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!

Firefox Advises Users To Disable McAfee Plugin

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-or-the-other dept.

Firefox 213

itwbennett writes "Mozilla is advising Firefox users to disable McAfee's ScriptScan software, saying that it could cause 'stability or security problems.' ScriptScan, which ships with McAfee's VirusScan antivirus program, is designed to keep Web surfers safe by scanning for any malicious scripting code that might be running in the browser. But according to Mozilla, it has an unintended side-effect: It can cause Firefox to crash ... a lot."

cancel ×

213 comments

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

just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (5, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611824)

It's just as bad as norton.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611848)

If it is as bad as Norton then uninstalling it might not be the easiest task.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (2, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611874)

If it is as bad as Norton then uninstalling it might not be the easiest task.

Hmm, time to shell out for the anti-anti-virus software.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (5, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611904)

Or just dip your harddrive in battery acid. Best way of getting rid of Mcafee ive found.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612676)

Just upgrade your computer. Introduce your hardware to Linux - it's a match made in heaven.

dd if=urandom of=sda1

reboot

install

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (0)

tenco (773732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612756)

Introduce your hardware to Linux - it's a match made in heaven.

Heaven sucks.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1)

NeumannCons (798322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611972)

I think that in addition to the virus detection code there's a *larger* amount of "valid paid-up subscription" nag code. The memory footprint of these things is truly stunning and kills machine's performance. Microsoft's Security Essentials used to be pretty lightweight but it's hitting middle age weight gain. At least it's not intrusive and doesn't nag you to pay up since it's free.

Microsoft Security Essentials (1)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612276)

Microsoft's Security Essentials used to be pretty lightweight but it's hitting middle age weight gain. At least it's not intrusive and doesn't nag you to pay up since it's free.

Could you refer me to some source about that weight gain? I'm interested as I've ended up using/recommending MSE nearly exclusively when it comes to Windwos AV-applications. It's always felt relatively efficient and non-intrusive so I've never paid much attention to how much resources it actually uses... so if that's changing/about to change, I might need to re-evaluate this.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612782)

" I've ended up using/recommending MSE nearly exclusively when it comes to Windwos AV-applications." MSE is not approved for installation in a business or on any Enterprise versions of windows. Home use only.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611974)

I beg to differ.

In my experience it is significantly worse than Norton.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612610)

Damn... that's saying a lot!

Just try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612010)

The only way to uninstall McAfee/Symantec/Norton products 100% is to reformat and reinstall. Once their foot is in your door, it is permanently in your door -- unless you have to inclination to tear out your perfectly good door and replace it.

Re:Just try (2)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612766)

Avast is no better, I'm afraid, so may as well be mentioned here.

On my old, clunky laptop I decided to uninstall Avast in the hopes of getting just a bit more power out of it. Oops. Avast won't uninstall, kills its own uninstaller as if it's malware trying to disable the antivirus. Won't let me disable it manually. Won't let me friggin' boot to safe mode.

End result: Turned off as much of the program as I could, but it's still sitting there with wide, paranoid eyes about being put to sleep.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (2)

djl4570 (801529) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612458)

Removal is an option for most users of a managed corporate system. My employer gives us a lot of latitude in software and I am a local administrator but there are some things that are required. An approved antivirus and HDD encryption are required. I noticed a disabled extension last night on a freshly reimaged system after installing noscript. Didn't look for plugins.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1)

cje (33931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612484)

Have you actually used a Norton product (e.g., 360) in the last couple of years? They used to have a bad reputation (and a well-deserved one at that) but their recent offerings are leaps and bounds better than the bloatware of the past.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612736)

Not a bad question. Personally, I haven't looked at Norton or McAfee seriously in about 5 years. I USED to know which ones used how much memory, and how much they slowed down a machine. But, I upgraded to Linux, and haven't looked back. Maybe I should look again? Maybe - if I get really bored, or I get nostalgic for some good bondage and masochism.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1)

cje (33931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612776)

For what it's worth, I've used Norton 360 on my Windows machines since mid-2010 and am quite satisfied with it. I've never tried to uninstall it, so I can't speak to how well that works (if at all) but my experience has been that it's very unobtrusive.

