Ed Foster's Gripelog || A McAfee Marathon

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

A McAfee Marathon

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:22:34 AM PDT

All too often, getting support for a software product can turn into a grueling experience. In fact, just getting back to where you were before you bought the product can be a small triumph in itself, as one reader decided after a recent encounter with trying to install a McAfee security suite.

(By the way, this story marks the debut of my Gripe Line podcasts, which you can download here. So you can listen to this reader discuss his McAfee support experience and hear a few other comments my readers have phoned in. Give it a listen if you have a few minutes and let me know what you think.)

The reader's run-in with McAfee struck me as interesting in light of the running discussion we've been having about paid support. The consensus there has been that customers should not have to pay for support just to get the product they purchased installed and functioning. But our reader found that's not the way it works with McAfee.

His travails began when he purchased the latest VirusScan suite with anti-virus and firewall from McAfee. "I only bought it because McAfee told me my old version of VirusScan was out of date and I would no longer would be able to get virus signature updates for it." The anti-virus program installed without a problem, but the firewall wouldn't install because of conflicting files, which turned out to be from an older McAfee firewall from the Network Associates era. The reader spent several weeks trying on his own trying to identify and remove all the old firewall files, but the new version would still not install.

If he wanted to get the firewall part of the security suite up and running, the reader soon realized he had no real choice but to pay McAfee for a support incident. "It would seem they have NO free tech support at all," the reader wrote. "You can try their e-mail, but it's slow, especially if the problem is serious. And their knowledge base is next to useless. So you can pay per minute -- I think it's $2.95 --or you can buy one incident for $39 as I did."

It turned out the reader would pay a lot more than that, just in stress alone, as that's when the real horror show began. Just to summarize briefly, the first tech with whom he spoke walked him through removing the conflicting files, which unfortunately resulted in his Internet connection being disabled. Over the ensuing days, tech after tech promised to research the problem and get back to him, and of course never called back. "On the third evening, I attempted to phone them, but their phone system would not accept my PIN number, saying the incident had expired. So I could spend another $39 for another 48 hours of runaround if I wished."

Well, the reader didn't wish. Being without an Internet connection for days on end was costing him business, so he began calling McAfee customer service and sales, demanding that they get someone competent to help him. Even then he kept finding himself speaking to techs in far-flung parts of the world reading from scripts that they didn't understand themselves. Finally, he just happened to get through to someone who could help him.

After five days of enormous persistence on his part, the reader finally had his Internet connection back and all McAfee files removed from his computer. "I've installed Bit Defender instead, as they appear to have 24X& free phone support," the reader wrote. "McAfee refunded both my $39 for a tech support incident and my $39 for the software, so I guess you could say it was a happy ending. But they cost me days of lost business while I didn't have connectivity and all those hours I had to spend on the phone. If I had just been able to speak to someone competent in the first place, it could have saved us all a lot of trouble."

Indeed, perhaps that real moral of this story is there is no such thing as free support. Not only did the reader's experience cost him time, think of what it cost McAfee - they lost a long-time customer, some good will, and all those hours, cheap as they may be, that McAfee must pay its overseas techs for their generally futile toil. When support turns into a grueling exercise, we all pay.

What support experiences do you have to share? Call my voice mail toll free at 1 888 875-7916 and leave your own gripe for us to hear. Or, post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< Sun Never Sets on Java Security Updates | Lenovo Downgrades Return Policy >

A McAfee Marathon | 72 comments (72 topical) | Post A Comment

Another McAfee/Symantec story <yawn>[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by rodak on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 01:52:39 PM PDT

Ed, I appreciate how you're trying to bring these things to light, and help folks out, but the fact that McAfee sells a crappy product with crappy support is hardly news. Instead of wasting more space here on "yet another McAfee/Symantec install/upgrade/support problem", just send everyone who submits such a gripe a canned response, consisting of:

a) A list of all the previous Gripelog stories about these two companies

b) A list of links to free alternateives (AVG, Avast, ZoneAlarm, Kerio, etc).

