Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Buys McAfee

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the thats-a-lotta-virus-scanners dept.

Security 377

Several readers have noted that Intel has agreed to buy McAfee, the computer antivirus software maker, for about $7.7 billion in cash. There is also a press release available if you are into that sort of thing.

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300310)

frist

Re:first (-1, Troll)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300564)

So now McAfee is going to suck even more?

Why? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300324)

Just diversifying their portfolio or are there other objectives at work?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300526)

Just diversifying their portfolio or are there other objectives at work?

They're gonna add even more bloat, sucking more CPU cycles, forcing people to upgrade, and therefore buy more Intel CPUs.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300546)

It's just a research venture. Intel is trying to figure out how McAfee can use up so much of a CPU that it should be put out of its misery.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300978)

I was really hoping they'd be buying them out to shut them down.

one can only hope, anyway.

beyond that though, is there really some benefit here or is this just to "make sure it works better on intel" or something?

I didn't imagine security research from mcafee is any better internally than intel just working with them anyway.

Re:Why? (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300816)

Just diversifying their portfolio or are there other objectives at work?

They want to optimize their support-offices...
Someone realized 90% of their calls was among these lines:"MY COMPUTER RUNS SLOW SINCE I GOT A PENTIUM!"
with the sole fix to uninstall McAfee and afterwards reinstalling the OS if the McAfee uninstal takes the guts of your PC with it.

They are going to fix McAfee.

Will they kill it? (5, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300332)

Pretty please? Just give all their victims - I mean customers - their money back and just kill it off already. McAfee has no right even existing.

Re:Will they kill it? (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300422)

And deprive millions of corporate IT drones of their false sense of security?!?!? Are you insane, man???

mcafee corporate is better then the home ver (2, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300832)

mcafee corporate is better then the home ver and has less bolt in it.

Re:mcafee corporate is better then the home ver (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300970)

Yep, welded software is way stronger.

But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300338)

Well, I guess that they decided to put all the extra CPU cycles to good use...ok, so not good use, but at least when you look at your processor usage hitting 200%, you know it's on purpose for once!

Holy cow (4, Insightful)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300344)

That junk is worth $7bn?

Re:Holy cow (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300514)

No, but it probably wastes at least that much each year in CPU watts.

Re:Holy cow (4, Insightful)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300588)

I think we're all thinking that. I'm so amazed at this. Someone paid 7 billion for the right to sell people magic beans.

Re:Holy cow (3, Funny)

HamburglerJones (1539661) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300640)

That junk is worth $7bn?

No... Intel was up too late and made an impulse buy. It is trying to see if it can throw in McAfee with its sham-wow and shake-weight to trade for the neighbor's old lawnmower.

Re:Holy cow (3, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300782)

I imagine intel has watched the home AV market get gobbled up by MS Security Essentials and may want to join in the free for home use game.

I'd love to see a shakeup in the AV industry as its pretty terrible right now. I'm sick of seeing machines with horrible infections because the trial of the AV has expired. End users cannot be trusted to maintain subscriptions for something they barely understand. I also imagine intel is so deeply in bed with MS that AV is now their problem as well.

McAfee's enterprise products sell for whatever reason. I imagine those will continue to be expensive.

Re:Holy cow (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300934)

I see infected machines with still current antiviruses. Norton, McAfee, etc... I hardly think antiviruses do much good without somebody who knows how to avoid infections in the first place..

Re:Holy cow (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301018)

who said improving AV programs is going to increase security? Those things are completely unrelated.

There are issues of user security, issues of network security, and a whole load of other aspects that come before the antivirus issue can ever come into play.

Re:Holy cow (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301062)

Why would the existence of MS Security Essentials possibly convince Intel to shell out billions to get in on that action?

AV, as it stands, is basically a thankless, reactive chore, with the occasional destructive false positive to brighten your day. Now that Microsoft has come out with a competent(by the standards of the industry) and unobtrusive(by the standards of the industry) free offering from a trusted (if you are running Windows, clearly you trust them to some degree) name, the only gold left in home AV is fool's gold.

There is still some cash to be had in corporate AV, since MS ain't exactly giving ForeFront away; but what would a company whose software experience consists largely of compilers, drivers, and the occasional linux project want getting in there?

