Did Avira just take 2 steps backwards with their Suite

[trjam]

I went to install it back onto 2 machines, one with Vista and one with XP. The one with Vista will install but when you click the update button, nothing happens. On the XP one, halfway through the install it says it failed. I never had issues like this before and do realize it could be on my end. The only thing is, I have not ever tried the same software on both. I also owe Karen and Belgammin an apology as they appear to have been right with their issues from what I am hearing.

So those who have it, do you thing the new additions were rushed and are you having any issues.

[BG]

trjam ... I had the same problem. Got the 90 day trial and decided to give it a go on my vista machine. Could not get the update to work. Click on update and it would just sit there like I hadn't clicked on anything. Also when installing I got 3 installation error boxes. Didn't matter how I installed it.

[CtlAltDelete]

I noticed it too on a Vista machine.

It would install, show "copying files", then move to "installing files" and start erroring out. Got three install failed errors one after the other. Then it would complete, show in the taskbar. Open the program and you could hover over the options but not click on any of them.

I tried running registry cleaners, etc. Nothing worked.

Ran a complete format and reinstall of Vista, then tried Avira PE again. Worked perfectly with no errors.

[Skytrooper]

I installed the 90-day trial of Avira Premium Security Suite on my Vista PC and was never able to get it to download updates. When I ran GRC's ShieldsUP! test, I had the same results reported by Karen76 in that now-locked thread. Ports #135 and #139 were open, #445 was stealthed, and all others were closed. Following the advice of one member, I raised the firewall's setting from the default of Medium to High but that made no difference when I ran a new port scan.

[pykko]

{QUOTE-> I went to install it back onto 2 machines, one with Vista and one with XP. The one with Vista will install but when you click the update button, nothing happens. On the XP one, halfway through the install it says it failed. I never had issues like this before and do realize it could be on my end. The only thing is, I have not ever tried the same software on both. I also owe Karen and Belgammin an apology as they appear to have been right with their issues from what I am hearing.

So those who have it, do you thing the new additions were rushed and are you having any issues. <-QUOTE}
trjam, if you encounter an issue on a specific machine you will change your AV (you could read both Antivirus and Avatar here) ?
It failed to me also to install on a XP machine, but the installer was corrupted (got it from softpedia.com I guess). I've downloaded a fresh one and everything went fine.
On Vista x64 Avira works also great. But keep changing... ::)

[trjam]

First, this isnt about me. I clearly stated my issues with the product may be self inflicted. I seriously doubt it on one PC though. But after looking at different forums and listening to ohers I feel it is a valid question. I am not saying they went backwards, or forwards. I am asking what people think.

And again, hopefully for the last time, the avatar is nothing more then a picture. It does not mean just because it changes that I unistalled my software and installed something else.:)

Or does it????

[farmerlee]

No issues here, installed and running fine for the past few days. I've tried it on 2 different systems and its run great on both. I'm quite impressed with its speed, very quick.

[fredra]

{QUOTE-> I went to install it back onto 2 machines, one with Vista and one with XP. The one with Vista will install but when you click the update button, nothing happens. On the XP one, halfway through the install it says it failed. I never had issues like this before and do realize it could be on my end. The only thing is, I have not ever tried the same software on both. I also owe Karen and Belgammin an apology as they appear to have been right with their issues from what I am hearing.

So those who have it, do you thing the new additions were rushed and are you having any issues. <-QUOTE}

The avatar is irrelevant, now back to the question.
I am using the 90 dy trial and there IS something very wrong with APSS.
-installs are promlematic on some machines
-firewall does not seem to be robust (ports 0, 135 are SOMETIMES!!! closed on GRC), unless you are behind a router. Their fix is to write a specific rule to block these "closed" ports to make them all stealth. The user must do this, now that is poppy **** (to use the word)
-webguard has a negative effect on downloading (try d/l a large file with WG on, reboot, turn WB off and d/l the same file) you will then see the effect of WG.
-updates (specifically Sept 13) rendered the icon in the tray inoperable. You needed to re-boot to get it operational. They say that it is not reproducible.