[ Reply to This ]

Gripes serve an important function in society[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 07:35:00 PM PDT

But these gripe log entries document publicly the continuing failure of these products, services, and companies to improve. People can stop by here and find out that "yup, Symantec is still synonymous with shite", for example. Moreover, that over years of documented problems and documented complaints they steadfastly refuse to shape up.

Without the gripe log entries, this wouldn't be the case. :)

Now let's see, who hasn't been featured in a recent gripe, and therefore might have actually improved?

Hrm ... Intuit?! No, can't be. Surely not Intuit.

I guess a lull in gripes against a particular target isn't necessarily meaningful, at least unless the "lull" goes on for a couple years.

:)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I totally agree....[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:14:22 AM PDT

While the story may be a repeat of the same old thing, the fact that it is a repeat tells you that it's a systematic problem and not just a random bad experience. I have used McAfee products with success for a number of years and have continued to annually upgrade it for "free" when the rebates and store discounts equal out to $0. However, with each upgrade, I've noticed more requirements in registering, more CPU cycles competing with me getting work done and more download time slowing my dial-up. So when I recently bought two new computers (a desktop and a laptop), both preloaded with "trial" versions of McAfee I decided to punt on going that route and uninstalled McAfee and installed Grisoft's AVG products. So far I've been pleased and likely will upgrade to the paid version at some point. Without these repeated postings from contributors telling their horror stories, I probably would have just taken the "easy" route of going with the pre-loaded products.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Not so fast; AVG may be getting too big[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:57:29 PM PDT

AVG may be getting too big for its britches, and starting to succumb to "get big, become evil syndrome" (also notably beginning to afflict Google -- that one will make some serious seismic disturbances when it falls).

I rebooted this afternoon due to creeping system slowdown caused by the usual culprit (Microsoft stuff leaking window handles and memory, particularly Exploder).

When the system came back up I was greeted with something about my free AVG 7.1 expiring soon. WTF? It normally updates itself without any huge fuss. Why is it saying now that it will need manually updating or die shortly after Christmas?

At the Web site I quickly found out why. The update (AVG 7.5) does have a free edition, but it's really not obvious. The following happened at the Web site after clicking the link from the scary warning dialog.

The page loaded -- thankfully in Firefox. Too damn many things load stuff in IE even though that is not my "default browser" selection in the system.
Prominent are links to pay versions of 7.5, the version being pushed to replace 7.1.
Nowhere is there a plain link to the free version, even though that is what I am using and the most likely upgrade path is to the free 7.5 and not a paid one.
Browsing about to "downloads", and "products", and "home user", and so forth turns up plenty of links to paid Grisoft products.
Searches for e.g. "personal", "free", etc. comes next. The search results pages all look alike, no matter the query: a batch of links to the AVG Faq, with the same title and excerpt text. Blindly I pick the top link and don't see much of interest there.
I was going to resort to a Google search scoped on the AVG site when I saw a page looking something like this:

ANTIVIRUS PRODUCTS
This paid software for home users
That for enterprise
Educational discount license blah blah

ANTISPYWARE PRODUCTS
This paid software for home users
That for enterprise
Educational discount license blah blah

FIREWALLS
This paid software for home users
That for enterprise
Educational discount license blah blah

BLAH BLAH
This paid software for home users
That for enterprise
Educational discount license blah blah

YADDA YADDA YADDA
This paid software for home users
That for enterprise
Educational discount license blah blah

<font size=-5 million or so> avg antivirus free edition</font>

Of course, the tiny "free edition" link hidden at the bottom of the page leads to a page with a lot of snazzy box photos and links to paid editions again, with a tiny link to "download free edition". This actually leads not to a .zip or .exe file but a comparison chart with a load of scary red Xs for the free edition. One of these is actually downright misleading -- there's an X for Antispyware, and although the free AVG antivirus lacks antispyware functionality, there's a (separate) free AVG antispyware app. So it's not an outright lie, but it's not really true either -- it just means you need to perform two downloads and installs instead of one to have that feature.

The download itself seems to have worked without a hitch. Once I finally found it, that is.

