Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Completes McAfee Acquisition

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the are-we-secure-yet? dept.

Businesses 95

angry tapir writes "Intel has completed its US$7.68 billion acquisition of security vendor McAfee, the chip maker has announced. The all-cash deal makes Intel a security industry powerhouse, giving it a broad range of consumer and enterprise security products. Intel had been working to get the deal approved by US and European Union regulators since it was announced last August. The European Commission, in particular, had expressed concerns that Intel would give McAfee special treatment when it came to its processors and chipsets, locking other security vendors out of the technology."

cancel ×

95 comments

hi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343608)

first

Re:hi (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346122)

Damnit, AC, this is _not_ icanhascheezeburger. Act your URL.

Re:hi (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346594)

Nobody expects the McAfee Inquisition!

So do you get a discount if you buy both? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343614)

Are they going to give you a discount for the cores you waste on their antivirus product?

Re:So do you get a discount if you buy both? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343834)

" cores you WASTE on their antivirus product?"
intel may make their software better so it isnt for sure but probably

Re:So do you get a discount if you buy both? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344026)

Dear consumer: Your Intel(tm) ActiveProtect(r) co-processors are performing as designed.

I still don't get it... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343616)

I can understand(with their push toward embedding lots of exclusive features in their chipsets: IAMT) why they might want an AV company; but why McAfee? 7.68 billion will buy you a damn lot, including a variety of smaller vendors with better technology. As for brand name, Intel already has that. Why McAfee?

Re:I still don't get it... (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343782)

I thought the same - doesn't McAfee's software suck? I mean, I can see how they're profitable despite said suckage, but Intel are a chip company, not an investment bank, so presumably they want something more than to just let the guys chug along making them cash.

Re:I still don't get it... (1, Funny)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343820)

They will build a CPU with internal anti-virus capabilities which is BETTER!! than AMD and ARM CPUs!! They have paid $7 billion to use it as a Fool Factor!

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346832)

So, AMD will have to close a deal with one of those smaller AV sellers, and offer free licences with each of their processors (or maybe just one expensive line)? It is really cheap to defeat that marketing campaing, and with nothing near $7bilion upfront costs.

Speaking as an admin ... (3, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343898)

I thought the same - doesn't McAfee's software suck?

Speaking as an admin who is stuck supporting McAfee's ePO for a few thousand workstations ... yes, yes it does.

Unfortunately, all of the other vendors also suck.

And STILL McAfee doesn't have a bootable CD with their product on it.

And their "enterprise" distribution methodology sucks bandwidth (why send the ENTIRE 100MB+ file to each distribution point instead of just a diff file).

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344116)

> Unfortunately, all of the other vendors also suck.

We use Sophos at work. Haven't noticed any issues / problems in the few years we've been using.

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345392)

We have.

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345530)

> Unfortunately, all of the other vendors also suck.

We use Sophos at work. Haven't noticed any issues / problems in the few years we've been using.

You might want to consider switching vendors soon as Sophos are currently haemorrhaging staff. A lot of good engineers have left, and this has obviously had a severe impact on our ability to deliver. We've had a string of very poor management decisions, and that is going to come bite us in the ass in the near future.

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346176)

I've seen it cause a few problems too - but admitedly not problems that wouldn't have been avoided with adequate testing.... or an idiot administrator pushing the updates out last thing on a friday before going on holiday for a week....

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (3, Informative)

anexkahn (935249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344600)

I deal with the DAT distribution problem by using a Windows DFS Share. I created a DFS Share which replicates to each office, then Mcafee dumps the DAT and other files onto the DFS Share. Windows then does the differencing using RDC (Remote Differential Compression). The workstations are setup to use a secondary repository which points to the DFS share.

Doing it this way means I don't have hundreds of computers pulling their DATs over the WAN and there is less to send over the WAN because of RDC.

I agree that Mcafee should do something about this, but I have found this to be the best method of DAT distribution at this time.

Is Intel CEO Otellini incompetent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346396)

Is Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini [intel.com] incompetent?

Re:Speaking as an admin ... (1)

randyleepublic (1286320) | more than 3 years ago | (#35353996)

We use Vipre. It's about as good as the rest in catching malware, and it slows down the computers less than anybody. Installs (and uninstalls!) are a breeze. Winner!

Re:I still don't get it... (2)

mmj638 (905944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344046)

Got a work computer with some McAfee suite on it once. It would not update its virus definitions no matter what I did. After a while on tech support with McAfee it turns out it's because I had my default browser set to Firefox.

Even though they knew their software used ActiveX stuff to update itself, and that would only work on IE, they programmed it to open the default browser to do that updating.