And, even if they do have some clever plan involving leveraging their Intel AMT motherboard stuff, why McAfee? There are plenty of smaller, presumably cheaper, outfits that are at least as competent, many more so, and the brand name won't matter once Intel starts using theirs. One imagines that they could have gotten Kaspersky for half as much, if that.

Color me confused.

Re:Holy cow (5, Informative)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301016)

Disk Encryption [mcafee.com] is another big part of McAfee. We not only use their software, an update of which caused BSODs a few months ago, but we've also moved to this Safeboot encryption product which is now called endpoint encryption. Intel has recently added AES-NI encryption [intel.com] instructions to its chips which they will likely port safeboot over to.

I like truecrypt and MSE for windows systems myself but I am not an IT director.

Strange (4, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300350)

Couldn't they have bought something that's actually worth the money?

Re:Strange (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300594)

Sorry, but AOL isn't for sale at the moment ;-)

Re:Strange (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300776)

Only to choose between the pest and cholera?

Finally... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300352)

McAfee is finally in the hands of someone qualified to figure out how to completely uninstall it.

Re:Finally... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300446)

McAfee is finally in the hands of someone qualified to figure out how to completely uninstall it.

Or at least 99.999967217864781687% of it.

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300450)

Maybe they were just interested in McAfee's Write Once Remove Never (WORN) technology.

Re:Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300512)

If you can remove the chip from the motherboard. The press release says “Hardware-enhanced security will lead to breakthroughs in effectively countering the increasingly sophisticated threats of today and tomorrow,”

What strategic sense does it make for Intel to make this purchase unless they are going to integrate it into their chipset?

Re:Finally... (4, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300540)

They intend on replacing the software with a looping .gif that pretends to scan your computer when you click on the icon in the systray. Thus they will continue to provide the same core functionality* at a fraction of the processor capability

*core functionality may consist of, and won't exceed convincing idiots that their computer is secure

Re:Finally... (2, Funny)

NetNed (955141) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300940)

I have that already silly. Antivirus 2006, 2007,2008 ,2009, 2010, Antivirus scanner, Virus scan 2010, etc, etc, all running at the same time cause you can never be to safe. Each scan only takes fraction of a second, finds something every time and I pay whatever one found it to remove it. Strange that they all find things every time, but that's the price of security!

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go find my placebos, I mean pills!

Wow! (5, Funny)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300366)

You could buy a cross country railroad [slashdot.org] for that kind of money!

Re:Wow! (5, Funny)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300920)

You could buy a cross country railroad for that kind of money!

Finally, some standard units instead of all this USD nonsense!

Uh (1)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300374)

for about $7.7 billion in cash

Uh, really? Cash?

Re:Uh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300426)

Would you rather do a stock swap and let the people who made mcafee into such a successful enterprise with a strong product portfolio have a say in what intel does?

Re:Uh (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300664)

Ehmm.. it is just that 7.7 billion dollars in cash is highly unpractical. I mean how much space does it take up?? How heavy would it be? and how are they going to distribute it? Much more likely is that it is NOT cash, but just a mistake in the summary trying to convey that Intel is buying and not merging with McAfee.

Re:Uh (4, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300818)

Assuming they were classy and used $100 bills (volume: 0.69 cubic inches), it would occupy about 4,427,500 cubic feet. Anyone care to take a swing at the weight? d:

Re:Uh (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300820)

It will, of course, be in the form of a check or or other financial transfer, but these are commonly regarded as cash. Intel is paying $48 for each McAfee share, not offering Intel shares. Therefore Intel really is buying McAfee, not merging.

Re:Uh (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300826)

it is just that 7.7 billion dollars in cash is highly unpractical. I mean how much space does it take up??

In the context of corporate acquisition, "cash" doesn't mean currency; it means money in a highly liquid form such as a money market account. So $7,700,000,000 takes up no more space in databases belonging to Intel, the auditor, the bank, and the IRS than any other 64-bit integer.

Re:Uh (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301070)

No, that's money, not cash. The problem is that "7.7 billions dollars in money" sounds stupid because it reveals quite obviously that "in money" is redundant. Because this sounds stupid the journalists replace "in money" with "in cash" meaning "in money", which is just as stupid, but also happens to be wrong. Since dollars default to being "in money", removing the words would make everything okay, but not sound nearly as cool, because "in cash" just sounds cool(*)

(*) I will gladly admit that 7.7 billion dollars in cash would be really cool, but also really really impractical and stupid.