It would appear to this OP that AVIRA has regressed in thir latest offering as it was not evident in the "beta" testing. >:(

On their forums they keep justifying everything, but fail to listen. Maybe it is lost in translation.

Cheers :)

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> The avatar is irrelevant, now back to the question.
I am using the 90 dy trial and there IS something very wrong with APSS.
-installs are promlematic on some machines
-firewall does not seem to be robust (ports 0, 135 are SOMETIMES!!! closed on GRC), unless you are behind a router. Their fix is to write a specific rule to block these "closed" ports to make them all stealth. The user must do this, now that is poppy **** (to use the word)
-webguard has a negative effect on downloading (try d/l a large file with WG on, reboot, turn WB off and d/l the same file) you will then see the effect of WG.
-updates (specifically Sept 13) rendered the icon in the tray inoperable. You needed to re-boot to get it operational. They say that it is not reproducible.

It would appear to this OP that AVIRA has regressed in thir latest offering as it was not evident in the "beta" testing. >:(

On their forums they keep justifying everything, but fail to listen. Maybe it is lost in translation.

Cheers :) <-QUOTE}

I could not agree more. Same problems I had. I posted that according to Gibson Research's test, the firewall did not stealth all ports. The alleged technical/board person attacked me. I kept making the same point that the firewall was flawed (among other things) and his solution was to write a rule that the code writers were unable or unwilling to do. The suite is flawed, and I would stay away from it for now.

[zapjb]

I view this suite & others AVs as flawed. And to be stayed awayed from. Unless one is unaware or has compensated for products flaws or has a testing environment.

But REALLY. I see the real problem as trjam's changing avatars. If trjam would stop changing avatars all would be well. ;D ;D ;D

[trjam]

well a well needed format of both computers and everything is blissful again in Avira land.;)

[EliteKiller]

I've received the multiple installation errors on at least a dozen different pc's running XP over the past year. The installation completes, but I have no idea why those errors creep up. Granted I haven't really taken the time to troubleshoot them.... :-\

[Mele20]

{QUOTE->
-updates (specifically Sept 13) rendered the icon in the tray inoperable. You needed to re-boot to get it operational. They say that it is not reproducible.

It would appear to this OP that AVIRA has regressed in thir latest offering as it was not evident in the "beta" testing. >:(

On their forums they keep justifying everything, but fail to listen. Maybe it is lost in translation.

Cheers :) <-QUOTE}

I have the Personal Pro version and it got the engine update (sept 13) while I slept. I got on the computer the next morning and didn't notice at first that the umbrella was gone from the systray. When I did notice it missing, I ran Process Explorer and found avcenter.exe and avgnt. exe were not running. Only sched.exe was running. So, I enabled both of those which got my tray icon back. I then posted at the Avira forum and was "dismissed" with a one line reply that if it didn't do that constantly, not to worry about it. Well, gee...I didn't notice it missing right away...that is not good! I had asked why it happened ...that was ignored and I was just basically told that I shouldn't worry about such things. :(

[trjam]

Screw this, less then a hour later network connection gone. I am with Eset from here on out. Avira, you frigging stink.:thumbd:

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> Screw this, less then a hour later network connection gone. I am with Eset from here on out. Avira, you frigging stink.:thumbd: <-QUOTE}

Other than that, how are you liking Avira and F-Secure? ;D ;D
Are you using the ESET suite?

Regards,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

trjam, i know you like avira, but you should not be using something that gives you ....erm.... about 3 problems every week.

[trjam]

I reformatted all afternoon both computers and now this. Put Nod on and internet connection is fine and fast. I learn things the hardway. No Jerry, not going to use F Secure, it still adds weight over time. As for Avira, well, nuff said. Going to stick with Eset, and leave it at that. Geez, I am pissed with what they have done to a previous good product. Someone should have their ass there for this crap.

[fredra]

{QUOTE-> Screw this, less then a hour later network connection gone. I am with Eset from here on out. Avira, you frigging stink.:thumbd: <-QUOTE}
@trjam
I know you have always liked APSS, and that is your right, however, there are some things that seem to be wrong with the latest version. The one that is annoying for me is the definite slowdown of d/ls with their WG active. Why on he*** name did they include it is beyond me.
Avira's forum (the mods maybe overworked) is full with posting of BSOD and that is not a good sign.
ESS (Beta) has its hiccups (I have it on my test PC), but when they do fix the bugs it should be a strong contender.
Good luck trjam
Cheers :)

[trjam]

one good thing is, I get to move up to the top forums and out of the basement down here. Marcos, guess who is coming to dinner?

