View Full Version : Avg 7.5
Hi,
Im still on AVG 7.5 because 1/ at the time 8 came out there was reportedly problems with it .... and 2/ it has grown to be such a HUUUUGE BLOATED MONSTROSITY of a download for (rural) dial-up. Since then I have just kept updating 7.5 fine. Then recently (a couple of weeks ago) they said they were pulling support for it and so I just have been updating manually until I get to my mums faster connection in town.
Now I see they are actually still updating automatically at the specified time. Anyone understand why this would be??? .... S'got me baffled thats for sure.
Anywayz why are these programmes which used to be a mere few MBs now getting up nearer to the ton mark . :sick: Anybody would think we are ALL on broadband. :scratch: :blink:
Musical
Hi Musical,
I would it down to the ever increasing amounts of virus definitions being written and also v8's snazzy new interface. It's hard to think that an early version of AVG 7 was only ~10mb in size - now the program is nearly 60mb!
A quick look on the AVG free forum, reveals alot of confusion about when updates will stop for v7. The sticky announcement says 28/2/09, but one of the moderators stated in this thread (http://freeforum.avg.com/read.php?1,178160,backpage=,sv=) that support will end on 12th April 2009.
Hope that helps!
honda :)
PS. Good luck upgrading :bigthumb:
Musical,
You might want to take a look at Avast! (free and pro versions) if you are already using Spybot S&D for anti-spyware protection. I believe part of the reason for the AVG 'bloat' is that it also provides anti-spyware, while Avast is primarily still a simple anti-virus.
Avast! also provides a relatively efficient incremental updates process that keeps the size of updates to a minimum. It still provides some additional modules for protecting the Web (HTTP) and other specific data paths, but even these can be disabled individually if desired similar to Spybot S&D.
I use Avast! on an older Windows 2000 based PII 400MHz box primarily because of its light use of resources and simple operation. Combined with Spybot S&D I've had no real issues, though I grant it's not the equivalent of some of the much better for pay products.
As already stated the increase in viruses and thus detections is a large part of the reason for increased download sizes, though feature bloat has also affected many of the suite products. In your case, the timliness and performance of the updates may be more important than the breadth of features and coverage, since the most prevalent malware today is often just as bloated and assuming a braodband connection. In your case protection from the smaller, quieter and more deadly identity theft type malware is probably more important.
Bitman
Thanks for your input. :yes:
The reason I havnt gone with Avast! is they make you register. I have Kerio 2.1.5 and have used it for years. It is SOOOO lightweight. I understand its a geeks firewall being totally rules based and all, and I aint no geek, but it seems to work for me. I dont know how "vulnerable" it would be, as it hasnt been supported for a good while now, but people are still using this Firewall. I guess the proof is in the pudding and I can say I dont encounter any big probs.
Heh, makes me wonder though, if I should use my PCC (non Intel) Mac on the net, as its a whole lot safer than the peecee. AFAIK there are no viruses that can bring a PPC Mac down. Then again I pretty much keep my nose clean on the net and go to places or do things that typically put people at risk.
Cheers
Musical
I've been registered with Avast! for at least three years now with an email account that to this day has received absolutely no spam. I opted out of their marketing mailings early on (if they ever had any, I don't recall) and I don't even recall an annual renewal notice since the software itself does that.
It's always possible this could change, but the product itself is free after all. As long as I would only receive an occasional email from their own marketing it wouldn't really bother me.
I have no real opinion on the firewall since I just use the built-in Windows one myself, as there's no need to provide inbound access and outbound provides no real additional security. If your PC is compromised a firewall can be shut down as easily as any anti-malware, so it adds no real protection, though it makes some feel better.
It isn't the PC that creates the risk, it's the OS and applications, though I know that's what you meant. The key is to keep these up to date and have a manageable set of security application(s) you can understand, user confusion is the greatest risk with any good product(s). If you can support your requirements using a PPC more power to you. I, on the other hand, require ActiveX and other abilities to support my day job, as do most with serious Internet usage.
Bitman
"I have no real opinion on the firewall since I just use the built-in Windows one myself, as there's no need to provide inbound access and outbound provides no real additional security. If your PC is compromised a firewall can be shut down as easily as any anti-malware, so it adds no real protection, though it makes some feel better."
Well this is news to me :scratch: . Everywhere I've been reading for years, the deficiency of Windoze Firewall because of it only working in one direction... which as some say is not even a firewall at all. Im talking about from XP back. DOnt know about Vista. Also I was of the understanding that if a Firewall had a password protection facility, that it added a whole lot more protection. Now Im not saying that firewalls are bullet proof. Nothing is, but by having a firewall operating surely you are LESSENING your chances of getting hit by nasties. It is just adding another layer of protection.
ONCE I got hit by a dialer, which was the only major Ive ever had to deal with. Fortunately telecom saw fit to waive the massive bills that a lot of people at the time incurred. Mine was only small compared to some as I noticed something up by by external modem acting elweirdo. After that was when I got my FW. If I had have had my firewall in place BEFORE hand the chances wouldve been good the mongrel of an outfit wouldnt have been able to ring out.