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612490)

why not just use MS security essentials which is free?

Re:just go all the way and uninstall Mcafee (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612516)

Sometimes I think the use for such software is so you can appreciate the difference after the uninstall. I think some people become complacent at how fast their PCs are, and it's only after Norton/McAfee removal that they realise what they were missing all those years. That makes them happy - it's like a RAM or SSD upgrade for free.

McAfee is awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611866)

We have it at our work and it makes my computer twice as slow. As long as it makes our sysadmin feel safe, who cares wright.

McAfee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611894)

Yes, because McAfee is a piece of shit!!! If this is news to you, please proceed to perform hara-kiri to save your honor for you currently have none.

Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (2, Informative)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611908)

program, is designed to keep Web surfer's safe

Keep his safe where?

S'erious'ly, do people ju'st put in apo'strophe's around random s's the'se day's?

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611958)

Well, if you cause the browser to crash before it gets any chance to theoretically access a malware source that could be counted as a form of protection.

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612214)

That is true. It might also explain the lack of stability in some operating systems. I think your on to something.

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612620)

I think your on to something.

This discussion thread which rooted in punctuation Nazism is about to go full circle...

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611996)

Whorey Jesuz's Your not gunna start bein' all smart 'n stuff air ya?

Ize guine ta havta git out my 'postrophe stencil 'n paint yer fourhed.

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612226)

S'erious'ly, do people ju'st put in apo'strophe's around random s's the'se day's?

Caught that, too.

I can't' S'tand imp'roper' u'se of apos'trophe's! :P

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612350)

Im pretty sure Its because theyve stolen them all from me.

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612586)

Just because assholes feel the compulsion to point it out, doesn't mean that it's obligatory. It just means that you need to start taking you're medication again.

Re:Obligatory punctuation Nazi comment (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612600)

program, is designed to keep Web surfer's safe

Keep his safe where?

At McAfee's headquarters, of course.

What??? (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611912)

A McAfee product which causes more problems than it solves?

I think you just destroyed my faith in the universe. ;)

Re:What??? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612118)

It's like having the TSA in your computer!!!

Re:What??? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612414)

Sure, if the TSA were constantly nagging you to update thier agents with bigger scanning machines, more cash, more agents, shaking you down for no good reason, and letting actual al qaeda mercanaries through your airports, it would be just like macafees. Say... doh!

Re:What??? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612784)

What, you think the TSA doesn't constantly nag congress for all of that stuff? Or - you don't think that we pay for it when congress authorizes it?

Re:What??? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612358)

My God, it's full of bloat!

Re:What??? - What universe do you live in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612760)

A McAfee product which causes more problems than it solves?

I think you just destroyed my faith in the universe. ;)

Hmm, in a dimension with the infinite possibility of infinite universes there won't be many where universes where McAfee doesn't more problems than it fixes! ;-)

It works! (2)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611932)

If you can't surf the web, you can't get infected. McAfee has done it again!

Let the truth finally come to light (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611940)

I say this so often it should be in my sig... There is absurdly little difference between so-called "anti-virus" and desktop "internet security" products and the malware from which they are supposed to protect you. When family members ask me how I manage to happily use a 5 year-old PC that seems to be faster than their 1-2 year-old PC, I simply say "I don't have anti-virus installed"

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611998)

It also depends on what anti-virus you have installed. Some such as Norton and McAffee are worse than most viruses. Some aren't nearly as bloated and heavy and don't impart much impact on typical use.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612638)

You have the wrong mentality about Norton and McAffee. You should be thinking like they do. You see, obviously the most important thing running on your computer is the antivirus software. Games, productivity, internet, those aren't important, so they can use the spare CPU cycles and memory that the antivirus software graciously leaves for such petty tasks. In fact, it's best if you remove all of that and have your computer dedicated to running antivirus. Once you understand that, you'll realize that Norton and McAffee are the best programs ever!