[Miyagi]

After my departure from Dr.Web, I am quite happy with F-PROT and don't spend a whole lot of time trying to decide which is better or experience the unknown bugs.

I've learned to stick to a product and let the AV experts protect you from all these nonsense. Enjoy your computer and internet and don't waste time trying to figure the unknown. ;)

EDIT - I am sure AVIRA did not purposely go back a step or two, it's a fine product that needs to tweak from the recent upgrade. All products will go through this mode. How much of a patience is all it matters.

[NAMOR]

I was trailing the suite and for some reason my wireless keeps dropping. Also, web pages are not loading correctly. If I refresh the page, then it displays correctly... Anyone else having issues with pages not load right? Sorry, I didn't read all of the post since I'm at work and the supers don't like us to surf the web. :-[

[Carver]

I had update and last system scan and Mail guard problems. I thought if I just let Avira do its scheduled scan it might clear it self, I got home from work put on the computer Avira tries to do its scheduled scan. At the same time Avira starts a scheduled update, heres the strange part I get a error message saying I have reached Avira limit of 4 something. I look at the taskbar and it says I have 24 copys of Avira running at the same time :blink: this increases to 28. I click "Yes" on the error message and the copy disappears, when it got to one copy running I just let it run till 100%. After I tried a update just to see if it worked...it works again, I haven't tryed scan yet...I'm afraid it will just jam again. I'll run a scheduled scan tomorrow. I still have the mail guard problem, according to the readme in the program file its a known issue.

[Eliot]

Avira Premium, not the suite, just the AV was acting up for me last couple days with the one of the issues in this thread. I clicked Update, it just sat there like a deaf and dumb dog. I had fought with System Restore time and again to no joy. Finally a couple remove and install again fixed it, for now I guess. I can't wait until the green one gets out of beta. :D

[JerryM]

Avira has so many things going for it, and it is a shame that they cannot get the consistent problems of updating, etc corrected.
I admit I liked the premium edition when I tried it, and planned to buy it until the KIS7 Systweak offer came along. Haven't looked back, but still like Avira.

I also tried the suite, and liked it also. My laptop seems to run with everything. Maybe I should figure out a way to patent that particular machine. Wonder if Jeff might want it?;D

Regards,
Jerry

[Thug21]

Does any other AV vendor have a pretty rigid schedule for releasing new builds like Avira does? With all the issues people have, it seems like Avira must rush like crazy to meet their quarterly deadlines. If only they tested things better, Avira would be the cat's pajama's.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> After my departure from Dr.Web, I am quite happy with F-PROT and don't spend a whole lot of time trying to decide which is better or experience the unknown bugs.

I've learned to stick to a product and let the AV experts protect you from all these nonsense. Enjoy your computer and internet and don't waste time trying to figure the unknown. ;) <-QUOTE}
so true, its all about trust.... you buy the AV, but you need to trust them to do 'their job' otherwise, its just plain pointless.

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> -firewall does not seem to be robust (ports 0, 135 are SOMETIMES!!! closed on GRC), unless you are behind a router. Their fix is to write a specific rule to block these "closed" ports to make them all stealth. The user must do this, now that is poppy **** (to use the word) <-QUOTE}
{QUOTE-> I could not agree more. Same problems I had. I posted that according to Gibson Research's test, the firewall did not stealth all ports. The alleged technical/board person attacked me. I kept making the same point that the firewall was flawed (among other things) and his solution was to write a rule that the code writers were unable or unwilling to do. <-QUOTE}

I know of an excellent firewall, supported on these forums, that also only closes 2 ports instead of stealthing them. The user must create a rule to stealth these ports, if they want to be completely stealthed. Not sure why.

