Poor Windows users

Hello people,

Who loves you? Who really cares about your security and privacy? Well, if you're counting on security companies, count again. They may have products for sale, but you should probably look elsewhere for integrity or peace of mind. Wondering what I'm babbling about? Well, it's a story of bullying and betrayal. Here we go: an article about the abuse of security by security vendors.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/windows-poor.html


Cheers,
Mrk

 

For once I agree with you. I'm shocked McAfee are even advertising like this.

 

Thank you, for thar report of how McAffe does their business.
We are using thar security program at our work, and I have found it most frustrating. The pc takes a lot of time to start-up. If I check the Task Manager, it says that it is a lot of McAffe stuff taking 50 % or more of the cpu load foe ever.
Each tuesday, our company have decided that all computers should have a complete scan run, i.e. we have to sit back and have a extra hour of cofee-break. (And maybee an extra hour at work at overtime9.)

I'm glad that I didn't go for McAfee at home. I'm perfctly happy withe the free version of Avira.

Regards /Don

 

While I have to admit that there is a significant amount of truth in that article, there is also a bit of hypocrasy as well.

I agree completely that the tactics employed by security vendors are very often too close to what your average rogue/malware uses. However I notice that the author seems to be nitpicking. This is especially noticeable at the .NET Framework remark. Not all users are connected to the internet 24/7, some use PPPoE, VPN, Dial-up, etc. Maybe the user works/worked offline and had to connect only because the .NET Framework installation required it. In that case the statement in the installer is perfectly fine. Sure, it can be a little more clearer than it is now but it's not like Microsft means "It's no longer useful now that I have the framework installed" by that.

And another thing. The author criticises McAfee for using spurious wording (with which I do indeed agree) but he uses the same thing, just look at the title. If have to start splitting hairs like he does I can certainly consider that title no less misleading to the public. Almost as if there is not a single decent security program for Windows. And there are. Quite a few, too. Mostly the smaller and less known vendors, but still...

While I do agree completely with some of the points made in that article, I can't help but notice that the article is also an excuse to throw in some Microsoft/Windows bashing, just for the heck of it, which actually isn't very surprising considering the pro-Linux views of the author.
Nothing against Linux really but bias in an article (in general) kind of takes away the professional/expert feel of it, and makes it look like an every-day fanboy rant.

 

This is another reason why I don't want anything to do with them and why I had my mother uninstall this program and replace it with Avast 5. I in fact wanted to uninstall this suite as well but my control panel is giving me grief.

 

Wow, what an e-mail to get.

 

A sordid saga indeed. Someone pass the popcorn, please.

 

Don't pay for AV. Ever.

 

I do agree here fully with Mr. 007 even though he could have titled this a bit differently with less drama, maybe Scare Tactic by typical AV companies would have sounded a bit better.

 

Agreed!

 

Very nice Mrkvonic! Poor guy, just trying to point out some facts dabbled with some humour in a well written article and he gets panned.

 

Night_Raven denoted where the dedoimedo guy was really right and effectively pointed out where and why he wasn't fully right. Well made criticism.

If the criticized parts of the article made by the dedoimedo guy were really meant to be humorous, well, they may really be, if you still find fanboys tedious characteristic remarks humorous.

 

Thank you all for the comments.

While I cannot force anyone to appreciate my sense of humor, I just hope that the right message has been delivered.

Cheers,
Mrk

 

IMO, the email in question is marketing, pure and simple. Some hit the mark, others totally miss and the rest fall somewhere in between.

While not the best I've seen, for the average user, it may be more true than not. Lots of users never do anything to keep their AV protection current. If this reminds them, it helps them and McAfee. Personally, I'm not particularly offended by that...

 

I think a small amount of Windows bashing should be allowed, as it's Microsoft's own fault for allowing a market place for such software by creating insecure operating systems in the first place

 

Why does this make Windows Users "poor"?
The e-mail from mccrapee...you used them in the past, and you're not using good spam filtering.

Regarding the .NET Frame update..it's a large download. All of the *nix computers I've build also have updates. Actually it's sorta considerate, some people live in countries where their ISP connection is metered..and they pay more as time goes on...so if it's no longer needed, it's kinda courteous to allow them to disconnect. //shrug

Yeah....poor me....a poor Windows user. Pity that I have such a vast selection of good and current games to play, business software to run that's compatible with other businesses, a quality AV program provided for FREE by Microsoft (MSE), remote support software that works with my clients, VPN products that work with my clients VPN products, etc.

 

Thank you for this article and the related links. I for one greatly appreciate the post and the article.

 

what about when device manager doesnt have a driver and asks you to check online for network drivers? lol

 

Wow... That was really pathetic. Well, it's not like I thought much of McAfee before, and I think even less of them now.

That being said:

- SuRun is unsuitable for novices, barring prior setup by someone who knows what they're doing
- Linux still has enough unique issues and pitfalls that, again, I would not recommend it for novices unless they have someone knowledgeable about it on hand.

That being said I don't have much to offer in the way of alternatives.

 

Worse than MrKvonic's email are the dummies ( like ME) who bought a pair of 3 yr subscriptions to McAfee SS when I purchased our laptops a couple of years ago, with Vista HP on both. Still have a year left and McAfee was removed from both mine and my wife's laptops a year ago, when it failed against the rogue antivirus 2008 or 2009, don't remember which. If it couldn't catch that, what else did it miss? You only get one chance to make a good impression, and McAfee failed.

I reinstalled both computers to original factory specs, except McAfee.

She now uses MBAM free and Returnil and I've got Bufferzone Pro and free MBAM. Nothing has ever gotten through either Returnil or BZ. We run MBAM weekly.

 

Just FWIW, I've often heard that AVs in general are bad against rogues.

 

I don't know. What I can say is, after dumping McAfee our laptops are much faster. They're 2G RAM, which was decent at the time. When McAfee was doing a scan, both our laptops slowed almost to a stop. During an update, same thing.

I'll chalk the wasted money up to experience.

 

M$ brought personal computers to the masses in a relatively simple and affordable way. They did not create a marketplace that preys on the ignorant.

It should be easy to see that today, you must know some basics to exist online and not be duped or stolen from. But, the users don't care, so they become targets and are exploited.

If linux had been the OS to bring the masses the PC, or apple had been the one (god forbid that pricetag), they would be the one who are so insecure and riddled with holes. And why not, thieves don't waste much energy on the 2nd and 3rd rates when the real jackpot resides elsewhere. But, M$ has made some really awesome decisions about security, lol, really helped hacker and company out by making it so simple.

Look on the bright side though, if you educate yourself you don't have to fall for marketing schemes, you only have to worry about the OS itself

Sul.

 

Yep, McAfee slows most systems down to a crawl... much faster without it.