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612086)

It's not just about speed, though. Your 5-year-old PC may not be affected by a virus, but assuming that an infected computer runs about the same speed as an unaffected computer with full AV protection, at least the unaffected computer isn't spamming a bazillion people and giving out the user's identity for theft crimes. What's more important to you, running your computer faster or making sure your identity isn't stolen? I'm not saying that all malware is a root cause of identity theft, but if people believe it, then running the AV software will be worth the slow-down.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612092)

This doesn't tell the whole story. The reason you don't have issues is the same reason you don't feel you need AV software -- you don't do stupid stuff on your computer. If users would take the time to read what comes up in their screen instead of just clicking it as quickly as they can to get rid of it and use a little common sense, nobody would need AV.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612316)

If users would take the time to read what comes up in their screen instead of just clicking it as quickly as they can to get rid of it and use a little common sense, nobody would need AV.

(Score: 10, Insightful)

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612382)

not entirely, there's the old buffer overflow injection attacks that let hackers run native code and other such vectors that, while rarer nowadays, don't rely on user stupidity.
If users weren't so stupid, we'd probably see more hackers attempting to find security holes in the software.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612094)

I've run Norton on my computer for the last two years. It has improved significantly in speed. I notice no "speed" change before or after installing Norton.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612106)

True for you. True for me. Not true for most of my family who will happily click every link in sight.

Re:Let the truth finally come to light (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612652)

Either way, their system is shot. McAfee or the Malware, both trash their experience.

Here's a better option: Firefox + AdBlock Plus + NoScript + Ghostery.

Way to go (1)

Muramas95 (2459776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611952)

I suggest that people switch to MSE or Avast and stay away from AVG, Norton and McAfee... If you are worried about bad sites install adblock plus and WoT (web of trust).

Re:Way to go (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612272)

Agreed. I've never used AVG, but I had few problems with Avast, and none with MSE. Norton, OTOH, is worse than a virus, and I've heard Mcafee isn't much better.

Re:Way to go (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612402)

AVG i've had no problems with, although for the last few months it pops up with a "AVG Security Update" that sends you to a "Look what we protected you against" page that attempts to validate it's worth. It presents it's global statistics (I think) as statistics relating to you alone. Making you think you've really, nearly, had 12,000 attacks in the last month.

At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611962)

Firefox really CAN virtualize the complete Windows experience!

This time I believe Mozilla (1)

gbl08ma (1904378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611966)

I know that the latest Firefox versions (5, 6, 7b) are known for being RAM-hungry and crashing a lot, but honestly, this time I believe Mozilla is correct. As Joe_Dragon said, go all the way and uninstall McAffee completely. I used McAffee on Windows for some time because I was forced to, and in my opinion even Microsoft's Security Essentials performs much better. McAffee crashes, removes system files, and when the real threat comes, it doesn't detect it (and when detects, doesn't block it).

It's no surprise that the McAffee Firefox plugin causes FF crashes, since the McAffee "antivirus" caused Windows crashes.

Re:This time I believe Mozilla (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612486)

In my experience Firefox doesn't need any outside help to crash.

Re:This time I believe Mozilla (1)

gbl08ma (1904378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612642)

True, it doesn't. McAfee just helps a lot.

From another point of view, Mozilla might also be pointing McAfee as the culpirit to hide Firefox problems versus other mainstream browsers (Chrome, IE, Opera, Safari). In the specific case of Chrome, it might use a lot of memory, but at least when a tab or plugin crashes it doesn't crash the whole browser (so probably a McAfee plugin for Chrome would not cause whole browser problems).

(I'm a happy Chrome&Chromium Linux user; there's Adblock and hosts file for my safebrowsing needs, and ClamAV for my AV needs, if any)

McCrappy Anti-virus (1)

BulletMagnet (600525) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611990)

Glad they do such great QA work, since like nobody uses FireFox.....