Anyway, the following quote from a recent thread might help explain why stealthed ports are probably not critical for good security:
{QUOTE-> It's only a flaw if you consider being stealthed a necessity. "Stealthed" roughly translates that your PC/network does not reveal its existence by responding to unsolicited packets. The only real advantage stealth offers is that it makes your PC a bit harder to find with random port scans, and then only if your system has no open ports. When your existence or IP is known, stealthed ports offer no advantage over closed ports. It's far more important that your ports are closed and for ones that need to be open to be limited to accepting connections from only the necessary IPs.
Rick <-QUOTE}

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I know of an excellent firewall, supported on these forums, that also only closes 2 ports instead of stealthing them. The user must create a rule to stealth these ports, if they want to be completely stealthed. Not sure why.

Anyway, the following quote from a recent thread might help explain why stealthed ports are probably not critical for good security: <-QUOTE}


Nonsense. The Avira firewall does not stealth all ports even in the non-recommended high setting. Saying that stealthing all ports is only vital if you think it is, is an obfuscation (evasion) of the issue. The premise that a closed port is the same as a stealthed port is absurd. If that were true, than software would only need to close ports-not stealth them. Avira makes mistakes and then attempts to rationalize them. If you buy into this, you do not understand what firewall software should be doing.

[trjam]

Sorry, but if you buy a AV, you can do whatever you please with it. Trust it, Trash it, change it, reinstall it. It is up to the buyer to decide as it is his product.

Avira will work this out, but I will not go back. I would do as Jerry but KIS does not like Sandboxie with Vista. Yes I wish the AV portion of the beta for Eset would hurry up, but for now 2.7 purrs like a kitten.:)

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Sorry, but if you buy a AV, you can do whatever you please with it. Trust it, Trash it, change it, reinstall it. It is up to the buyer to decide as it is his product.

Avira will work this out, but I will not go back. I would do as Jerry but KIS does not like Sandboxie with Vista. Yes I wish the AV portion of the beta for Eset would hurry up, but for now 2.7 purrs like a kitten.:) <-QUOTE}

I use NOD32. It provides the best overall protection and I have never, ever, had a problem with it in three years. I cannot say the same for all the other AV products-and I have tested most all of them.

90% of the posts in this forum are about problematic programs. That should tell you something. Get something that works on your machine and stick with it.

[tec505]

{QUOTE-> I use NOD32. It provides the best overall protection and I have never, ever, had a problem with it in three years. I cannot say the same for all the other AV products-and I have tested most all of them.

90% of the posts in this forum are about problematic programs. That should tell you something. Get something that works on your machine and stick with it. <-QUOTE}

Exactely my opinion. "Never change a Winning Team"!! But testing is important too to find other great sw, running well on my machine. But, test is important for all here on WSF!!!!!!

Mike

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> Nonsense. The Avira firewall does not stealth all ports even in the non-recommended high setting. Saying that stealthing all ports is only vital if you think it is, is an obfuscation (evasion) of the issue. The premise that a closed port is the same as a stealthed port is absurd. If that were true, than software would only need to close ports-not stealth them. Avira makes mistakes and then attempts to rationalize them. If you buy into this, you do not understand what firewall software should be doing. <-QUOTE}

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. This is not a 'flaw' or 'mistake' in Avira's security software. It may offend someone's sense of 'completeness' that a few ports are merely closed and not stealthed like all the rest (ok, it offends my sense of completeness), but not stealthing a port or two does not in any way make those closed ports more possble to penetrate. If you want to verify this, ask some of the firewall experts here.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I'm sorry, I have to disagree. This is not a 'flaw' or 'mistake' in Avira's security software. It may offend someone's sense of 'completeness' that a few ports are merely closed and not stealthed like all the rest (ok, it offends my sense of completeness), but not stealthing a port or two does not in any way make those closed ports more possble to penetrate. If you want to verify this, ask some of the firewall experts here. <-QUOTE}

You missed my point-again. It is not about penetration per se- it is about software that does not stealth common ports. And Avira does not do what others have done successfully. You are entitled to think that is acceptable, but most others certainly do not. That is why Avira is a small company. They are going to be "right" even if the marketplace is demanding something else (stealthed ports). Even the maligned Windows XP SP2 firewall does a great job of stealthing ports, and it protects the system at boot. Outbound "protection" is a useless feature that will not protect you-it is a delusion. Once the thief is in your house, he will find a way to get out.