Point is, they seem to make a big point of trying to:

Make people get this particular update from the Web site, where they can
Make you unsure there even is a free edition anymore in the hopes that you'll pay -- it wasn't mentioned at all on the landing page.
Make it hard to navigate to the free edition
Try to upsell you at every turn.

Clearly, they are trying to discourage use of the free edition as much as possible. Pointing to "trial versions" that are timebombed versions of it really takes the cake, though, and they do that pretty much on every page of the site.

I don't recall them doing that when I first got AVG, at least a year ago. It may not have been prominent but they were up front about the existence of a free version and didn't make it intentionally difficult to navigate to it.

This experience makes me suspect that they intend to discontinue offering a free edition at all around 8.0 sometime in 2007, and no doubt they will "sunset" the free 7.5 with the same bothersome dialog box as they sunsetted 7.1.

Unless they make it silently morph into a paid version and start quietly charging a credit card number you didn't even give them, then justify this by saying "We changed this license agreement page on our Web site that nothing at all links to months ago to warn you of this change and give you time to uninstall to opt out!" or some such rot. Well, no, that would require them to descend to Intuit's level in less than a year from being better than McAfee, which would be astonishing even in Internet time. But still...

The really weird thing is that I have seen this sort of deliberately-shoddy Web site navigation idiom before.

On porn sites.

Free porn sites, aside from trying to exploit your browser to install spyware and blasting you with popups, always have a bunch of prominent and relevant-looking links at the top that lead to various pay sites and around in circles, and a single tiny link at the bottom of the third page down some obscure hierarchy that actually goes to some actual image galleries.

(As a rule, they also have the navigation deliberately broken if you disable Javashit so they can blast you with popups and try to hijack your browser into installing spyware. Images sometimes hide behind individual captchas -- not to stop automated ripping, though that's what they'll claim, oh no. A script running on the server detects a visitor's loaded a page with a captcha and requests a comment posting form from a blog site that uses captchas, then feeds the captcha right through. The visitor dutifully solves the captcha and submits it, and the script submits the solution along with linkspam to the blog in turn. If the blog posting succeeds, the visitor, unaware of any of this backend functionality, gets to see the nudie pics. And of course some "free" sites lure you deep in with tease pictures and a nesting tree of gallery links, the leaves of which ask for a credit card number for "age verification". Yeah, right. It's funny that although it's damned weak for "age verification" (like nobody's ever borrowed Daddy's credit card, especially when they only have to copy the number down onto some paper without actually taking the physical card at all to do so) it just happens to be perfect for charging someone money. No doubt enough of those they rip off are too embarrassed to question the bogus charges and involve the police, or even request a chargeback. And they probably don't just ding it once, but sell the number on the black market or something...)

So, tell me why a reputable company like AVG with a stellar product (and even free editions) is resorting to tactics copied from such reputable companies as freeanalasiansxxx.com?

(It's also worth noting that if you visit one of these porn sites and get infected with something, then buy a paid version of AVG to get disinfected, both profit. Hmm. Strange bedfellows?)

So, while AVG so far works far better and has a free personal-use version, I am unconvinced that this will last given the events of today. The use of navigational metaphors pioneered by the likes of freesexplosionarchive.com isn't exactly encouraging, and that's just for starters. Breaking from the background auto-updating model to push users to the Web site has to be part of a funding drive of sorts -- a certain percentage will quickly give up looking for a free upgrade and a certain fraction of those will, in turn, settle for a pay version because AVG's worked well in the past. Of course, people who can see more than one move ahead will realize that once they know they can do that to you they will commence tightening the screws, and that this is usually just the first step down the same road AOL and the like have taken, will move on elsewhere or persist until they find the free version they cleverly hid ...