"...since nobody uses Firefox" (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612550)

Fewer people are going to, with their boneheaded moves of late. I don't use anything McAfee makes, but after breaking so many plugins, perhaps the better advice would be "disable Firefox".

The best solution for Firefox stability problems.. (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611994)

...is to uninstall the bloated piece of crap that is Firefox and install Chrome. :D

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612018)

actually Firefox seven is pretty nice I'm considering moving from chrome back to it.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612068)

Yes, but Chrome has the "actually @^@#$ing works" feature, whereby the browser actually @^@#$ing works! Sometime around Firefox 3.6-ish, I couldn't keep more than one or two tabs open in Firefox without it crashing on me. I switched to Chrome and haven't regretted it for an instant.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612246)

What are you running? A pentium 3? I can open ten or more tabs and have never had a crash problem. Chrome is fine if you like less features and more memory usage.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612394)

Hell, I can get up to 12 tabs on a pentium 3 in fact. Chrome? 4, then it starts swapping.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612442)

No my home system runs on an AMD Phenom II 1090T with 8GB of RAM. Chrome works great on it, but, as I've said, I can't get Firefox to hold more than two tabs open without crashing horribly.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612644)

Do you happen to have McAfee installed by chance?

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612706)

Nope.

pot is rapidly catching up with kettle! (0)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612280)

Lately, I've noticed FF wasting a lot of my time "installing" "updates", when I had a previously functional browser to start with.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612704)

That surprises me, I haven't had much trouble at all with Firefox in years. It seems to have more trouble on Linux, but even there it doesn't crash that often.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612792)

Does Chrome have the "NoScript" option or functionality that is "100% exactly the same as NoScript" option yet?

no?
That's what I though, I'll stick with Firefox.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612294)

Don't pay attention to him. Based on UID, he registered less than 5 minutes ago.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612368)

Nope, it's been more than five minutes since I registered, but even if I had registered five minutes ago, so what?

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612556)

A new account would suggest that he'd just signed up to shill for Mozilla. Although, you can look at his posting history and see that he was complimenting Chrome not too long ago, so he's probably genuine.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612500)

Firefox 7 is sooooo last Monday.

Upgrade to the latest version: Firefox 789564.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612678)

That joke is sooooo six weeks ago.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612688)

Firefox 7 is sooooo last Monday.

Upgrade to the latest version: Firefox 789564.

You are horribly out of date. Firefox 2147483647 is the current version, to be followed by Firefox –2147483648. :-)

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Muramas95 (2459776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612074)

I have no idea why you think that, it has been proven time and time again chrome uses WAYYY more memory than firefox, over twice as much. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037-14.html [tomshardware.com] Chrome is the bloated one.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612142)

The last time I used Firefox, I could open and close it over and over and see my memory usage increase with each opening. Firefox leaks memory like a sieve and is extremely unstable. Chrome just works.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Muramas95 (2459776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612192)

No leaks like that exist in firefox 7, I had opened 20 windows on firefox and had my memory at 450MB (flash videos included) and chrome opening the same windows took 2GB of memory....

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612300)

No thanks, I'll stick to a browser that I trust to actually work.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612250)

Firefox leaks memory like a sieve and is extremely unstable. Chrome just works.

Firefox has been running here for over a week with seven windows and about twenty-five tabs open. It's using 190MB of RAM. Chrome hands your soul to Google. Hmm, which would I prefer?

Honestly, how do all these Google fanboys manage to get Firefox to crash regularly or eat RAM? I've rarely seen a crash and the RAM usage seems reasonable for the number of pages it has open.

Of course I do have noscript installed, but everyone should do that if they don't want their computer pwned by a remote exploit.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612376)

25 tabs isn't many. Go open at least 200 tabs to random pages and then start your normal browsing.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612690)

Go open at least 200 tabs to random pages and then start your normal browsing.

