Hi all,
we would like to announce that Avast versions 8.x and lower aren’t supported anymore and we do not update virus definitions on them. We highly recommend to update to newer version as soon as possible.
Here is a guide how to update: https://support.avast.com/en-us/article/Update-Antivirus
Or you can simply download and install the latest version here: https://bits.avcdn.net/productfamily_ANTIVIRUS/insttype_FREE/platform_WIN/installertype_ONLINE/build_RELEASE/
Thank you!
And you thought the best time to announce this was now? One week after you stopped providing updates. In the midst of a public health crisis.
And you though this the best way to announce it? You could not be bothered to send email notifications to the affected subscribers, but instead chose to bury it in a forum post.
Please post directions on refunding the unused portion of our subscriptions.
Most pitiful !!!
That’s Avast !!!
Bye Bye on all my devices!!!
and here’s the response from Avast regarding refunding the unusable portion of the subscription:
We are not able to submit refund requests if it is outside 30 days of purchase due to the Avast refund policy. Let me know if you need anything else.
That’s the whole response.
Avast has behaved disgracefully. Martin, are you there? Anything you want to add?
I don’t understand the logic of people. They wan to rely on something for protection, but for some reason run some years old version. It just makes absolutely no sense. And then they are outraged because the vendor phases it out. Sure, communication whatever it was, but YOU’RE RUNNING AN ANCIENT VERSION OF ANTIVIRUS for god sake. It’s not like they charge you more for using newer version. The price is the same. And while I understand how people like interface of some version but no the other, but I don’t understand that logic with antiviruses whose primary job is protection. And you’re not getting the best protection with a version that’s several years old now.
If you ask me, phasing out of consumer products should be much faster and strictly defined. Every version should get 3 years of support and then you’ll have to upgrade to latest one. It’s how you can evolve a product that needs constant evolving. Enterprise versions excluded because things move slower there as whole.
And that folks is a perfect example of the blinkered consumerist throw away attitude and why the world is filled with deliberately made redundant electronic waste, polluting every continent on the Earth.
New is not always better, particularly not for the consumer and the environment.
Highly questionable timing at this time of global crisis, and without warning…
People have other problems to deal with right now.
But some Avast decision-makers decided it was the right move at the right moment.
I can’t understand the problem either, what is to stop an upgrade to a later version that ‘is still’ supported and would presumably be covered by existing licenses ?
I would like to emphasize a few words you used in your post, RejZoR, if you don’t mind.
... the vendor phases it out.
I am wondering if this is a case of something being phased out, because I had the impression that when something is “phased out” there are steps to the whatever disappearing.
I’m just sort of wondering what steps we can identify in this particular case.
And there are some folks here that feel the timing is rotten, but this is very likely a management decision that was made some time back and now the company is probably having a hard time conducting meetings to review past decisions that are to be implemented during some difficult times. Somebody just made a recent decision that on this one they would just stick to the original plan, even though there are unusual events taking place present-day.
But there is one thing that I sense in your analyzation, RejZoR, that I hope you don’t mind my addressing. You seem to be viewing this from a prospective of a true understanding of what a version is and what the purpose is of a program that uses that system of upgrades and all that is connected with such a program. That is kind of like somebody who knows what exactly is making a car run. Knows the engine and the transmission and all that.
The problem is that a whole lot of perfectly normal humans drive a car and don’t have a clue why it is running. Something breaks and they take the car to a professional.
Same thing with digital programs, such as a software program that does the job of protecting their system.
That customer hasn’t a clue why and how that program works and just does the most basic of stuff and, in this case, maybe it is set to an auto mode of some sort and maybe those people have even forgotten that program was installed on their computer by the daughter or son, or somebody.
Sure they are relying on it, but they may have even forgotten they are. And they sure don’t know that there are versions or even any age thing. It’s just there. A lot like the computer hardware itself that they just turn on and away they go doing whatever they want to do.
I think what I am trying to point out, RejZoR, is that you have the tech eye sort of thinking, but millions of customers do not. And the key word there is “customers” and it used to be that business folks were very nice to customers. There is a lot of that niceness missing in this computer world at the tech side because the tech folks think like tech folks and not like somebody who has other matters that they view as a whole bunch more important than some program that starts with an “A” and does some weird job of protecting from something they don’t even know anything about.
And I also would bet that those same folks don’t even know this forum exists and so is the announcement here is going to be of much help to alert a whole bunch of customers to this change that was decided upon a bit back?
I mean, how many customers does this company have? Is it in the millions? If so, then I would bet I can find at least a hundred thousand that haven’t a clue what’s going on with this product or even why it was installed by somebody on their computer.
I really think it might not be such a bad idea to give some of those folks some consideration. And I wonder if any of those same folks might own some significant stock in this company. That could make for some very uncomfortable talking at some stockholder’s meeting if suddenly a big change was made and they were taken by surprise. I sure hope the message of this thread has been placed before some customers that are more interested in making money, and are good at that job, than being interested in why their computer works so well. And computer hardware has gotten mighty reliable and some computers can go for years and years before there is trouble, especially if everything is set at automatic.