It basically came down to the guy on the other end confirming to me that yes, I not only need to have IE installed, I need to set my default browser to IE to use that McAfee software.

This was about 4 years ago.

TL;DR mcafee antivirus software would only work when IE was set as default browser

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357716)

That's pretty funny, considering IE used to be one of the bigger security risks at the time.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346236)

Don't they all?

Real world example: "McAfee is the world's second-largest security software company after Symantec." (TFA)

Sure, you say, but #1's AV gave us a BSOD each time we opened a MS source control system. That was real nasty of them. Bullies!

Re:I still don't get it... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343840)

McAfee essentially has a government sector "monopoly," I believe, when it comes to AV. All other providers must "plug" into McAfee's products, but McAfee decides which vendors they will allow in... any product they see competing against them doesn't get to plug in, if I'm not mistaken.

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346312)

All antiviruses compete with each other using your logic they wouldn't allow anyone to 'plug in'.
You don't even make it clear what you mean by 'plug in', providers don't need to plug into McAfee they scan for viruses looking off their own databases which they occasionaly share with each other.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343872)

They will kill McAfee. Thereby all their CPU's now will have a performance boost.

Re:I still don't get it... (4, Interesting)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344038)

Why McAfee?

McAfee was found to be the best option for keeping customers on the CPU upgrade cycle.

Mod parent up please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345290)

Aah, now it makes sense. Mod parent up please.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345734)

I believe you should be *more* cynical.

By purchasing - then shelving - McAfee, the current CPUs will appear to be faster without any intervention.

Intel can extend its current model range for another 10-20 years without the crappy bloatware shite that is McAfee.

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345766)

By purchasing - then shelving - McAfee, the current CPUs will appear to be faster without any intervention.

Problem is that the competition would benefit from that just as much.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346866)

Well, they could "optimize" the software so that their chips will appear faster, and no their competitors.

But no, Intel would never do such thing...

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357988)

Wait, so they bought McAfee so they can ensure it will always be bloated enough to waste your CPU? That's kind of a dick move...

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35344210)

As somebody working in this industry... The "AV" companies do a hell of a lot of stuff that you do not know about. Antivirus software is just what they talk about publicly. Such companies also employ certain individuals who are worth several times their weight in gold-pressed latinum. I'm aware of more than one project being undertaken that, alone, might be worth this particular price tag.

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35344440)

As somebody working in this industry... The "AV" companies do a hell of a lot of stuff that you do not know about. Antivirus software is just what they talk about publicly. Such companies also employ certain individuals who are worth several times their weight in gold-pressed latinum. I'm aware of more than one project being undertaken that, alone, might be worth this particular price tag.

For example..................... ?

Re:I still don't get it... (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345398)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And since you are an Anonymous Coward, I'd have to kill a lot of you, to be sure I got the right one. With the way the media is these days, the Boss doesn't think its good policy to kill that many innocent bystanders anymore.

Re:I still don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35349138)

Conspiracy guy sez check out the integration of HBGary's "Digital DNA" software with Mcafee's ePolicy Orchestrator (ePO) and then remember that HBGary's work on a secret rootkit project called "Magenta". [crowdleaks.org] and think of the possibilities.

Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (4, Interesting)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343622)

I'm curious why Intel would be interested in acquiring an anti-virus company. What assets would be useful to a chip-maker? Do they plan to integrate anti-virus into their chips? Or does having access to McAfee's assets somehow give Intel insight into how to improve the security of personal computing via specially designed chips? Does anyone have any idea why this was a "good move" for Intel?

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

Life2Death (801594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343640)

They own things like a company my friend worked at who made security appliances for defense departments.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343670)

1. Companies require AV programs on all PCs that use the corporate network.
2. AV programs use a metric shit ton of CPU.
3. Thus, owning an AV company helps drive the need for more powerful CPUs. (a.k.a. PROFIT!)

RAM and power? (2)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343842)

What about virus checking on mobiles and laptops? If you had antivirus on a chip, especially with an updateable firmware on a high-speed flash, it could go a long way towards securing any device that is both mobile (wattage-sensitive) and has a large disk.

Typically antivirus does scanning on read or write, which means doing a small shitload of tests on EVERY disk I/O. You almost have to have those tests already loaded into ram, though, because disk reads are abhorrently slow compared to all other processor speeds; alternately, if antivirus-on-chip were feasible, it would yank them from very close, very fast flash one (or a set) at a time, without robbing CPU cycles or taking up space in RAM; and anytime that no disk reads/writes are done, it's simply turned off altogether.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343850)

Probably because they know that the future trend of virii/rootkits/malware will attack EFI. Which means that some type of protection out of the gate will be a good idea.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35347144)

Probably because they know that the future trend of virii/rootkits/malware will attack EFI.