Heck, I'm not even sure that there's a specific page that links to the free version at all. Most of the pages I saw before finding it were either the useless FAQ page, the useless SERP, or one of several very similar product list pages. It turned up eventually at the very bottom of one of those. I wonder if these are static pages at all with the free link at the bottom of one, or if the server uses a script to generate everything and coughs up a product catalog page with a free edition link, reluctantly, only after you've requested n pages from them first and still not bitten at any of the prominently advertised pay products...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

free.grisoft.com[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by wantobe on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 06:04:26 PM PDT

For at least 2 years now I haven't been able to find a clear link to their free version from their main page, but I go directly to free.grisoft.com to download the free version. AVG is still a kick-a$$ antivirus, and is the least expensive of the bunch even for the paid version. I don't fault them for wanting to make money, but I too would like them to make the free version a little easier to find.
Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

No problem here[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Garminski on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:07:49 PM PDT

I also received the notice that AVG was sunsetting it's free 7.1 version for the new 7.5 version and that you needed to upgrade by early next year. They had a link on the notice in the lower left corner (as I remember) to click for more information.I clicked on it and it took me to a page where there was very clearly an option to download the new free version of 7.5 AVG. They had a lot of stuff there that you could buy but the free version was there if you just looked. The upgrade process was very easy and painless.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Hrm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:27:52 PM PDT

Curious. There was no prominent link to the free version when I did the same. It existed and installed painlessly, but it took some scrounging to find a link first.

Perhaps they read this gripe and changed it in the past few days? :)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

RE: Hrm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
by Garminski on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 11:50:39 AM PDT

I don't think so. I did this late last week or so. I was writing this from memory but I would have sworn that on the "splash page" that AVG supplied I clicked on a link and from that point on it was very easy to get the new free version.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

AVG[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:29:00 PM PDT

After that other comment was posted, though?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

No but...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Garminski on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:13:27 PM PDT

No, I did upgrade my AVG before the other comment was posted. However, I was operating from memory and the actual process was a bit more complicated then I remembered. Here is what you have to do:

Click on the "See our full product list" line on the lower right side of the 7.5 warning page.

On the next screen goto the bottom under the Free Security heading and click on the link "AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition".

On the next screen goto the Download section and click on "AVG Free Advisor website"

On the next screen click on "AVG Anti-Virus-Free" link.

Then click on "Download free version" Select the version you want and click on it to download.

Simple as that, right?

Ok, so the original poster of this thread had more of a point then I remembered. While I was able to get what I wanted by following what I considered at the time to be a reasonable path (I must of been real tired) it was much more difficult then it had to be. All along the way you have multiple opportunities to purchase AVG, but you have to go through some hoops to get the free one. AVG could have made this much easier and still given people a chance to purchase the product.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Wow ![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#48)
by In my humble opinion on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:26:42 PM PDT

Do you have a blog ? It must be pretty good if you write this much for a comment posting. It was entertaining...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Nope.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:28:15 PM PDT

Nope.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#79)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:41:04 AM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピング SEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#80)
by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:40:25 AM PDT

9[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:38:19 AM PDT

Hall of Shame?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by rodak on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:28:43 AM PDT

Good point. But instead of a whole new story, and ensuing discussion, for each new reported incident, I'd rather see just a chart or graph or something on the main GripeLog page. Wasn't there a "Hall of Shame" at the old Gripelog site? There should be something like that, listing only the top 5, or maybe 10, vendors/products, with a count of the number of gripes received, and the date of the latest gripe posted, so those who care to can go read them, but leave the main GripeLog area for real news (where the operative part of the word is "NEW")

I think the Hall of Shame could be a really useful tool. I've asked about this before - I'd like to see a single page distilling the reported issues from these "problem" vendors, something that could be taken in at a glance by the average computer user. I'm often asked about, and give advice about, various software products, and rather than just say "oh, they've got a LOT of problems - just avoid them", I could point the interested party to Ed's site, where they could read in just a minute or so something like this:

* McAfee Bad support (123 reports)
* Symantec Security Suite corrupts the system (247 reports)
* AOL continues to charge CC long after service discontined (4,587,252 reports)

Clicking on each one would bring up a list of each report and date reported. Clicking on each of those would bring up the full text of the report.

[ Reply to This ]

InfoWorld would shoot themselves in the foot...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:29:16 AM PDT

As a consumer, I love the idea. But since InfoWorld's editors are Ed's overlords again, I doubt they'd go for that...

