remember any of the beta testers having these install problems while observing the betas–>release candidate
If auto-updates from v.X to v.Y are not safe, Avast should have three levels for updates:
a. green, signature update
b. blue, v.X.x update, inside the same X “branch”.
Here I am giving from granted that you don’t need to unistall and reinstall Avast any time there is a program update because this would be like saying “do not use Avast”.
c. yellow/black stripes, Avast notifies the user that a new version (from v.X to v.Y) is available but that’s all, no auto-update possible.
In case “c” the user can click on the message to get information on the proper “unistall v.X-inistall v.Y” procedure. It would be nice to add the unistaller tool to Avast package, that could be handy if the Internet connection is not operable.
What happened instead was that Avast alerted of a program update and the user had the option to refuse or to proceed.
It is NOT true that ANY software that updates necessarily breaks. It is just a matter of quality control.
Recently I had issues with both Firefox and Thunderbird that did not work properly on XP after an update.
The reason was simply that the installer HAD NOT BEEN TESTED over an XP clean install but only on some systems that had lots of other MS software installed (.net, runtimes, etc).
Fortunately if your browser does not work that doesn’t affect the system and you just use IE or Opera as backup.
It is MUCH worse when it is your antivirus.
Speaking of beta testers, you must have a pool of testers who cover the whole “spectrum” of systems you plan to support.
What is happening nowadays is that “developers”, “power users”, “testers”, etc are all on modern systems while there are still MANY common users who are on vintage systems. This creates a situation where the development and the testing diverge from the “real” user base. It is obviously made worse by the “release often” policy and the race among firms to add the “newest feature”.
For example I can’t install any of the current Linux distros on an old PC I have in the garage because, despite the hardware is supported IN THEORY and it worked with previous versions, recent modifications on the kernel and Xorg make the installation to fail and/or Xorg inoperable. I guess it is some regression introduced on old hardware support that went unnoticed simply because NOBODY has tested it (and probably nobody ever will).
Last thing: there are very few things on earth that are more annoying than the FALSE sense of superiority coming from IT guys. And nothing more lame than blaming “the user”. It is actually the biggest issue with software development and developers.
i am sry but a whole spectrum of systems is theoretically ideal but practically impossible. to get ‘whole spectrum of systems’ = ‘i will never be able to release my software’ (imagine that u have to test with each and every other software in the world to ensure compatibility- there is almost infinitely different permutations of software u got there )
show me a software where there is zero bugs after release to public–none
software are pieces of code not physical goods.
notifying the end user of new version without allowing update is redundant and creates confusion (they will be thinking theres a new version but why i cannot update?)
well Avast! does not release new major versions that often. the only problem is that this version is not tested long enough
Rushed ? Possibly. beta testers did have upgrade issues which were worked on.
Not true at all, you could ( and should ) have looked at avast.com to read what new features were involved in this updated program and there you could download a full copy for yourself so as you can run a custom install and select what features you want to use.
Speaking of beta testers, you must have a pool of testers who cover the whole "spectrum" of systems you plan to support.
What is happening nowadays is that "developers", "power users", "testers", etc are all on modern systems while there are still MANY common users who are on vintage systems. This creates a situation where the development and the testing diverge from the "real" user base. It is obviously made worse by the "release often" policy and the race among firms to add the "newest feature".
Not the case really, avast 7 beta was open to a wide range of users and if you look here on the forum many of them ,Evangelists included are on older systems running XP.
Last thing: there are very few things on earth that are more annoying than the FALSE sense of superiority coming from IT guys. And nothing more lame than blaming "the user". It is actually the biggest issue with software development and developers.
Hmm, almost as bad as those that do not check first what they are adding to their system and then scream blue murder afterwards?
)