As to expertise, I have been in the computer industry since 1968, and have owned major computer firms. [Snipped unsupported and sweeping accusation - Blue]

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> You missed my point-again. <-QUOTE}

Yes, I'm afraid I did. The experts on Wilders I was referring to have actually written firewalls. Perhaps you're one of them?

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Yes, I'm afraid I did. The experts on Wilders I was referring to have actually written firewalls. Perhaps you're one of them? <-QUOTE}

I have written enough code and used the proper software on my machines that I have never, ever had a serious virus or malware invade my systems. Even if they do, now we have Acronis and we can time-travel back to before the invasion.:D

[farmerlee]

Just hooked up my old router which has no firewall to test out avira, only ports 0-1 were not stealthed. I was a bit surprised by this. It only took me a few seconds to add a couple of rules to fix it so i can't see why the developers don't include them by default. It sure makes me glad i have my firewalled router.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Just hooked up my old router which has no firewall to test out avira, only ports 0-1 were not stealthed. I was a bit surprised by this. It only took me a few seconds to add a couple of rules to fix it so i can't see why the developers don't include them by default. It sure makes me glad i have my firewalled router. <-QUOTE}

That was my original point. I said that here and on the Avira forum. Either their programmers are unable (unlikely) or unwilling (very likely) to write the code to fix the issue. They will lose business because of it-like mine.

[berng]

{QUOTE-> That was my original point. I said that here and on the Avira forum. Either their programmers are unable (unlikely) or unwilling (very likely) to write the code to fix the issue. They will lose business because of it-like mine. <-QUOTE}
Avira's claim is, and I'll cite them
{QUOTE-> $telnet nmoldoveanu 0
Trying 10.x.x.x...
telnet: connect to address 10.x.x.x: Connection refused
In this case port 0 was simply closed. This is the equivalent of REJECT in iptables.

$telnet nmoldoveanu 0
Trying 10.x.x.x...
In this case port 0 was stealth and the telnet command hangs. This is the equivalent of DROP in iptables.

$ telnet 10.x.x.y 0
Trying 10.x.x.y...
telnet: connect to address 10.x.x.x: No route to host
In this case there is no such IP in the network.

Host 10.x.x.x exists and it is stealth and bullet-proof protected. Or at least some people think so 10.x.x.y is an IP that doesn't belong to any computer. As you can easily see the stealth mecanism means nothing and using a simple tool that is available to anyone, you can obtain the status of a network computer.
http://forum.antivir-pe.de/thread.php?threadid=26873&threadview=0&hilight=&hilightuser=0&page=2
<-QUOTE}

Assuming, the above is true, why should I care if a port is stealthed or not.

By the way, Bunkhouse, you or anyone stating they've been in computers x years and so forth does not impress me. That's called "appeal to authority".

What impresses me is when someone has posted a lot with good solutions.

[InfinityAz]

{QUOTE-> What impresses me is when someone has posted a lot with good solutions. <-QUOTE}

Respect is earned, not given.

[rogervernon]

I've just given Avira Suite a whirl on the 90 day trial offer.
I found a perceptible and unusual delay before web pages displayed. This must be because the whole page is scanned before passing to the browser.
I found it annoying, as it doesn't happen with other suites, or AVs, I've tried.
So pro tem, it's back to the combination which runs best on my laptop - NOD32 (either V2 or V3 beta - both are fine), and COMODO firewall.

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE-> Just hooked up my old router which has no firewall to test out avira, only ports 0-1 were not stealthed. I was a bit surprised by this. It only took me a few seconds to add a couple of rules to fix it so i can't see why the developers don't include them by default. It sure makes me glad i have my firewalled router. <-QUOTE}
I have seen this behavior on a few other firewalls that I've tried over the past year or two, I think I reported it and one of them fixed it quickly. Chances are Avira will fix/change it in time, perhaps they are just a little slow at getting to it as it's not really a critical issue..

[trjam]

It still just makes me mad web scanning was not included in the AV. Just about all that offer it, also ave it in their AV product.

