Def Update 1R252 Won't Load Into SE, May 20, 2008 Def Update Corrupted Options

[Werewolfking]

I had the same problem with this week's update, 1R252, as I had last week. I downloaded and unzipped 1R252 today and when SE opened, it said "Error Retrieving Update, File Not Found". When I reinstalled the def file from two weeks, the program worked properly. I thought that Lavasoft was going to continue supporting SE, including those using Windows 98? Why bother giving us SE users a weekly def update on the security blog if the def file is corrupted? I think that Lavasoft owes us an explanation? I think maybe it's time we SE users move over to Spy-Bot S&D if this is the level of support we can expect from Lavasoft.

[Jaheira]

Same here!

It appears that this problem is only affecting those of us still using Window 98SE and ME.

Somebody at Lavasoft really should give us some kind of explanation because the primary reason most us are still using Ad-Aware SE is due to the fact that we CAN'T upgrade due to OS issues.

[gelert]

Same here!

It appears that this problem is only affecting those of us still using Window 98SE and ME.

Somebody at Lavasoft really should give us some kind of explanation because the primary reason most us are still using Ad-Aware SE is due to the fact that we CAN'T upgrade due to OS issues.

SE1R252 is loaded, running, and working on my PC's...

XP Pro SP3
AdAware SE Plus Build 1.06r1
ZoneAlarm Pro
AVG Free Edition 7.5.524 (db269.23.21/1456)
WinPatrol Plus
Spybot S&D v.1.5.2.20 (db14.05.2008)
SpywareBlaster 4.0 (db15.05.2008)

I feel genuinely sorry for you Win98 users...

Interestingly, SE1R247 (13.05.2008) DOESN'T work on my set-up...yes, cookies were caught by AdWatch but not shown to be caught - wierd...!

And yet SE1R247 worked for Win98 users - as the LAST update that DID work....!

Perhaps if you could re-install SE on Win98 from a back-up program, and BYPASS the SE1R247 update...? Maybe there's something in SE1R247 that kills SE on Win98 from updating beyond that point...?


Just a thought....

[Jaheira]

Perhaps if you could re-install SE on Win98 from a back-up program, and BYPASS the SE1R247 update...? Maybe there's something in SE1R247 that kills SE on Win98 from updating beyond that point...?
Just a thought....

Wouldn't have any effect! The update isn't incremental. I can (unsuccessfully) load SE1R252, then revert to SE1R246, with no problem. Each new definitions file is a cohesive and uncoupled unit!

[gelert]

Wouldn't have any effect! The update isn't incremental. I can (unsuccessfully) load SE1R252, then revert to SE1R246, with no problem. Each new definitions file is a cohesive and uncoupled unit!

What I'm suggesting Jaheira, is that the SE1R247 defs.file download actually TWEAKED the SE PROGRAM itself....

Prove me wrong by all means - it was merely a suggestion...but arguably not one to be dismissed out-of-hand...?

After all, some of us XP / SE Plus users have issues with auto downloads suddenly stopping working...! And this is a problem that I may have found a root cause for...I'll be researching it further tomorrow, but an A/B comparison of one "working" versus one "not working" program, shows a distinct difference in SIZE of the actual PROGRAM...a size-difference that didn't exist before...!

I don't want to offer "Red Herrings" - but merely arguably valid suggestions.

[Jaheira]

What I'm suggesting Jaheira, is that the SE1R247 defs.file download actually TWEAKED the SE PROGRAM itself....

Prove me wrong by all means - it was merely a suggestion...but arguably not one to be dismissed out-of-hand...?

After all, some of us XP / SE Plus users have issues with auto downloads suddenly stopping working...! And this is a problem that I may have found a root cause for...I'll be researching it further tomorrow, but an A/B comparison of one "working" versus one "not working" program, shows a distinct difference in SIZE of the actual PROGRAM...a size-difference that didn't exist before...!

I don't want to offer "Red Herrings" - but merely arguably valid suggestions.

I'm not trying to be dismissive of you gelert! All suggestions are welcome. But........

1) I jumped straight from SE1R246 to SE1R251. If they did throw a spanner in the works, then it would have had to have been included from 248 on.............so no way around the problem, but............

2) I just checked the size of the main executable after trying to load SE1R252 and then uninstalled the whole program, rebooted and reinstalled from scratch. All the same files, and the main executable EXACTLY the same size (and loaded much quicker with SE1R47 !!). I'd suggest the size differences you have observed are the result of comparing executables on different operating systems.

So, I'll once again reiterate that all this hassle we've been having is just a case of Lavasoft not checking their files for compatibility with all operating systems, and then carrying errors forward. I'd also like to say that I'm always right

This post has been edited by Jaheira: May 20 2008, 08:19 PM

[gelert]

I'm not trying to be dismissive of you gelert! All suggestions are welcome. But........

Not offended....much....

I just checked the size of the main executable after trying to load SE1R252 and then uninstalled the whole program, rebooted and reinstalled from scratch. All the same files, and the main executable EXACTLY the same size (and loaded much quicker with SE1R47 !!).

IMHO, it was worth a try. I'd have done it.

I'd suggest the size differences you have observed are the result of comparing executables on different operating systems.

Both XP Pro SP3. Both sizes of Executable gleaned from within their Program folders...as I said, I'll do some more research tomorrow.

So, I'll once again reiterate that all this hassle we've been having is just a case of Lavasoft not checking their files for compatibility with all operating systems, and then carrying errors forward. I'd also like to say that I'm always right

A'hem....sorry.....

[eagleman]

I'm not trying to be dismissive of you gelert! All suggestions are welcome. But........

1) I jumped straight from SE1R246 to SE1R251. If they did throw a spanner in the works, then it would have had to have been included from 248 on.............so no way around the problem, but............

2) I just checked the size of the main executable after trying to load SE1R252 and then uninstalled the whole program, rebooted and reinstalled from scratch. All the same files, and the main executable EXACTLY the same size (and loaded much quicker with SE1R47 !!). I'd suggest the size differences you have observed are the result of comparing executables on different operating systems.

So, I'll once again reiterate that all this hassle we've been having is just a case of Lavasoft not checking their files for compatibility with all operating systems, and then carrying errors forward. I'd also like to say that I'm always right

I would say that after reading all in this thread that your suggestion seems the most likely.