Sometimes thinking like a tech pro isn’t such a good idea. Be nice to that customer, especially if it might be a sort of not too bright customer, but one that has money.
My goodness, sorry this post got so long.
I am puzzled. By ‘Windows 8’ do you mean also Windows 8.1 which is in extended support from MS until 2023. Windows 7 of course is now out of support but there are still loads of computers in use with it, it is surely too early to end Avast support on that, you kept supporting XP for a very long time.
The subject of this topic is phasing out of support for Avast version 8, as in the first post of this topic, nothing to do with Windows 8.
What “consumerism” and “throw away” attitude?! This is software, not piles of old computer hardware. Also, in case of antivirus/antimalware software, yes, NEW is by definition better. Antivirus software is not updated constantly because they are so bored, it’s because it has to keep up with malware trends. And you can’t be on top of latest malware threats with what, 5 years old antivirus even if it’s getting the latest signatures. It just doesn’t have half of the technology used in new versions. Like CyberCapture as well as other heuristics and I know there was a huge JS engine upgrade with merger of avast! and AVG. Not to mention Behavior Shield which is a behavior analyzer and blocker. Behavior Shield before AVG merger was in all honesty useless and did nothing at all. This new one actually detects a lot of stuff.
New is not better when it comes bundled with junk, unwanted features and removes previously useful options etc
I do not want AV or any other similar software running on my PCs continuously to do anything but what it is supposed to do: protect the system.
You want to know it is working and the presence of the tray icon confirms that. I do not need a pop up telling me about updates and all the things real and imagined it has detected. You want it to keep itself to itself and stay entirely in the background not interfering, at all, with your use of the PC. Not much to ask you would have thought.
Why are users still using older AVAST versions, which incidentally AVAST should actually be pleased about and proud of? It is because they still work more than adequately to protect users PCs yet are closer to that ideal than more recent versions.
It is bizarre when users, clearly loyal, are treated as annoying dinosaurs when they are actually the brand’s best advocates.
I agree with Cluster-Lizard2014. I accept the offer of elective features with reasonable (if grumpy >:() grace because I use a free version.
Software maintenance of version 8 and earlier has already ceased a few years ago but the virus definition updates for old Avast versions are presumably unlikely to become functionally obsolete unless much more recent old versions are to be also designated as obsolete. Won’t it be the case that virus definition updates for old Avast versions are distributed using automation and so there are only modest overheads entailed in their distribution?
I have a vested interest in Avast version 10(2015). It is my misfortune that my Windows XP SP3 system uses a non-SSE2 processor and so cannot use Avast 18.8.
Continued supply of virus definition updates for older versions offers peace of mind to users of older systems and to those who have found that more recent versions are troublesome.
Cluster-Lizard2014: I get the user interface part (and other “visible” features); for me personally, the best UI was the Enhanced UI of Avast 4.8 
However, you’re saying that it’s supposed to “protect the system”. And to do that job well, you do need the latest version. You’re saying that the old versions work “more than adequately”… and I can’t agree there. Yes, the changes in the user interface may be unnecessary or even unwanted for some users, but I’m afraid other changes/updates in the program (that you don’t see) are very relevant, protection-wise.
Plus of course there are security vulnerabilities fixed in Avast every now and then - and you do need those as well.
Hi versions 9+ are still supported.
It’s not about the distribution, it’s about their actual creation or implementation. A big part of virus definitions are simply code - just like the program itself, only loaded from a newly created/updated folder every day.
That code has to be compiled with an old compiler (to work in those old programs), so it cannot use any new(er) features (that may have a performance or security impact). Some 3rd party libraries may have to stay on old (possibly buggy or insecure) versions because the new/fixed ones cannot even be compiled with that old compiler anymore.
The program provides a lot of functionality for the virus definitions (you could imagine the program being an array of sensors feeding information into the virus definition code where it gets evaluated, plus also providing “executive functions” that can be called when a decision was made. Those old program versions have less sensors, and they use different formats, so the code in the virus definitions gets complicated - and subsequently buggy (and of course takes longer time to write, and longer time to test). So as I wrote elsewhere, it slows down the development and release of updated protection for the new program versions.
Thanks Igor. That is interesting. I learned a lot from your insights of the production of virus definitions.
Inside the void within my skull which is my brain, I had naively assumed that virus definitions were at the level of templates. Now I learn that they possess the dynamic complexity of software so it is no wonder that old versions must eventually be discontinued. I should actually be saying “thanks” to Avast for so considerably prolonging the lives of older versions.
True, I totally agree … Avast should respect its older customers and stop wanting to impose versions … After all, they manufacture antivirus, not operating systems. Microsoft’s shit is enough for us to download problem patches to make its slow, resource-consuming system worse.
You still don’t seem to understand that your old operating system can not run a version of Avast that can protect you.
It’s time to upgrade your operating system in order to be protected against current vulnerabilities.