Segundo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300384)

Segundo

$2 billion revenue from broken windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300404)

Whilst AV software will always have a place on Joe Sixpack's computer, no business worth it's salt should have need for this last line of defence software.

Re:$2 billion revenue from broken windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300548)

True, assuming the business in question doesn't employ any Joe Sixpacks. Good luck avoiding that once your business grows beyond having only your family and friends on the payroll.

Wow, Intel jumps the shark (4, Insightful)

DeafDumbBlind (264205) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300436)

WTF are they thinking. Granted they're sitting on a pile of cash, but this is silly.
If I were an INTC shareholder I would be pretty pissed off.
If they were looking for something to do with the cash, they should have just paid out a nice dividend.

Re:Wow, Intel jumps the shark (2, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300756)

WTF are they thinking. Granted they're sitting on a pile of cash, but this is silly.
If I were an INTC shareholder I would be pretty pissed off.
If they were looking for something to do with the cash, they should have just paid out a nice dividend.

I would suggest putting it in a bank. What are they? Scrooge McDuck?

Re:Wow, Intel jumps the shark (0)

indeciso (1350357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300922)

Actually it's not such a bad investment. According to Wikipedia, McAfee's 2008 revenue was $1.6 billion [wikipedia.org] . Even if the software they make is crap, if Intel can keep this revenue from McAfee in the near future, they will need just 5 years to recover the invested money. And after all, they can even try to improve their products.

IMHO, that price is a bargain!

All part of their core business (5, Funny)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300438)

Intel plans to release a final update to all Mcafee users that will force uninstall the software from their machines, increasing the performance of Intel systems by 300%.

+1 Insightful (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300448)

+1 Insightful

-1 Offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300738)

-1 Offtopic

Re:All part of their core business (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300708)

But even that uninstall tool won't get 100% of it removed.

Re:All part of their core business (4, Interesting)

plams (744927) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300734)

Or, they plan to make it even slower, and encourage users to upgrade their processors!

Re:All part of their core business (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301026)

they plan to make it even slower

Impossible. You know how the Planck time is the smallest meaningful time unit? The McAfee is the longest.

Re:All part of their core business (1)

chmodman (565242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300764)

And in other news.. Owners of AMD based computers noticed the latest update to Mcafee reduced the performance of their machines by 300%.

Lycos part deux (4, Insightful)

aliens (90441) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300456)

I can see it now 10 years from now, just like Lycos, "McaFee purchased for $7.7 billion in 2010, sold for $200 million in 2015 has just been sold again today for $34 million to some company in Vietnam." Seriously, has anyone personal or enterprise had good experiences with their products?

Re:Lycos part deux (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300516)

I work for a company that's in the top 20 of the fotune 500 list, and we're rolling out McAfee right now.. Not my decision, but large companies are using it.

Re:Lycos part deux (1)

aliens (90441) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300742)

Yeah we use it to. And in the past year we've had 2 instances I can think of where McaFee updates blue screened Exchange servers. Good luck make sure you test all updates before rolling them out.

Re:Lycos part deux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301066)

What were you using before McAfee?

Re:Lycos part deux (1)

Ornlu (1706502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300630)

Most public universities in the US use McAfee, as well as provide it for free to there students. This means well over a million use it in the US alone.

Re:Lycos part deux (1)

healyp (1260440) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300994)

No. Bloated, resource hogging, snake oil. Doesn't detect anything. EPO(Enterprise Policy Orchestrator) would be a nice feature if: 1. It didn't require a dedicated machine 2. Updating policy actually mattered But it doesn't because no matter how well you orchestrate policy, it's still not going to detect any viruses.

Re:Lycos part deux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301028)

Many years ago, they were good. Then they started the subscription crap, and the product went to hell. Every update changed user settings, and often had to be uninstalled.

Re:Lycos part deux (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301048)

Possibly, but I suspect that Intel might be after patents. While McAfee is crap software, it wouldn't surprise me if they had some patents that could help Intel with putting better anti-virus protection into their processors or adding acceleration for heuristics.

Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performance (2, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300476)

Good move by Intel. If people become desperate for better per clock cycle performance, they'll favor the new Intel chips over AMD. And what program ropes your computer and drags it down faster than McAfee?

Re:Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performanc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300840)

And what program ropes your computer and drags it down faster than McAfee?

