×

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!

McAfee Brand Name Will Be Replaced By Intel Security

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the onward-to-tarnish-a-new-name dept.

Businesses 180

An anonymous reader writes "At CES 2014 today, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich announced the McAfee brand name will be phased out and replaced by 'Intel Security,' which will identify Intel products and services in the security segment. The rebranding will begin immediately, but the transition will take up to a year before it is complete." The BBC reports that John McAfee is happy with the decision: "'I am now everlastingly grateful to Intel for freeing me from this terrible association with the worst software on the planet. These are not my words, but the words of millions of irate users. ... My elation at Intel's decision is beyond words.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

180 comments

Interesting... (1, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#45887909)

But what's even more interesting is that John McAfee uses a Flowbee to cut his hair.

Sorry, I forgot all about McAfee "anti" virus software until this story, as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 4 months ago | (#45888023)

There was never a good reason to use McAfee or Norton. Not even in dial-up days when you'd buy software boxed. In those days Panda was available and way less of a nightmare than the competition.

Re:Interesting... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 4 months ago | (#45888183)

It would come with a new computer as crapware and nagware, threatening you with virus doom if you didn't upgrade after 30 days.

Re:Interesting... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888205)

Panda is linked with Scientology. That a very good reason not to get it.

Re:Interesting... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888361)

So is the Microsoft Windows defragmentation software.

Re: Interesting... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888465)

At least your hard drive will be Thetan free.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 3 months ago | (#45888429)

The biggest reason to use McAfee is because it has antivirus scanners for AIX, SPARC Solaris, Linux, and other UNIX variants.

Not like this does a single thing useful. However, it does make the legal eagles happy, and in a lot of companies, they have some sworn statement that all computers on their network have antivirus on them... which means when you cut yourself another LPAR, you toss on McAfee and two cron jobs. One updates the definitions, the second does a filesystem scan. It won't ever detect anything but a false positive (barring the machine being used to store documents or Windows stuff), but it does check that box.

As for Windows, I just use the enterprise version of MSE (System Center Endpoint Protection.) All AV products suck, so might as well use something that is ICSA certified, makes the legal eagles happy, and doesn't completely useless-ify a machine. For the real malware protection, a content filter that blocks ad and malware sites by IP is used, in combination with a decent IDS/IPS.

Re:Interesting... (2)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 3 months ago | (#45889843)

It's actually useful on file servers, as it can sometimes detect malware that attacks other platforms that got persisted to a share.

Re:Interesting... (5, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | about 3 months ago | (#45888601)

McAfee may not be what I'd recommend for home use, but I would for enterprise. Their suite of tools and being able to pull together a very accurate and real time picture of a huge environment makes it very worthwhile. That, and a properly configured agent and virus scan shouldn't interfere too much outside of doing a regular full scan, and even then, the computer should still be usable, if a bit slower.

Re:Interesting... (1)

riis138 (3020505) | about 3 months ago | (#45889003)

It seems to do pretty well in the enterprise environment, however, the email add in can slow outlook to a crawl. We ended up having to ditch it as there was way too many end user complaints about sluggishness.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Nos. (179609) | about 3 months ago | (#45889729)

To be fair, we never used a client side email scanner. We (at the time) did it server side on Lotus Notes and didn't have any performance issues. Virus Scan would scan any attachments on the client side when opened, but that wasn't an issue either.

We've migrated to Google for email now, and rely on them for server side email scanning, but again, there is the desktop side to deal with attachments.

Re:Interesting... (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#45889315)

"There was never a good reason to use McAfee or Norton. Not even in dial-up days when you'd buy software boxed. In those days Panda was available and way less of a nightmare than the competition."

Nonsense, youngster.

What happened to McAfee was the same thing that happened to Norton. When Peter Norton was running Norton Utilities, it was among the greatest software around. It started to suck less than a year after his company was bought out by Symantec.