Yes, because opening 200 tabs to random pages is normal web browser usage and Firefox shouldn't need more than 2MB of RAM to do so.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612718)

200 tabs? How is having 200 tabs open productive or reasonable in any way? Doesn't anyone know how to bookmark web pages any more?

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612182)

When factoring in the plugin_container process, Firefox usually uses a good chunk more than Chrome while watching videos/using plugins like Flash. In my experience, that is. Memory is cheap so stability and features are more important these days, except on mobile platforms but then the Browser's software architecture is different enough to not really be a fair comparison to their desktop counterparts.

Did you read the article you link to? (1)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612622)

It's well-known that due to the "one process per tab" design of Chrome, opening a new tab reserves a fixed amount of memory. So it's quite clear that if you open 40 tabs in several browsers and do nothing else, Chrome is likely to use the most memory (though I can't imagine how they got it to use about a gig of memory. When I open new tabs, they each reserve something like 3 megs...). However, if you look at the "Memory Management" chart, you see that FireFox is pretty bad at freeing the reserved memory, even after a significant amount of time has went by... When 39 of the open tabs were closed, FireFox used several times as much memory as Chrome. Even after they waited 5 minutes, FF used nearly twice as much as Chrome.

When I surf, I frequently open and close tabs and the browser is on for several hours at the time. What matters is whether the browser can free the memory it no longer needs or does it keep hogging more and more. In that aspect, FF fared pretty badly...

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612150)

Lack of proper adblock, lack of the ability to have extensions that save to the disk (mass file/image downloaders, etc.) and a large bug/problem that occurs (that utterly breaks the browser) when you have lots of tabs and windows (each with lots of images) open that the Chrome support forums has more or less admitted exists but won't be solved are all quite good reasons to stick with Firefox. There are about an equal amount of reasons, if not more, to leave modern Firefox for Chrome though.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Insidious Oatmeal (2474324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612224)

I can't have more than two tabs open in Firefox without a crash, but I am able to have two dozen tabs across 2--3 windows open in Chrome with no issues whatsoever. Adblock Plus exists for Chrome and works just fine.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612380)

It has noticeable "pop" time before an ad is blocked (depends on how ad-heavy a site is though) and it doesn't work to block ads through things like flash streams, which is where they're really quite pervasive. Granted, a proper hosts file is the best alternative but a browser with a few plugins on a stick is quite nice when you have to change machines frequently.

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (1)

Muramas95 (2459776) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612278)

Chrome is good if you have a few windows you want to do something really fast or fill out forms. Firefox is better for general browsing with lots of tabs, firefox is also better at facebook games ( http://media.bestofmicro.com/K/1/309169/original/jsgamebenchwbgp7.png [bestofmicro.com] )

Re:The best solution for Firefox stability problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612598)

If Chrome had rational tab and bookmark handling, I might use it. But shrinking tabs as you open more until they're identical little grey squares is just plain idiotic, and not having bookmarks in a drop down menu is infuriating to me. I uninstalled it pretty much immediately the last 3 times I tried it.

I can deal with a browser having problems with some things some times, but having two of the most commonly used items done so badly drives me crazy every time I've had to use Chrome.

If I was a conspiracy theorist... (0)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612008)

...I might just suspect Microsoft's hand in this somewhere.

I'd advise users (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612116)

not to install McAfee. I mean, it's a notch above Kaspersky when it comes to "not slowing the computer down to an unmanageable mess" but it still reigns in the "how does this terrible software still exist in a market of vastly superior and more advertised competitors."

Re:I'd advise users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612722)

Holy fuck, Kaspersky must be truly awful.

We have McAfee at my place of work and I'm hard-pressed to think of a more annoying, bloated, slowdown-causing POS. Even Norton didn't seem so bad (but note that the last time I saw Norton was in 2003).