Windows Vista.

Re:Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performanc (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301006)

Most of us know them as a consumer-oriented AV software company, but they have a lot of products targeted at corporate users, too, and not just AV. So it may sort of make sense. They may even have some decent products buried in their rather large portfolio.

The problem I see, even with good products, Intel as a parent company may lack the ability to effectively market and sell them. That was Sun's problem, pre-Oracle - they were always a hardware company first, and their software division, except a few products, barely got traction. They also bought quite a few companies that subsequently went south.

Re:Goal: boost need for per clock cycle performanc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301060)

And what program ropes your computer and drags it down faster than McAfee?

I see you haven't heard of Symantec.

ps. viruses are for windoze lusers anyways so who cares...

The press release is fluff (4, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300504)

100% marketing fluff. I really, REALLY want to know what happened under the table, what's still happening under the table, what McAfee has that 15 cheap startups don't, and how this is going to affect Intel hardware in the future.

Re:The press release is fluff (1)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300618)

"what McAfee has that 15 cheap startups don't" A deal with Microsoft.

Re:The press release is fluff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300850)

2 billion a year in revenue?

Re:The press release is fluff (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300882)

Mcafee has lots of corporate drones who think it's a good idea to install Mcafee on everything, including database servers. When Mcafee then decides randomly to start terminating Oracle as a virus, they do great business blaming someone else.

(Yes, that did just happen to me. No, I don't know why it was on the database server. Sounds like a very poorly thought out corporate policy though.)

Re:The press release is fluff (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301022)

I really, REALLY want to know what happened under the table, what's still happening under the table, what McAfee has that 15 cheap startups don't

Some people'll pay real good money to own something as simple as a name. Others'll pay good money just because it's from somebody with those names.

Re:The press release is fluff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301082)

GP didn't ask whether it was being used. They asked whether you liked it or not.

What??? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300508)

Does McAfee offer other products of significant value because, quite frankly, it blows my mind beyond words that an anti-virus software manufacturer is worth $7.7 BILLION. Someone, please explain what the hell I'm missing here. Besides the boat...

Re:What??? (3, Informative)

fvandrog (899507) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300608)

Does McAfee offer other products of significant value

They have encryption software -- making those less CPU intensive (especially for cell phone and other mobile use) might actually be moderately useful.

Re:What??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300730)

McAfee owned secure computing which owned sidewinder and tsp firewall. Most enterprise use them.

Re:What??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301058)

They bought MX Logic a while back. Good SPAM filtering service.

What to do, oh what to do... (5, Funny)

Ornlu (1706502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300542)

A list of better things you could do with $7b:

1. Fill a swimming pool with $100 bills and go nuts.

2. Buy several sky scrappers and blow em up, just for shits and giggles.

3. Buy Kaspersky.

4. Nothing. Absoluetly nothing. Ever again.

Any other suggestions?

Re:What to do, oh what to do... (1)

Speedcraver (868818) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300702)

Two chicks at once. I think with 7 Billion, I could make that happen. Just kidding! I know I am on /.

Re:What to do, oh what to do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300996)

Any other suggestions?

5. Buy 200 jet airliners(+fuel, terrorists etc) and crash them into the 200 tallest skyscrappers in the US, Just for shits and giggles.

AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300574)

So, are they going to make it so it will not run on computers that use AMD processors?

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300842)

So, are they going to make it so it will not run on computers that use AMD processors?

No, they're gonna make so it runs on nothing but AMD processors.

Makes perfect sense (3, Funny)

Are You Kidding (1734126) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300598)

As most slashdotters already know, nothing slows your computer down more effectively than Mcafee AV--even if you have the latest and fastest Intel CPU. Optimizing Mcaffe's code would probably add more real horsepower to Intel's processors and be less expensive than designing a new generation of chips.

Re:Makes perfect sense (1)

Ornlu (1706502) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300758)

WHAT??? A theory/idea that doesn't have its basis in "All corporations are evil greedy bastards"??? You must be new here.

Perfect match (5, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300602)

Intel needs people to think they need these faster multi core CPUs they keep cranking out.

And who is better at slowing Windows down to the point of uselessness then Mcafee?

It's a perfect fit. We'll see you slow, bloated software, then also sell you CPUs to make your computer usable.

Re:Perfect match (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300726)

And who is better at slowing Windows down to the point of uselessness then Mcafee?