McAfee used to be a great product. It began to suck soon after the company was acquired by Intel.

Both founders have stated they were glad to be as distanced from the "modern" product as possible.

Re:Interesting... (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 months ago | (#45889391)

Qualifier: you may not have liked McAfee even in the beginning, but lots of people did. Probably what killed it was all the default installations that people didn't want.

Norton, on the other hand, was ground-breaking in its day.

Also, I might add: one of the reasons people disliked anti-virus software so much was that they used it wrong. They'd have 4 different utilities running in the background all the time, killing performance. In reality, it was almost always fine to run it manually once a week, or scheduled for 3:00 a.m., and disabling all the background crap.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 4 months ago | (#45888047)

as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888075)

Now, I'm no rocket surgeon, but why not schedule the scan for Saturday?

Re:Interesting... (4, Funny)

rvw (755107) | about 4 months ago | (#45888093)

Now, I'm no rocket surgeon, but why not schedule the scan for Saturday?

That prevents people from having a decent Tuesday lunch break.

Re:Interesting... (5, Funny)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 4 months ago | (#45888161)

Because bad, bad, bad things happen when you miss a McAffee scan!!! Lots of computers are home/off or whatever over the weekend. At my previous place of employment, after being off the grid with my laptop for a couple of weeks, I came back and it couldn't update right since I was *SO* out of date, which we then fixed and got it to run. Then it ran back to back to back to back scans despite cancelling etc, the schedule would detect a missed scan and re-schedule a new one despite a fresh one having completed earlier in the day. My machine scanned continuously for over a week...IT eventually threw up their hands and just told me to deal with it.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 3 months ago | (#45888195)

Because the IT group (of which the security group is part) mandated that we're not allowed to leave our machines running over the weekend, saving power and all... We're technically not suppose to leave them on over night through out the week either. Otherwise they could start the scan at say 5PM on Monday evening and it'd run until 7AM Tuesday morning when no one's in the office anyway. Instead they'd rather waste everyone's time by running the scan during working hours when they know everyone will be at their desks with their computers on tearing out their hair instead of working.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888313)

So... scheduling and turn off when finished is out of the realm of doable for your IT support team?

I assume they are too busy these days helping implement the ACT Website?

Re:Interesting... (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 3 months ago | (#45888943)

I did say they were incompetent in my original post. The group is primarily made up of community college interns and a few veterans that just don't care being lead by managers that don't know any better. Anyone that's competent in the group gets promoted out to other divisions of the organization. The IT management isn't, and has never been, occupied by a competent technical person. They're great politically and have a lot of pull, but when it comes to making actual decisions about IT they rely on the underling managers and veterans that don't care because they've been doing the same thing for 30+ years with no hope of ever getting out or being promoted into a better position, which has given them a bad attitude, which keeps them where they are. Terrible cycle.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888547)

Don't know whether to be sad or comforted that other companies have such policies.

We have the "Friday lunchtime sulk" with our PCs. It would almost be acceptable if there were a decent pub nearby

Re:Interesting... (5, Informative)

cusco (717999) | about 4 months ago | (#45888141)

Could be worse, could be Symantec/Norton. Always wondered what poor Peter Norton thought about his products after Symantec took over. They went from powerful tools no techie would want to live without to useless crap in only two revisions.

Re:Interesting... (2)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 3 months ago | (#45888527)

Yup! The next-to-last time I used Symantec, I concluded that it wasn't worth paying for. The last time I used it (free trial) I decided that "free" was too costly. Since then, I actively avoid that crapware.

Re:Interesting... (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 3 months ago | (#45889423)

I remember when the company I was working for at the time (in the top 5 Global 500 co.) upgraded the Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition scanning engine (from 5 to 6 IIRC). It was back around 2005. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth that month. It instantaneously transformed Pentium class machines into 386DX boxes and the villagers were grabbing their pitchforks.

Re:Interesting... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#45888175)

I experienced this once at a previous job.