It's one thing for InfoWorld to post a less-than-stellar review of a product, but if I were an advertiser or even just a plain-old vendor totally unassociated with InfoWorld, a "Hall of Shame" (especially if my company and/or product is in it) would send my advertising $$$ to other publications. To add, I could tell InfoWorld to fcuk off and not grant a license to review a product if they wanted to do so.

InfoWorld is walking a fine line by having the Gripe Line here. And while I haven't seen any editorial content changes since they brought Ed back on board, Ed --HAD-- carte blanche when it was his own site (limited to any potential legal liability) whereas he doesn't anymore...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

"License" to review[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

We installed it, took our measurements, and then uninstalled it, we are no longer bound by the EULA since we aren't using the software anymore. Don't need a "license" to do a review that trashes a product.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Re:InfoWorld would shoot themselves in the foot...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Ed Foster on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:27:00 PM PDT

First off, let me just make it clear that this is my weblog and I have a completely free hand to do what I choose. InfoWorld does not edit it, and no one at InfoWorld has ever tried to tell me what to write in it or what not to write.

As for the Hall of Shame, I stopped doing it several years ago. I just grew uncomfortable with how subjective it was.

Ed Foster

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Great Article, i agreee with you[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous User on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:14:44 PM PDT

dis j'ai jamais vu de poisson sans ouies........et avec une forme pareille.......Internet Marketing 迷你倉護膚 .

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Find a geek[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by BiffTurkle on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 08:59:27 AM PDT

"McAfee refunded both my $39 for a tech support incident and my $39 for the software, so I guess you could say it was a happy ending. But they cost me days of lost business while I didn't have connectivity and all those hours I had to spend on the phone. If I had just been able to speak to someone competent in the first place, it could have saved us all a lot of trouble."

This business owner should have hired a competent geek to evaluate his security needs. This guy is running a software firewall, commercial AV software he was suckered into purchasing and then installed over a previous version, on a business-critical computer hooked directly to the net. I don't have a whole ton of sympathy for him, but I also feel sorry because of what he's been lead to believe by marketing.

The fact is that expecting superior technical support for a $39 product is unrealistic. Anything more complex then the most basic known issues is going to involve many hours of troubleshooting and pain, if they can even fix it at all. There are just too many variables. Creating a dependable and profitable computer system is the responsibility of the business owner - it should not be abdicated when the going gets rough to an impersonal far-off company available only through the phone or email.

My suggestion for every small business owner is to track down a professional to give their setup a basic evaluation for security and backups. Can you afford to have your primary/only computer go down for a few days because of some stupid technical problem? Do you relish the idea of contacting your customers because you lost some important part of data? Do you know if your backups are working or if your wireless network is open to the world?

You don't need to hire someone real expensive, I suggest posting on craigslist for a few hours of this kind of work. Look for someone who does this full time for a business and wants to work on the side. If you can barter for services, all the better for the both of you - there's plenty of highly skilled IT people needing auto repair, financial services, or floral arrangements.

A competent IT person in this respect is one who his technically astute, but who also has some business acumen - meaning they know where to spend money and where to save money. In this particular case, there is of course many free AV products, and a $40 router/firewall will mitigate a lot of risk.

Back to the issue at hand - if the OP had discussed this setup with anyone competent, he would likely been given some recommendations that would have avoided his McAfee fiasco. The cost would have been less then his $78, his lost business, and the frustration of spending time on the phone with tech support. That's my 'Hypothesis Contrary to Fact' analysis, anyway.

-Biff

[ Reply to This ]

Biff's Hypothesis RE: McAfee[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:27:20 PM PDT

Could be that this person isn't as "IT astute" as you... wonder how many net businesses aren't? Also, hindsight is always clearer than 20-20. This is an issue about TRUST. TRUST carefully gathered through the noose of MARKETING. In the case of McAfee, and MANY other software MARKETEERS, how can the "less IT astute" be protected against SNAKE OIL marketeers? People just want to have their "$5,000 a month" sites, they DON'T want to have to be IT pros, or even IT amatuers.Turn up the site,watch the MEGA $s roll in, go spend the easily earned money.Isn't that how SO many things are marketeered on the internet?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Buggy software is never the user's fault[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:27:02 AM PDT

"Anything more complex then the most basic known issues is going to involve many hours of troubleshooting and pain, if they can even fix it at all."