Malware will attack Electronic Fuel Injection?

I'll just have to get my '67 Chevelle out of the garage and my computers are safe. What a relief!

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (3, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344040)

I'm curious why Intel would be interested in acquiring an anti-virus company

Over the past few years, Intel has created chipsets for endpoint management - Intel vPro, Intel Anti-Theft etc. To date, Intel is dependant on third-party ISVs to integrate with this technology (LANdesk etc.) - ISVs that often work at a pace different from Intel. Additionally, to have success with these products Intel needs to sell to end-users, something they're ill equipped to do (other than promoting the "Intel Inside" message). McAfee provides Intel with a software maker how can hook into their chipset, along with a mature and sophisticated sales organization used to selling to end-users.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344052)

It's a security company since they do more than antivirus. But yeah I am still puzzled why get a big security company.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (3, Interesting)

thinc (26590) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344056)

I work for a McAfee reseller and can tell you that they are more than just AV. They spent the last several years making a lot of acquisitions. Now they offer enterprise firewall, IDS/IPS, data loss prevention, endpoint encryption, content filtering, and mobile device security, among others. Now I'm not gonna say who's products are better or worse since I'm obviously biased but McAfee definitely is more than just AV and has a big presence in the enterprise.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345136)

I'm curious why Intel would be interested in acquiring an anti-virus company.

Maybe they have lots of cash in some unstable currency and want to spend them. If they buy software company, they can diversify their business a little bit.

Or they extended "don't do evil" to "destroy evil" and decided to kill that McMfee for 8B bucks.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347340)

Or maybe you're just an idiot who can't tell Intel and Google apart.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345324)

Intel had to promise the EU that they would give McAfee no special advantages on the hardware. So it is difficult to see how Intel gets much value added from this acquisition. I think they paid a 60% premium for McAfee so you would expect them to try to leverage the hardware dominance but there is no way the EU will let them.

I'm eager to see what they come out with because overall this still looks like a bizarre move.

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346318)

Integrating anti-virus onto a chip is as likely as integrating a giraffe into a Ferrari

Gotta love 'non-specialist' ideas

Re:Future chips will have built-in anti-virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348762)

Besides games (and Vista/7), what's the biggest bloatware on PCs? Let me think. Back in 1998, you could get by running it with 4MB RAM...for your entire system. Now it needs over 100MB RAM just for itself. Any guesses to what that might be? (Hint: a major manufacturer is mentioned in the title)

Other security vendors? (2)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343634)

Personally I'm a little more worried that they would have tech that runs slow on AMD processors (much like their compiler does). Though not too worried - current regulation and cross-licensing deals seem to maintain a reasonable balance.

Re:Other security vendors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346592)

because hamstringing your product to suck on a competitor's system makes everyone want to go buy your hardware? Gosh, this intel-owned security suite really blows, let's go buy more of their stuff!

please.

Re:Other security vendors? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346918)

More like: Gosh, that AMD processor really blows, it can't run anything properly, let's go back to an Intel one.

The same reaction people had when Intel made their compiler generate code that was slow at the competition.

Almost worth it (5, Funny)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343648)

$7.68 billion sounds almost worth it to make sure everyone at the company is fired and never allowed to write software or answer phones or manage a business again.

I mean, I didn't read TFA but I can't imagine any other reason for buying McAfee so that has to be the reason, right?

Re:Almost worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343684)

7.68 billion is insane. How many people work for this company? What real assets do they have? There's no way the company can be fairly valued at that level. Remember the dot com bubble, anyone?

Re:Almost worth it (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344150)

Apparently, 6000 employees and $2 billion in revenue. Based on the bitter experience I've had with McAfee products, they must have one AWESOME team of cocksuckers, er, I mean experienced technical salespeople.

Re:Almost worth it (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35349866)

300k/year output per an employee is pretty good.

Especially since they are primarily software (I would guess).

Doesn't sound like a terrible buy at all.

8% annual return on investment isn't swell, but ain't bad (500 million profit for McAfee in 2010). Even the slightest amount of synergy could make it look like a really smart move.

Re:Almost worth it (4, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343844)

Please, g*d, let it be so. McAfee is second only to Norton in the amount of effort required to remove it, and the resources it hogs. Please let this be something Intel did for the better ment of society, to rid it of one of the AV companies completely. May Norton be next, Allah be praised.

AppRemover (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343934)

AppRemover may help you. It can remove a LOT of the anti-virus disasters out there. Even if you don't have the "admin" password for Symantec.