[berng]

{QUOTE-> It still just makes me mad web scanning was not included in the AV. Just about all that offer it, also ave it in their AV product. <-QUOTE}
Agree.
Web scanning should be in a companies AV product. You shouldn't have to buy a suite to get that basic feature.

[Stem]

I admit I have not looked at the firewall included in this since the Beta.

I did take part (shortly) in beta testing and found that for example: When DNS client was disabled, then all aplications would need to be allowed inbound UDP for the replies, but, also needed "allow" inbound TCP to allow the returned UDP(DNS) packets. I did report this, but was basically told this was not a problem (I left beta testing after that).

Stealth,.. I do not care if a firewall does this or not,.. but do agree it should be possible with a firewall.

[Thug21]

I disabled my dns client service and everything seems normal. Or is that not the proper way to test it?

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> Nonsense. The Avira firewall does not stealth all ports even in the non-recommended high setting. Saying that stealthing all ports is only vital if you think it is, is an obfuscation (evasion) of the issue. The premise that a closed port is the same as a stealthed port is absurd. If that were true, than software would only need to close ports-not stealth them. Avira makes mistakes and then attempts to rationalize them. If you buy into this, you do not understand what firewall software should be doing. <-QUOTE}


{QUOTE-> You missed my point-again. It is not about penetration per se- it is about software that does not stealth common ports. And Avira does not do what others have done successfully. You are entitled to think that is acceptable, but most others certainly do not. That is why Avira is a small company. They are going to be "right" even if the marketplace is demanding something else (stealthed ports). Even the maligned Windows XP SP2 firewall does a great job of stealthing ports, and it protects the system at boot. Outbound "protection" is a useless feature that will not protect you-it is a delusion. Once the thief is in your house, he will find a way to get out. <-QUOTE}


I have been going around and around about this at the Avira forum. I keep being told that stealth isn't necessary, and to create a rule if I really want Port 0 stealthed. They don't seem to understand that this should be fixed on their end. That particular rule that seems to work for this gentleman, doesn't work for me for some reason or another.

The argument that stealth is not necessary, or closed is just as good, is a moot point. If a customer, in this case me, who purchases a suite, and is expecting it's firewall to pass the ShieldsUp test with all ports stealth, and the firewall does not achieve this, even with the firewall settings set to "High", why shouldn't I or anyone with the same expectations, be upset. To basically be told by their "experts", there isn't a problem, and that you're just gullible to marketing hype, is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

[Dogbiscuit]

{QUOTE-> If a customer, in this case me, who purchases a suite, and is expecting it's firewall to pass the ShieldsUp test with all ports stealth, and the firewall does not achieve this, even with the firewall settings set to "High", why shouldn't I or anyone with the same expectations, be upset. <-QUOTE}

Because if it doesn't decrease your protection any, it's a moot point.

[Stem]

{QUOTE-> I disabled my dns client service and everything seems normal. Or is that not the proper way to test it? <-QUOTE}Has I have mentioned, I have not looked at the final release (or updates).
If, for your example, you have disabled the windows DNS client, then check the rules for your browser and ensure that inbound(server) TCP is blocked.

Again, with respect to "stealth". I can discover any IP I want, regardless of this "Stealth",.. Stealth is only a drop of inbound Syn packets,.. there are many other methods to see/check if an IP is active. (The fact no responce is indication of active IP, there should be ICMP unreacable))

[Thug21]

I understand - I just wanted to try it myself out of curiosity.
Thank you for the reply and thank you for your opinion on the stealth matter.

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE->

The argument that stealth is not necessary, or closed is just as good, is a moot point. If a customer, in this case me, who purchases a suite, and is expecting it's firewall to pass the ShieldsUp test with all ports stealth, and the firewall does not achieve this, even with the firewall settings set to "High", why shouldn't I or anyone with the same expectations, be upset. To basically be told by their "experts", there isn't a problem, and that you're just gullible to marketing hype, is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. <-QUOTE}

Well, it really isn't a critical issue, however, all the others for the most part stealth all ports, so this one should too. It's pretty silly that it doesn't actually...