This wasn't "more complex". This was "I installed version Y over version X". Which should Just Work(tm). The problem was obviously shoddy uninstallation of version X followed by shoddy installation of version Y.

Y's installer should detect if an older version exists, or fragments from a dubious uninstall, and replace it. X's uninstaller, if it was explicitly uninstalled, should have removed all traces of the older version when run. One or both failed to happen.

This is one or more software bugs, pure and simple. Not some complex interaction with third-party components or anything like that.

As for the user in question being "deluded by marketing" or whatever, the fact is, that is the only information the user in question had to go on, most likely. And to protect that user, there are truth in advertising laws that are supposed to be enforced.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

BiffTurkle is right[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by wantobe on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:21:42 AM PDT

There's really nothing about day-to-day computing that the average user couldn't accomplish on their own, but they have to do the research first. Most people don't bother doing that research, because they think they don't have the time.

A pro could have told the OP that 1) McAfee isn't worth the paper it's written on, 2) you should wipe off all traces of the old version before installing the new version, and 3) back up your data before you do anything. Should the OP have known all that beforehand? No, if he's going to hire a pro to do the work for him. Yes, if he's going to do it himself. Pros would have known because they have done the research as part of their daily lives.

You say that Y should have been able to detect the presence of X, and that truth in advertising laws should protect the consumer, but we don't live in that world, we live in reality. You can't rely on what *should* happen, especially when it's your business computer. You have to check what people who are actually using the product say about it. If the OP had even checked the Gripe Log he would have known not to use the well-known AV products. It's not always easy, and can be time consuming, which is, again, why you hire the pros to do it for you.

The OP got off light this time, and I hope that he took the lesson that BiffTurkle expressed above to heart: get a pro to do the work for you next time, and your downtime and expense will be far, far less. But make sure the "pro" you're getting is really a pro, and not just someone claiming to be one. You know, do the research. :-D

Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I think youse guys missed the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by DavidBSpalding on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:15:56 AM PDT

Not sure the OP had some server, I only read "lost business." That could mean anything.

Issue is, imho, installing software should work with default settings accepted. McAfee Firewall Y didn't detect or remove X (we're assuming that X was working), and a call to tech support to install the software ought to've been free.

Making a customer who's just bought software PAY for support, then mismanaging the paid support issue (the issue "expired" in 48 hours? Without confirmation with the customer?? WTF is that?), losing the issue and losing the customer, is plain bad business.

Someone doesn't have to be "IT astute" to buy OTS software, install it IAW the installation instructions, and then see it work. And software firms don't have to be "business astute" to realize that failing that, they can either support customers, or lose business and go chase themselves around Chapter 13 court.

And WE don't need to be "Foster astute" to realize that someone having a bad consumer experience with a software firm isn't at fault because s/he isn't tech savvy enough. Being a techy doesn't immunize one from consumer hell, as Cem Kaner* can attest to. ;) (Search on Cem Kaner Alienware.")

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

A pro. How useful.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 04:47:40 AM PDT

"A pro could have told the OP that 1) ..."

Yes, if the OP happens to be feelthy rich and has a surname of Trump or Gates.

What about the rest of us?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I don't know about where you live...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by wantobe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:09:12 AM PDT

I don't know about where you live, but where I am, getting a pro to take care of things like that doesn't cost much more than $100/hour (my company only charges $75). That probably sounds pretty cheap to the OP now, considering what all he went through and what could have been avoided.
Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Only $75 an Hour?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:27:36 AM PDT

The point is you shouldn't have to spend $75 to have a $39 piece of retail software install properly.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

The real point is...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by wantobe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:40:54 AM PDT

The real point is, by talking to a consultant you would know better than to try to use that particular $39 piece of [retail] software.