Cheers : )
Musical
A frewall might have blocked the traffic, but also might not, depending on whether the dialer itself tried to directly access the modem. If it simply invoked the modems own dialing system it might still have been allowed to dial out, since most modem software was designed to make connections, not block them. The same is true of some current malware which can bypass a firewall by simply routing the traffic through already existing modules like svchost.exe and even Internet Explorer itself.
The issue here is that in the past most malware was dumb, so it was relatively easy to block outbound traffic flow using a software firewall, stopping the malware from 'phoning home'. However, as malware has progressed it has become aware of security programs and often shuts them down, which is just as easily done to a firewall program as to other antimalware, assuming the malware already has gained access to the operating system.
Though this isn't always true and it's possible that the firewall might block outbound traffic in some cases, it's really not worth the effort for most, since their operation typically requires both knowledge and the willingness to constantly 'tweak' the settings either manually or by answering automated prompts. Since most users will either simply begin to allow everything or even worse, block things that shouldn't be, the trend is moving away from software firewalls as a protection of value for outbound traffic.
As I said, many still feel better that they have a software firewall, but the best place for this to exist is a true hardware firewall external to the computer(s), which can't be easily disabled as a side effect of the OS being compromised.
From an inbound standpoint, the Windows XP firewall is fully capable of blocking all access and in fact will appear as 'stealth' to the common tests and probes performed by most scanning software, assuming that no ports have been opened for sharing or other purposes. In fact the Vista firewall is actually capable of bidirectional operation, though by default it is configured to allow all outbound traffic and must be manually configured to first block all outbound traffic and then allow the specific ports required. Since virtually all Vista software firewalls are simply special configurations of the Windows Filtering Platform (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366510(VS.85).aspx), the only real differences are 'features' relating to configuration anyway.
One of the reasons I use Avast! on Windows 2000 is that it contains things such as Network and Web Agents which monitor traffic flow for malicious items. Since I'd notice if Avast! had been disabled, I'm much more likely to realize this protection has been circumvented than with a firewall, which usually has no visible indication of operation other than logs. So I don't bother with a firewall on this PC since it's behind a NAT router anyway.
Bitman
Thanks for your explanations Bitman, I appreciate that, although some of it is a bit beyond me.
Knowing that for most ordinary Mr and Mrs Bloggs, (like me) learning AND keep learning, all about things like Security in general and Firewalls in particular, are nothing but a nightmare at best. I say that in regards to the time involved for one to learn all about this stuff. You can spend hours and hours AND HOURS!!!
Most folks I know wouldnt have a clue, much less do anything about it simply because they havnt got the time.. I'm afraid Ive taken the tack that I keep real private stuff right off my computer in the 1st place, then I do what I can as far as my knowledge capabilities allow me, and after that if I get hit, well they wont find out much anywayz. If something munts the system its quicker to reformat and clean install the OS, notwithstanding the fact that on the PC you have to make sure you have all those 3rd party drivers and Service packs...slipstreaming looks like a bit of challenge. The Mac is a doddle to reinstall in comparison.
Thats the safest and easiet way for me, and I dont have to be forever tied to the ever changing face of security requirements. With Kerio I have always got it set to throw up a dialog box. Thats the best way I figured to learn whats going on. At 1st it was chronic, but since I made rules and stuff as the boxes appeared I dont hardly get anything coming up. I guess the proof is in the pudding. Though my computer has had its share of minor glitches here and there, and still has a couple, probably like everyone, it still does its thing well enough. In about 6 years Ive never had to reinstall the OS.
Last time I did a stealth check it was all good, but that was a good while ago now... must go and do another soon.
Cheers
Musical
AVG 8.5 includes: Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, E-mail Scanner and LinkScanner!
It is the number 1 download at download.com, I like it! :flowers:
Avast is also ok, but I don't like the ugly user interface ...
Well tomorrah my mum gets home and Ill take her poots back (Ive had it with me, get SS&D sorted etc) and when I do I'll set it to download AVG8.5...what at 60 odd MB's we'll see how long it takes to DL from her urban dial-up. :hair:
Heh, 2nd thoughts perhaps I better wait until I have something else BIG to do while Im in town. :laugh:
Maybe I'll report back with the time it takes, and tell all you fortunate folks who are riding high on BB while we who have NO CHOICE, are still languishing down in the depths of dialup :sad: Oh well
Musical
@ ance,
You can actually change avast!'s default interface. For details read this blog post (http://forums.spybot.info/blog.php?b=24) :bigthumb:
@ Musical,
Makes me appreciate having broadband ;)
I know but I'm waiting for Avast 5. There will be no skins as far as I know :banana:
drragostea
2009-03-30, 02:05
Hm, the skins for avast! haven't been update in quite some time : P. avast! 5 might take some time (more like a long time) to be released. I think avast! might stick to version 4.8 and 4.9 for sometime.