You can find it via Google.

Re:Almost worth it (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344278)

McAfee is second only to Norton in the amount of effort required to remove it

And a good thing, too, otherwise the first thing a virus will do is remove the antivirus software.

Re:Almost worth it (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346932)

Except that the first thing a virus do is removing the antivirus software. Making it harder for the USER to remove it does not make it harder fow a VIUS to do so.

Re:Almost worth it (1)

Jeremy Visser (1205626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346036)

McAfee is second only to Norton in the amount of effort required to remove it, and the resources it hogs.

MCPR.exe [mcafee.com] hasn't failed for me yet. That said, with regards to resource hogging -- I'll give you that. One of the many reasons we have switched to Sophos at work. 50 PCs now running Sophos -- we're never looking back.

In a perfect world, we'd be running some kind of Unix that doesn't encourage you to run as root all day long, but until that day arrives, we're stuck with supporting those that haven't yet made the switch.

Re:Almost worth it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348898)

In a perfect world, we'd be running some kind of Unix that doesn't encourage you to run as root all day long, but until that day arrives, we're stuck with supporting those that haven't yet made the switch.

Naw, man, we'd be running VMS on a 16 GHz 32-way VAX64cluster on a chip, and Intel would be a manufacturer of 4 to 8-bit microcontrollers (like Western Design Center and ZiLOG are today).

Re:Almost worth it (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346898)

...to rid it of one of the AV companies completely. May Norton be next, Allah be praised.

Or...to make it better? (excluding further work on those annoying GPU-focused AV engines, of course)

In related news (4, Funny)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343706)

Inspired by Intel's purchase, Microsoft buys HBGary for 7 squintillion dollars.

How long until... (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343738)

They turn the "suck" knob from ten up to eleven on McAfee products? My guess: they will achieve "synergy" in 6-12 months.

Re:How long until... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344266)

I've noticed a fresh Java update today, and its installer bugged me to also install McAfee AV (where before it used to be pushing OO.org) - checkbox enabled by default, of course. Now that is synergy.

Re:How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35349506)

McAfee has a large workforce in India with very little qualification in programming. The high quality software that is produced here is ruined oversees. I can personally attest to this.

now they should buy Trend Micro... (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343774)

...and shut their crummy operation down. That would be a public service.

Any (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343792)

The more things change...the more they stay the same... Intel will keep it for a while, and then sell it to Symantec, like they did with the last AV product they had (anyone remember LanDesk??)

Re:Any (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35344960)

Don't remind me. We have to use that crap at work (major logistics company)!

Patents most likely (3, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343848)

480+ patents; same reason why amd bought ati and probably with equally as disastrous results.

Disastrous results ? (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346348)

same reason why amd bought ati and probably with equally as disastrous results.

Disastrous results ? Since AMD acquired ATI, the quality of their blob drivers under Linux has massively increased, and they have actively collaborated for open-source drivers.
I can't speak for the Windows side (much, except that my brother seems happy with it), but on the penguin side of things, the acquisition from AMD has done quite some good.

(and the main reason is that they wanted a foot in the juicy GPGPU market, in order to distinguish their offer from Intel - which is mainly CPU and only offers entry-level GPUs)

Re:Disastrous results ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35346462)

Linux, schminux. But I'll take a stab at the world's most popular operating system. ;)

nVidia used to rule supreme both in card quality and drivers. ATI used to completely suck. We're talking completely bug-ridden drivers, culminating with drivers that didn't quite do OpenGL when Windows was moving in the 64-bit direction. (Yes, I'm aware of stupid apologist fanboys and their thoughts on XP x64 - whatever, nVidia had no problems putting out drivers for XP x64, so parse that, y'buggers.) ...And then, nVidia started sucking. They started sucking worse and worse as time went by. Not catastrophically sucking, like ATI had traditionally done, but a slow, long-running terminal illness kind of suck.

Thankfully, AMD lured ATI into the back of its green and white van. Initially, ATI was still le meh, but AMD knows their business and since then, ATI's drivers have been absofreakinlutely rock solid.

Hm... (1)

screwzloos (1942336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343854)

With a budget of 7.68 billion dollars, do you think you could produce a halfway decent antivirus? How about one that's better than McAfee's? I'd bet I could.

I'd be shocked if it cost that much to develop a new mainstream/enterprise operating system from the ground up.

Congratulations, John McAfee.

Re:Hm... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344280)

Their goal is not to produce antivirus that is better than competition (or, God forbid, generally decent). The goal is to produce antivirus that sells better than competition. Due to all the bundling tricks and general consumer cluelessness, actual quality is largely irrelevant here.

