Talk:McAfee/Archives/2015

The Sniffer Technologies business
"In the summer of 2004, the company sold the Sniffer Technologies business to Network General." Was Network General created at the same time to be an entity to which to sell that business? (The old Network General didn't exist, as it'd merged with McAfee to make Network Associates.) I.e., was it a sale, or was it more like a spinoff? Guy Harris 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This was sort of a management buy-out. It may be viewed as a involuntary spinoff, Sniffer wasn't quite bringing the profits the Mcafee BU in NAI was. The previous NG entity was revived for this. Milliped 14:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
It is interesting to me that there is a criticism section of McAfee but not of Symantec. This is unbalanced and unfair, since Norton suffers from many of the same defects including slowing down the computer, much more so than McAfee (I have used both), and I seen Symantec anti-virus eat operating systems with the comment from customer support: "it happens sometimes". What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either the criticism needs to be removed from McAfee or added to Symantec, otherwise we must assume that Symantec wrote this criticism and put it here as an advertising ploy. Rcallen7 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor is there any other criticism of other major Anti-Virus software. However, I wouldn't go as far as accusing Symantec. An irate customer or Symantec loyalist could have done that.

As an encyclopedia, the articles should be free from any bias. Although I am a McAfee user who is suffering from some of those problems, Wikipedia is not "Consumer Report." The criticisms should be removed. PhnxFyreG 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point in time, I believe around 1997, McAfee also merged with Dr. Solomon's, a competing Anti-Virus manufacturer, incorporating its scanning engine into the McAfee line of products, as their own had gotten worse and worse. Details of this should be researched and added to this article. Any volunteers? 85.216.16.12 12:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added details of the merger with Dr Solomon's, which occurred in August 1997. --Andy.ruddock 09:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the criticism, it cites no resources and may start a "flame war." Allen649 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If McAfee has been the recipient of significant criticism, it should be noted in the McAfee article, just as significant criticism of Symantec should be noted in the Symantec article. However, justifying the removal of criticism by arguing that the opposing article does not include criticism is bad journalism; if a section for criticism is needed for the Symantec article, add it to the Symantec article, don't delete it from the McAfee article.

That said, obviously, sources should be cited. --71.112.34.200 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

@User:Allen649 - "I deleted the criticism..." -- WTF?? McAfee are outright crooks. They've been fined in 2009 for taking unauthorised credit card subscription payments (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/symantec-mcafee-fined-over-unauthorised-renewals-20090615-c8qz.html) and they're STILL AT IT - my partner's just finished a phone call with them complaining about an unauthorised credit card charge (and its now 2012). So, "I deleted the criticism..." -- what, do you work for their PR company? Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.219.104 (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is fine to have a section detailing the criticism posted by reviewers as otherwise we're missing some of the whole story in my opinion. However, there is a rather noticeable bias towards criticising the product (mainly those in 2012 and McAfee Internet Security) rather than any positively reviewing it. It would be unfair to say that there aren't positive reviews at all so I should think that some sort of attempt should be made to try and include these. 89.241.196.146 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced focus
This article is improperly named. Based on content it should be called McAfee Mergers, Acquisitions and Disvestments.

Rather than changing the article name though, it would seem more appropriate to expand the article to present the companies products, market presence, business objectives etc alongside the current content.

Comments? --Philopedia 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the progress of information technology is impeded by the proliferation of viruses, woms Trojan Horses etc. These articles clearly lack discussion of companies such as McAfee and Symantec and their apparent vested interest in the propogation of such programs. Perhaps an enlightended individual could enlighten us by writing some relevant articles Jpphillips 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

Uncited sources
Due to sources being added at some point since 2006-10, I propose that the uncited sources tag be removed. This article doesn't appear to be terribly active, so I'll wait until 04-30 to do anything about it myself. Please note any opposition before then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstroPig7 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Sections of this site are now more current - I may take it upon myself to delete product specific pages and just reference people to the McAfee site. This will reduce the "aging" of this site.