Except the scan started at 10am to be sure the machines were all likely to be powered on.

And then everybody walked away from their desks -- got so bad many of us started disabling it, then IT and HR got grumpy, and we told them that if they insisted on making our machines unusable for several hours during a working day we would either not be able to work, or we'd disable the stuff.

You could literally hear the groans spread through the office when it started scanning and everything ground to a halt.

It was definitely crappy software that wanted to use ALL of the CPU.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 3 months ago | (#45888295)

Our IT group has our machines locked down so we can't disable McAfee. Well most of our machines, my particular group isn't part of IT, but we do some heavy software development so we qualified for special exceptions. We can't actually disable McAfee, not legitimately anyway, but we have more privileges than everyone else in the building.

I certainly feel for everyone else. What's really nuts is Microsoft software takes the biggest performance hit. So Word, Outlook, Access, Excel, and IE all break badly when McAfee is running, sometimes to the point that they just don't work period. Other programs, like Eclipse, Chrome, Libre products, SQL Developer and Aptana Studio are slow, but the at least work to a point. I often just end up checking my Outlook mail through our webmail interface on Tuesdays because I can't even open Outlook without something catastrophic happening.

Re:Interesting... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#45888693)

We were all developers, and had full admin rights on our machines.

But I definitely feel your pain -- anti-virus software which renders your machine unusable is a terrible thing.

Re:Interesting... (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 months ago | (#45889417)

To be fair Symantec has gotten more efficient since SMP went mainstream thanks to multicore CPUs - they can now manage to pin every available during a scan rather than just one, so even SMP systems are not usable, so no one feels left out any more.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Havokmon (89874) | about 3 months ago | (#45888401)

as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

I frigg'n wish. Unfortunately my incompetent security group insists on McAfee. Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM. If you don't turn your machine on until 7 or 8 PM you'll be lucking to get out of the office by bedtime. McAfee has absolutely no ability to scale CPU usage, it's 100% all the time.

I had the same experience when we were 'integrated' with a new parent company. My (admittedly) VERY trimmed down PCs couldn't handle their McAfee install - but I wouldn't call them a 'security group'. I had to argue with them that 'spyware/malware' was a separate module (a new PCI requirement at the time), which fortunately saved us from installing their crap. They also declared my recently moved db server PCI Compliant because they put it in a physical cage.

I could go on and on about that place - I've never gotten a clearer message to get the hell out.

Re:Interesting... (1)

multisync (218450) | about 3 months ago | (#45888667)

Most people in my office don't even come in on Tuesdays anymore because that's virus scan day. It starts a 1AM and nothing on your machine will work until at least 3PM

If it is actually taking 14 hours to complete a virus scan, I would be looking for other issues with the hardware. Seriously, 14 hours? We use McAfee VirusScan Enterprise where I work, and most full system scans complete within an hour or so. If you weren't exaggerating, your security group must be truly incompetent as that is beyond acceptable.

As a workaround, depending on your office hours you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning. That won't solve the mystery as to why your scans are taking so long, but at least the people in your office could start coming in on Tuesdays again.

Re:Interesting... (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 3 months ago | (#45889123)

It's actually two separate scans done back to back. I do bitch about the IT group a lot and their incompetence, but a lot of it might be more they know what *should* be done, but they just don't care and do things the lazy way. At one point someone figured out if you restart your computer twice in a row the McAfee scan gets canceled. Once the security group got wind of that they started a second scan so if the first one doesn't complete the second one starts up sometime later. Except if the first scan completes normally, the second one still runs. On top of that, we don't know when it stopped working, you can no longer cancel a scan by restarting your machine. The scan just starts over again from scratch. Guess it's punishment from the IT group for trying to subvert their will.

...you could begin the scans at 6:00 PM instead of 1:00 AM, so they would be finished by 8:00 the following morning...