We used to have McAfee on a couple of machines I administer. Tried to persuade our buying unit to get Eset NOD32 in (three two-year licenses was substantially less than the equivalent McAfee tax). They wouldn't have it - because the 'god relationship' we have with McAfee means the central IT grunts would be able to provide 'enhanced support'. Right.

Anyhow, the license keys wouldn't register, the 'enhanced support' wasn't, and I ended up kicking McAfee to the kerb in favour of MSE. I'm still a bit disappointed that I didn't get to trial NOD32 out of it though, as it's supposed to be a decent product and is one I'd like to support.

Chrome and IE? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612152)

Hopefully, it crashes Chrome or IE too. It'd be a shame for only Firefox users to uninstall needless software.

McAfee (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612166)

As one would expect of a security company whose name sounds like it belongs on the McDonald's dollar menu and served with cream.

* It is a greasy mess and will bloat your computer
* It will ruin your web-nuggets
* Not protect you from viruses. McAfee couldn't stop salmonella.

Related Question: What AV *does* /. recommend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612400)

Sorry to actually have to ask this when you call get buggered by relatives, coworkers, friends...

I haven't routinely ran windows since about 2000. About that time, I'd recommend to family f-prot, spybot s&d, and ad-aware.

The same people /still/ ask me what I recommend, and I just look at them and tell them "I haven't worked with that pile of rot in over a decade. Try asking your kid, and make sure to use firefox or chrome instead of IE"

What is the current recommended windows free AV?

I put a copy of avast on a netbook I got two years ago for the once in a blue moon I boot it, but that seems to slow it down as much as Symantec's toxic burning shitpile used to....

Nostradamus says ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612444)

... I see more of this in the future, Firefox 42 does not work with Plugin Foo 1.3, Bar 2.3. It does support Baz 2.1, but only if not also using quux 17.1

Firefox Users are now known as Mozilla QA.

Metrics on McAffe Pain ??? (1)

drerwk (695572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612470)

I have the McAfee slows me down argument with IT once or twice a year, but it has been easier to move to OS X and Linux than to get McAfee off my Windows machine. What I would like is an effective way to measure the pain. IT always points out that McAfee is only taking 5% or whatever of my CPU - but I know it is I/O bound as it scans every file opened and that is not reflected in CPU use ( can I argue 1-CPU use is the right metric ?). And I suspect it scans the whole file even if the whole file is not read. Opening Eclipse or doing anything with a few hundred Meg of svn files is quite painful.

Anyone know how to capture metrics on the time spent waiting for McAfee to unblock my I/O? I've poked around SysInternals for the right tool, and I've done some Google searches but patching windows FS calls for metrics is not my area of interest. If this was a OS X problem I'd learn enough DTrace to figure it out.

I also occasionally see build script failures where a file or directory can not be deleted, and I suspect McAfee is holding on to it - anyone have proof McAfee is bad for builds?

Thanks in advance.

Re:Metrics on McAffe Pain ??? (2)

dgas (1594547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612582)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/proof-that-antivirus-software-makes-your-pc-crawl/327 [zdnet.com] >>The desktop Antivirus suites all appear to make your PC run slower than a 5 year old computer when it comes to slowing hard drive I/O down which is the biggest factor in PC wait times. Norton Internet Security 2006 was the worst resource hog, McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8 was the second worst, It's only the second worst! This is from 2006, but we both know they haven't improved since.

Firefox Advises Users to Disable Firefox 7 (-1, Troll)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612472)

"Mozilla is advising Firefox users to disable the latest version of its browser software, saying that it could cause 'stability or security problems.' Firefox 7, which ships with some minor updates despite the major version number increase, is designed to fix a number of memory issues. But according to Mozilla it has an unintended side-effect: It can cause itself to crash... a lot."

They're catching up with me, almost (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612548)

I advise people to uninstall Norton and Mcafee as a general rule. I can't tell you how often I clean systems with those two products on it, happily grinding away the CPU cycles telling you that everything is fine despite the rampant infection of whatever AntiVirus 2011 variant is going crazy on the machine.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?