Merger proposal
I propose that Validate (McAfee) be merged into this article. Validate (McAfee) has very little potential for expansion, and its notability for a seperate article is questionable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with a merge. The page for Validate (McAfee) is very small, and as Brewcrewer said, it has very little potential for expansion.MOOOOOPS (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy auto-renewal
This links to page with unvalidated, unverifiable opinion, and not to a general news source that cites a general controvery over auto-renewal. In any case, McAfee's Always-On Protection pages (http://us.mcafee.com/root/alwaysOn.asp) states that uses can get a full refund within 60 days of auto-renewal. People pay their broadband companies, TV companies, electricity companies by direct debit which is effectively monthly auto-renewal, so I fail to see why this is controversial. Auto-renewal when you are talking about anti-virus security makes sense, and as people have 60 days to get a full refund this is hardly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblewilly (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Goggle?
I've seen an advertisement on YouTube for McAfee where a user goes to a site called goggle (dot) com, and gets dozens of spyware, trojans, spam, popups, and other viruses, and at the end, it has the McAfee logo. Is goggle dot com real? Was it shut down because of its viruses? Or was it just something fake that was intentionally made for advertising purposes? I think this might be relevant info for this article if anyone knows more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.25.115 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The video (Spyware Rubbernecking) was made on behalf of McAfee SiteAdvisor and was created in 2006. While goggle (dot) com no longer appears to host malware, it is entirely possible that in 2006, this typo-squatter site was monetized by drive-by exploit code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.255.114 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mergers and acquisitions..
This page lists a few of the mergers and acquisition's performed by McAfee, but is in no means complete - is there value in improving this? With the consolidation of the computer security market, it may be valuable to track how the smaller vendors are collapsed into their bigger peers.

I am a McAfee employee so have a conflict of interest here, but I am willing to submit one line entries properly cited if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SafeBoot (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Virus scan missing
I use McAfee, and sometimes the virus scan is "missing". when I get it back, and scan, no viruses to cause this are found. Does anybody know about this, and should we post this on the main McAfee article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotty99 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Skotty99, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you need technical support, it's best to directly contact McAfee. In regards to your second question, the subject needs to be notable and verifiable in order for it to be added into article. I've given you a welcome template on your user talk page. Thanks,  Davtra   (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Really necessary?
The stuff about competitors in the second paragraph seems excessive. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree. Not only it is excessive but also novel (not in the prose), original research and probably a way advertising stuff. We already have categories that introduce these. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
There seems to be some disagreement regarding how McAfee is said. I found http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=2921&messageID=261808 but this source is by no means concrete. Is there any official statement from McAfee on this issue? 04:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My name is Brian McAfee, it is pronounced MAK-uh-fee. The Scottish Macfie clan (originally from Colonsay) was involved in an assasination and subsequently banished, and those that went to Ireland became McAfee. Just like McDonalds is MACdonalds, the Mc is Irish, meaning "son of" and it is pronounced Mac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.253.35 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 August 2007‎


 * Usually in my experience, Mc names are pronounced with an unstressed /m&#x0259;k/, unless the next bit begins with a vowel, in which case it's often a stressed /'m&aelig;k/. That said, I have habitually pronounced McAfee as /m&#x0259;k'&aelig;fi:/, almost matching what someone's (rather dubiously) decided is the official pronunciation, but sometimes heard /'m&aelig;k&#x0259;fi:/ or  /,m&aelig;k&#x0259;'fi:/. -- Smjg 11:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I had the experience of meeting John Mcfee himself many years ago. It is indeed pronounced with the emphasis on the "Mc". StaticSan 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I called McAfee because I wanted to know how they pronounced it, and they're opening message says "mac-uh-fee." I don't know how to express this in IPA characters, so maybe someone who does can add this to the article? Thanks. Entbark (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In their Multimedia Library, McAfee has a short video that explains the correct pronunciation of the name "McAfee". It is unambiguously stated to be correctly pronounced (mac-uh-fee, for those not inclined to decipher IPA).  That should end the debate here and, accordingly, I have fixed the pronunciation in the article and added a reference citing the aforementioned video. Thanks. Moulding (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Intel Security Group
We should rename the article "Intel Security Group". This is the current official name, as seen on intelsecurity.com. However, mcafee.com displays both the McAfee and the Intel logo.

I've changed the name in the lead and infobox already.

Any support?

Wonderfl (reply) 16:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wonderfl, I think no, we should not rename this article, not yet. Take a look at intelsecurity.com and there go to "products" => you get a link to mcafee.com an it is still named "McAfee", you get also a link to intel.com and both links seem to be of the same value. Altough the logo "intelSecurity" on mcafee.com is clearly bigger than the McAfee logo. It is still McAfee and McAfee Inc still exists. (and please excuse my bad English) -- WikiMax (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)