That was my suggestion, but part of the reason it's done on Tuesday morning is we're not *suppose* to leave our machines on over the weekends or at night. Many of us do because we know, for some reason, the scan starts at 1AM, so If you come in later on Tuesday the scan might finish between 2 and 3 PM and for a few hours in the afternoon you might be able to get something done. If you leave your machine off and the scan starts at say 7 or 8 AM when you turn the machine on, your day is completely wasted.

Re:Interesting... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 months ago | (#45889015)

Which is hilarious, because McAfee could spend 5 seconds setting an executable flag so that Windows launches it's process with a Below Normal priority.

Re:Interesting... (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 3 months ago | (#45889383)

I've got one better. My old university required McAfee on all students computers before they could connect to the net.

In theory it was "any antivirus software," but their Cisco Connect piece of garbage that you had to install only reliably recognized McAfee, which they would generously install for free on users machines. Of course they'd install the enterprise version where the user doesn't really have any control over it.

Oh well, Cisco Connect's user manual straight up says it allows "remote administration" and the University's security cert wasn't valid, so it's not like all the student's machines weren't already compromised.

Re:Time to fire your IT manager (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 months ago | (#45889425)

So no emergency to blow $30,000 of lost productivity every single employee to save $500 in electricity costs to run on the weekend?!

Also why the performance issue!! ya ya McAfee sucks but I have never seen thus. Either your team still has Pentium IIIs with 256 megs of ram in all XP/IE 6 glory or something is not set right?! I have never seen this and shows mass incompetence
  I would quit if you have enough experience as if upper management had any brains IT will be outsourced if they are that bad and the cio untouchable.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#45888101)

But what's even more interesting is that John McAfee uses a Flowbee to cut his hair.

Sorry, I forgot all about McAfee "anti" virus software until this story, as I and everyone I know stopped using it years ago.

The difference between a virus and an antivirus is that antivirus tends to consume more resources, do much more damage, and are generally more difficult to remove than a virus.

Re:Interesting... (3, Informative)

nevermore94 (789194) | about 3 months ago | (#45888559)

I actually just had to uninstall McAfee Security Scan Plus which Adobe STILL tries to bundle with the install of PDF Reader and Flash Player from a relative's computer. I also noticed that Adobe also tries to bundle Norton Security Scan with Shockwave player. Interesting and obnoxious that they are trying to get you to install both competing products with the installs of their products.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 months ago | (#45889575)

An uninstall won't get rid of it. Only a reimage. Don't believe the uninstall function as CPU usage still shows the scanner.

Thanks for the warning...! (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 months ago | (#45887917)

I'd like to be the first to thank Brian for warning us in advance, I'll be sure to add it to my list of banned products.

Re:Thanks for the warning...! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888345)

AMD will appreciate the efforts of Intel to further de-value the Intel brand.

I knew it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45887939)

I've always considered McAfee software to be nothing but useless, bloated, annoying, bug-ridden crap that causes more problems than it solves. That's why I use Norton.

Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888019)

How to remove McAfee Antivirus [youtube.com] featuring John McAfee himself.

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (4, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 4 months ago | (#45888185)

That's amazing. McAfee might be a dangerous unstable lunatic who's a menace to society, but he's MY kind of dangerous unstable lunatic who's a menace to society.

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#45888811)

Why does John McAfee hate his own company's software, instead of trying to improve it?

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (4, Interesting)

RemyBR (1158435) | about 3 months ago | (#45889017)

Because it's not his own company anymore, for at least 15 years.

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889153)

Sounds like he sold it to Intel with his name still on it and it went to pot. He's no longer in control of the company.

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#45889859)

He resigned from the company 20 years ago and sold his remaining shares two years later. Can't really call it "his company".

Re:Must-see video, how to remove McAfee (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889655)

This video was clearly John McAfee's effective way to make Intel get away from the McAfee name: obviously Intel doesn't want to have drugs, half-naked women and guns associated with their product.