[Graystoke]

{QUOTE-> Because if it doesn't decrease your protection any, it's a moot point. <-QUOTE}



I have my feelings on this matter. I'm not going to continue discussing it. We just have to agree to disagree.

[DVD+R]

{QUOTE-> I went to install it back onto 2 machines, one with Vista and one with XP. The one with Vista will install but when you click the update button, nothing happens. On the XP one, halfway through the install it says it failed. I never had issues like this before and do realize it could be on my end. The only thing is, I have not ever tried the same software on both. I also owe Karen and Belgammin an apology as they appear to have been right with their issues from what I am hearing.

So those who have it, do you thing the new additions were rushed and are you having any issues. <-QUOTE}


I'm not surprised in the least, Its a Wonder you can install anything anymore with the amount of swapping and changing you do, I bet the Slack space on your drive is So tight, you couldnt Squeeze the juice from a Grape to fit on it any more :P

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> Avira's claim is, and I'll cite them


Assuming, the above is true, why should I care if a port is stealthed or not.

By the way, Bunkhouse, you or anyone stating they've been in computers x years and so forth does not impress me. That's called "appeal to authority".

What impresses me is when someone has posted a lot with good solutions. <-QUOTE}

I am not here to impress you.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

{QUOTE-> I've just given Avira Suite a whirl on the 90 day trial offer.
I found a perceptible and unusual delay before web pages displayed. This must be because the whole page is scanned before passing to the browser.
I found it annoying, as it doesn't happen with other suites, or AVs, I've tried.
So pro tem, it's back to the combination which runs best on my laptop - NOD32 (either V2 or V3 beta - both are fine), and COMODO firewall. <-QUOTE}

The finest combination indeed, and I have tested most on my machine.

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> I'm not surprised in the least, Its a Wonder you can install anything anymore with the amount of swapping and changing you do, I bet the Slack space on your drive is So tight, you couldnt Squeeze the juice from a Grape to fit on it any more :P <-QUOTE}
if you would keep reading I reformatted both back to their orginal condition, then removed all the crap. Both are and run like new. I am not arguing your point because over time yes you are right. But Avira has some issues now and hopefully they will resolve them. But until the put web scanning into their AV product, they are just second rate. Doesnt matter, found a nice AV that gives me the best of all worlds.;)

[interstate ron]

{QUOTE-> if you would keep reading I reformatted both back to their orginal condition, then removed all the crap. Both are and run like new. I am not arguing your point because over time yes you are right. But Avira has some issues now and hopefully they will resolve them. But until the put web scanning into their AV product, they are just second rate. Doesnt matter, found a nice AV that gives me the best of all worlds.;) <-QUOTE}
Hypocrite maybe? There is no "best" of all worlds.

[trjam]

Maybe I should have said."My World."

[interstate ron]

{QUOTE-> Maybe I should have said."My World." <-QUOTE}
No problem. Just my sarcastic play on words I suppose. Hi-speed is available for me now and will be activated 9/16. I wanted this suite so bad but no go. I'm shaking for good protection and like you in a way. Would stepping down to Premium be a good choice for me?

[berng]

I have premium installed on three XP machines. No problems.
You can go to their Web site and download the workstation version and the 30 day trial license key. I downloaded three licenses and trialled all my machines.

If you want to test the regular premium, you have to email for a trial license request.

They said the workstation is the same as premium except workstation also supports networks. Uses the same download servers. You should be able to tell if their product has issues on your machine.

If you need a firewall, you may want to look at the free Ghostwall
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=99345.

[trjam]

I would do just what berng said. Add Sandboxie, it is free and very simple but really secures you.

[interstate ron]

Thanks for the advice guys. I had Norton 2007 AV on here (free with NetZero dialup) and was behaving but threw on AVG free for interim till 9/18 then Verizon DSL.

[trjam]

I think with your new dsl, nortons suite will work great.

[trjam]

well, I will keep my Avira license and hopefully enjoy them again someday.:wacko:

[Menorcaman]

Although the title of this thread is somewhat non-specific, I believe trjam's original question has been adequatly addressed. Therefore it's probably as good a time as any to bring the debate to a close before it drifts off course again.

Regards

Menorcaman