Re:Hm... (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344296)

I'd pay to get rid of software patents for $7.68bn but that's probably just me. Man how I hate the sluggishness of McAfee =/

Antivirus and CPUs (1)

Nicopa (87617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343890)

Intel found out antivirus are a good way to use processor time. Now they need to also hire some clandestine Russian virus programmer.. =)

Hmm (4, Funny)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343894)

Most plausible answer: Deep in Intel R&D labs, Skynet gained self-awareness and decided to act against McCaffee through an acquisition. Either that, or someone at acquisitions fucked up after being ordered to "go out and buy me a coffee"

Re:Hmm (1)

captain_sweatpants (1997280) | more than 3 years ago | (#35345184)

I so wish I had mod points coz you deserve a +1 for the lolz.

I'm almost tempted to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343896)

it's cost Intel even more than that by damaging THEIR brand by being associated with McAfee. It's a crazy-ass move, unless there's some dynamite IP in their no one else is aware of?

7 Billlion?! Intel got ripped off. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343918)

Intel should have paid them $200 dollars for that piece of shit company.

Congratulations Intel (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343966)

You just purchased one of the shittiest companies around.

I'm never buying an intel again (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344112)

that av software is evil....

Just freakin' wonderful (2)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344118)

My second-choice x86 vendor is now bonded to my second-to-last choice security suite; unfortunately these are now both the 1st choice of my company.
Yay.

Re:Just freakin' wonderful (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346978)

Wait untill the antivirus becomes free, so it becomes the first choice of several people besides your company. Also, wait just a bit more, until it becomes "optimized" for Intel processors, and makes every AMD computer stall worse than it does now.

There is one number value on Windows insecurity (1)

inkscapee (1994086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344396)

No wonder Windows "security" still stinks, they're supporting a multi-billion dollar parasite "security" ecosystem.

Another Historical Bad Move (1)

NormHome (99305) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344536)

My opinion of McAfee is in general on par with other peoples, their software is not as effective as others; is buggy; takes a good chunk of cpu time.

Has anyone at Intel actually gotten any end users and other IT professionals opinion of the product? I'm sure that this is going to go down in business and computer history as a historic blunder and waste of money on Intel's part. I'm sure that anyone here can reel off a dozen cases of acquisitions that ended up being the worst decision in the company's history i.e. Time Warner buying AOL comes to mind.

Re:Another Historical Bad Move (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346994)

Why are you assuming that Intel wants an tivirus that actualy runs fastly? They have much more to gain by getting a popular software, making it run faster on Intel processors and slower on everything else.

7 billion for this? (1)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35344700)

I think Intel got ripped off IMHO. I remember years ago, back in the early 1990's, when Mcaffee was actually a decent anti virus product for DOS and was even command line based and did the job pretty good... now years later its bloated crapware that businesses seem to love running (Either mcaffee or god forbid Norton).

Re:7 billion for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345370)

Its McAfee not mcaffee .And the company isnt just about anti-virus you insensitive clod , its about hundreds of other enterprise levels products which make a _lot_ of money .

Re:7 billion for this? (1)

inkscapee (1994086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346326)

Its McAfee not mcaffee .And the company isnt just about anti-virus you insensitive clod , its about hundreds of other enterprise levels products which make a _lot_ of money .

True. They're garbage, but they sell. American capitalism is amazing and wonderful.

McAfee does not work on Linux!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345486)

I have been trying to test out McAfee on Linux for a year now and
1. I can't get a virus to install, they all keep asking for Windows.
2. Because of #1, McAfee is not finding anything.

I sure hope Intel fixes this, because I sure feel left out with no virus's or spyware on my Linux box.

Re:McAfee does not work on Linux!! (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35347018)

For #1 you can use Wine. Some virus are happy to run on it. For #2 there is no solution, McAfee antivirus works by making the virus unable to run, not by detecting and removing it.

Thats nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35345864)

I'm just trying to remember when I last installed McAffee on a PC. I've uninstalled it quite a number of times to improve system performance however. There are more lightweight, effective, CHEAPER products out there! And when I say cheaper, I don't mean just initial cost and subscription renewal charges. I also include the cost of the time and effort that is needed to remove the crap that MacAfee let past AND restore/rebuild damaged apps and data.

Intel a security industry powerhouse ? (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35346330)

When will they be getting around to fixing the defects in their memory management unit (MMU)
--

Taco: I only read this site for the entertainment value .. :)

GenuineIntel: String not found. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35348660)

CPUID returned: "AuthenticAMD"
Optimizing for: i386.
Please ask the Geek Squad(tm) to upgrade your computer to the latest Intel Celeron(tm) processors.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...