Re:I knew it (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#45888129)

I've always considered McAfee software to be nothing but useless, bloated, annoying, bug-ridden crap that causes more problems than it solves. That's why I use Norton.

Speaking of that, I wonder if it is safe for Peter Norton to come out of hiding yet.

Re:I knew it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888165)

I think the difference is that Peter Norton retired to run an arts charity in Santa Monica, whereas John McAfee retired to do mountains of drugs in Belize.

Re:I knew it (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888973)

Clearly John McAfee is the heterosexual in that story.

Re:I knew it (1)

cusco (717999) | about 4 months ago | (#45888167)

Is that a protest action? "If I'm forced to use awful software I insist on using the absolutely worst ever created!" I mean really, if I had to pick a piece of software worse than McAfee there is only one possible candidate.

Don't leave us hanging (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888357)

if I had to pick a piece of software worse than McAfee there is only one possible candidate

And what exactly would that be?

Speaking of Norton... (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 3 months ago | (#45888349)

Speaking of that, can anybody tell me what was the last good version of Norton Utilities? I used to have them back in the DOS days, it was 2.0, I think. Today it obviously sucks, so where was the breaking point, and does it work on Windows?

Re:Speaking of Norton... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889061)

The last good version of Norton Utilities was dd, fdisk, and netcat.

(When the job calls for a chainsaw, just use the damn chainsaw.)

Good For Him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45887949)

Things are finally looking up for the bastard.

He objected to the advertising slogan (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45887963)

"McAfee murders viruses!"

Java, now with Intel Security? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 4 months ago | (#45887983)

So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

Re:Java, now with Intel Security? (3, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | about 4 months ago | (#45888135)

So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

Next up: Intel Secure Core with integrated virusscanning.

Re:Java, now with Intel Security? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#45888589)

Next up: Intel Secure Core with integrated virusscanning.

You laugh, but from the sounds of it, Intel is planning [informationweek.com] on putting chips in everything -- which means they'll likely become security nightmares.

(slightly) OT: what's up with imperva? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888425)

is anyone else seeing an upswing in web sites failing to open with imperva / incapsula captch's saying you have malware?

Re:Java, now with Intel Security? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#45888573)

So does this mean Intel is likely to fix things and stop being malware, or just business as usual and a increasing the need for ever faster processors to run ever bloated and invasive software?

Oh, it'll be better than business as usual... McAfee could always be removed by blowing away your OS, often not by anything less; but Intel has the full details on the SATA, USB, NIC, and CPU for their platform, and the capabilities of UEFI and AMT. They should be able to have McAfee baked so hard into your motherboard that you'll need a drill press to uninstall it!

Awesome and funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45887989)

I'm glad for McAfee's sake as well. But won't having "Intel" portrayed so prominently on such a shitbird product hurt THEIR brand? McAfee is reviled as being the worst way to solve any computer problem, does Intel want that association?

Then McAfee asked about the dragons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45887991)

and mentioned that he was out of bath salts.

so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 4 months ago | (#45887997)

so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to run this? good thing intel cpus have the power to run this shity software.

Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#45888841)

I think Intel can port McAfee to Itanium, build it into the core and find something useful for the Itanic to do

Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed (1)

David_W (35680) | about 3 months ago | (#45889777)

... and find something useful for the Itanic to do

Um, this is McAfee we're talking about...

Re:so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 months ago | (#45889483)

so now 1-2 cores / hyperthreads will be needed to run this? good thing intel cpus have the power to run this shity software.

What do you mean will be needed?

So John McAfee's best work is now obsolete? (5, Funny)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 4 months ago | (#45888021)

This video he made on how to uninstall McAfee software http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg [youtube.com] in case anyone missed it before.

Re:So John McAfee's best work is now obsolete? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888269)

I'm still waiting for the video on "how to remove McAfee" involving a commando-style raid using some black helicopters. It'll put the bin Laden video to shame.

to be further phased out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888049)

to be further phased out next year as NSA Spyware security...