Microsoft.

Don't let any of them near the CPU operations! (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300674)

Seriously. Your best bet is to stuff them into a closet someplace and forget about them.
Otherwise we'll start having CPUs that take up their own cycles just so they can figure out how to take up more cycles, all the while corrupting any software run on them, cheese-grater'ing your data, and generally prohibiting you from actually USING the machine under the pretense of "entertaining" you with myriad popups, warnings, and better still complete instituting random, undocumented refusals of various portions of the OS and apps permission to run.

Intel will make good use of McAfee... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300684)

... assuming of course they manage to get every last Norton AV registry key purged out of their systems first.

Hardware-based AV? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300700)

Seems like this is the logical goal. Integrate AV at the hardware level and you should see a significant performance increase, plus tasty vendor lock-in.

It's a trusted name with the uninformed (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300724)

I would never use Mcafee, but to my mother they are a brand name. $7 Billion? They must be offsetting tax income with this purchase, or Mcafee has some killer patents.

Bizarro world we live in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300760)

Intel ought to fix their drivers for their own hardware, not taking on a company that has to pay people to use its software.

Re:Bizarro world we live in (2, Insightful)

zlogic (892404) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300924)

What's so bad with Intel's drivers? Even though some are outdated (especially for outdated HW) and don't have fancy GUIs doesn't mean it's broken. I've been using Intel's drivers (chipsets, grahics, storage) for 10+ years, didn't have a single problem. Unlike nVidia or ATI where uninstallation doesn't necessary mean the software is completely removed and the drivers keep crashing. And ATI drivers look even uglier than Intel's.

Cash? (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300762)

I understand trying to make the distinction between buying with stocks, but the way the summary is worded it made me picture dump trucks full of $100s being dumped on McAfee's front lawn.

er... (1)

veeoh (444683) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300786)

Intel have actually used the software yes?

What area they going to do when the 30 day eval is up! :)

Direct quote from my boss (4, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300874)

"I've got a quarter we can flip to see if this is a good or bad thing."

McAfee is crap (2, Insightful)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300942)

Why does anyone use McAfee? It's crap. In my life I've only ever had two "infections" on my PC... both while McAfee was installed and running. It costs money, and yet free alternatives (like Microsoft Security Essentials) typically rank better in terms of protection. And it constantly causes slow-downs, hangs, and even crashes. It's just utter crap. Why would anyone use it? It should be left to die on the vine.

If you currently use McAfee, you should immediately uninstall it (and top paying for it!) and install Microsoft Security Essentials instead. Say good-bye to the bloat and slowness and other complicated crap, as well as the expense.

Re:McAfee is crap (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301080)

I use Security Essentials at home. It's hard to say if it's working (like most AV products) but it's non-intrusive, non-annoying and very importantly free. Kudos to Microsoft for once.

I use McAfee at work and again I have no idea if its working but I do know it drags my machine down to its knees during recompiles. I had to beg the admins to exclude some of my directories to lessen the impact it had on some of my build times.

joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33300974)

seven billion for a piece of shit? wow, intel must have too much money...

please, can you send me 10 million? you just get nothing, which is even better than that!

Why? (1)

kabdib (81955) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300990)

What a colossal waste of money.

Social Philanthropy (1)

allometry (840925) | more than 4 years ago | (#33300992)

This will, by no doubt, be the greatest give to charity for the entire human race. Intel has bought McAfee, so it can finally be killed!

HARK INTEL!!!

McAfee is absolute shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33301024)

Back when I was in high school, the old computers had it and the damn things would never work. Also, site advisor use to be good, where it marked stuff like FINALLYFAST as red and dangerous, and now these days, it seems like everything is green, even though the ratings and comments for them say otherwise.

We'll see if Intel can fix McAfee up, but yeah, it might be better if it was finally laid to rest.

Any ideas about feds back doors? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33301042)

As many of the top security and end user crypto firms seem to be lost into a subset of the US military industrial complex....
Thinking back to the 'safe list' for an FBI logger, CryptoAG and the sale of European cryptography devices during the cold war ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) ..
this is rather fun in a historic context.
The gift of KL7 US units to NATO - safe from the Soviets, not the NSA/UK.
History tends to show that anything cheap and centralised from the US is usually NSA bait from inception or after its world wide take up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>