Re:to be further phased out... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888103)

NSA BINGO!! I called it first. (It's for the person who calls out the first offtopic NSA comment made by some douche bag who thinks he is very clever).

Re:to be further phased out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888645)

Okay, I confess. I posted that NSA comment just so I could call NSA BINGO on it.

Well said John (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 4 months ago | (#45888053)

I absolutely hate trying to help friends or relatives resolve computer problems, only to find that the computer is infested with McAfee software that has to be dealt with first, or in some cases is the main problem. Sadly users have been brainwashed into thinking that they need this crap and is is somehow good for them. But John is far from innocent in all of this, there were serious problems even back when he had full control of what the software that bears his name did.

Re:Well said John (3, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | about 4 months ago | (#45888149)

I absolutely hate trying to help friends or relatives resolve computer problems, only to find that the computer is infested with McAfee software that has to be dealt with first, or in some cases is the main problem. Sadly users have been brainwashed into thinking that they need this crap and is is somehow good for them. But John is far from innocent in all of this, there were serious problems even back when he had full control of what the software that bears his name did.

To be fair, I see McAfee installers piggybacked on a lot of other software. Users who blindly click on things without reading or understanding are are least partially at fault.

Intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888087)

I did not know that Intel has a security department. I thought Intel only made processors. I learned something new.

Re:Intel? (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 3 months ago | (#45888189)

I think this purchase of McAfee *is* their "security" department.... Now if we could just get Adobe Reader to stop pushing that McAfee "security scanner" that is checked by default and 95% of everybody who downloads/installs Reader installs AND which totally fucks up the machine and is a MAJOR pain to get off.. I've made a fair amount of $$$ removing that crap from neighbors machines, not to mention weaning them off of Adobe Reader..

Why does Intel want to tarnish their good name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45888155)

eom

Name change to hide reputation.... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#45888283)

Just like how comcast became Xfinity.... Same sucky service with a new name.

It's a hasbeen craptastic AV suite that is so over bloated it's not funny. IF intel hires all new programmers and cuts out 1/2 or more of the utter crap that slows everything down to a crawl, they might have a chance..

But I know it's going to be a failure. Intel might be better off just selling the assets off to an unsuspecting patsy.

Re:Name change to hide reputation.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889043)

More like start again

Re:Name change to hide reputation.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889119)

Intel might be better off just selling the assets off to an unsuspecting patsy.

Maybe that's step 3 of their plan:

1. Buy craptastic software company
2. Change its name to obfuscate the connection.
3. ...
4. Profit!!!

Re:Name change to hide reputation.... (3, Interesting)

herve_masson (104332) | about 3 months ago | (#45889177)

Beeing bloated, buggy, resource consuming, useless, unremovable and unstable seems to be the natural way AV softtware evolve. Some are faster than others; McAfee and Norton reached this evolution milestone long time ago, AVAST and friends are joining the club those days. I have "fixed" about 10 computers the last 2 months, uninstalling this shitware from friends's computer, now using microsoft security software. Not sure there is a solution to this madness....

Notably, people keep thinking "I'm safe because I've Norton/McAfee/whatever ; this can't be the cause of my computer problems". At this, they've been really really good.

Bah....

Ah McAfee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888297)

Best placebo I've ever seen. When we got CryptoLocker it just went about its business and looked the other way without so much as a hint of complaint in its logs.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888443)

I am going to have to agree with Mr Mcafee. The software is bloated and slow. However their EPO server is second to none for centralized management and information gathering. It is the one thing that keeps me with Mcafee.

Does anyone still use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45888959)

I don't know anybody who still uses McAfee. They all just use an Avast!/Malwarebytes/Kapersky combo.

In the voice of Craig Ferguson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45889181)

One is a piece of shit with questionable morality and a history for screwing people.

The Other is John McAfee!

HEY!

Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...