I agree that McAfee shouldn't have such a crappy product, but they do. Average users won't know that, because software producers can pretty much lie all they want as long as they stay within the bounds of the law. That's where professional consultants can save you a lot of money, headaches, and time.

Or don't pay a consultant; that's fine too. Just spend a little time searching online to see what users have to say about that particular piece of [retail] software that you're about to buy and/or install. Or is that, too, asking too much?

Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

dshgfhn[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:42:28 AM PDT

Talking to a consultant is a luxury Joe Consumer can ill afford, and therefore it is extremely rude and bigoted to fault Joe Consumer for not renting one at whatever extortionate rate.

I notice at least one post here mentions "my company" having rates for such consultancy.

I guess this thread has been invaded by shills trying to get rich off others' misfortune. Parasites.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Not a shill[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by wantobe on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:55:45 AM PDT

Nobody's "shilling" here for anything, and nobody's faulting Joe Consumer for not hiring a consultant. I'm simply saying that Joe Consumer has a responsibility to check out the software before they buy it. If the OP had done something to check out the software first, rather than relying on the spurious claims of a bad company, he would have saved money and time.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying, so I don't expect this to penetrate any further into the concrete, but I'll say it once more: don't hire a consultant if you don't want to. It's relatively easy to do the research on your own, so you don't need a consultant in most cases. If you don't get a consultant, and you don't do the research yourself (one or the other), then you're going to get burned because bad software companies exist.

Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Wrong[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

"Nobody's "shilling" here for anything, and nobody's faulting Joe Consumer for not hiring a consultant."

Wrong on both counts.

You are "shilling". You appear to be the author of an earlier post advertising your services in exactly this space for $75 an hour, while recommending that everyone and his dog hire a consultant whenever they install software. It isn't very hard to put 2 and 2 together.
The Turkle d00d at the start of this thread faulted Joe Consumer for not hiring a consultant, and does not appear to lie within the set "nobody".

"I'm simply saying that Joe Consumer has a responsibility to check out the software before they buy it. If the OP had done something to check out the software first, rather than. relying on the spurious claims of a bad company"...

Ah, another fan of caveat emptor, I see, and enemy of truth in advertising laws. Asshats like you pop up all the time here, and don't ever seem to grasp the concept of "transaction costs". Transaction costs are the hidden extra cost of the transaction, beyond what's actually exchanged away for whatever you receive. Besides $40 for the software, there's the cost (in time or money) of researching it, unless you don't, and then there's the risk of being ripped off. Such a risk is also a cost. A cost that is lower with proper standards of business practise and higher with caveat emptor as the prevailing attitude. A customer trading off the risk and the research cost ends up ripped off more, or doing more research; the average loss in friction in mass market transactions goes up.

And excessive friction to mass market transactions can drag a whole economy down into the toilet!

People who buy $300 worth of goods now buy $200 and do $100 worth of research. Rip off artists get money, and those who enable research to avoid them get money, while everyone else (consumers and honest businesses) lose. (Consumers lose because they spend $300 to get $200 worth of goods and services instead of $300. Honest businesses lose because they sell $200 worth of goods and services wherever they used to sell $300. Consumers lose money, and businesses lose volume. Whatever margins they lose and whatever economies of scale they lose as a result translate into them also losing money.)

So, you are basically coming out in support of ripoff artists, and parasites like yourself who make their money selling ripoff insurance of some kind or another that would be unnecessary without the ripoff artists.

The shoddy business practises you defend may bring in business for you, but in the long run, everybody loses. (There's a formal definition of that -- "Pareto suboptimal" -- in fact; raising transaction costs is generally Pareto suboptimal and the occurrence of actually being ripped off invariably is.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Some advertisement[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by wantobe on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:24:07 PM PDT

# You are "shilling". You appear to be the author of an earlier post advertising your services in exactly this space for $75 an hour, while recommending that everyone and his dog hire a consultant whenever they install software. It isn't very hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Oh, yea, that's some advertisement for my business, considering the only information about me is my name and my signature line. I only mentioned what my business charges as a point of comparison in my area.

I don't know what your angle on this is, bub, (though I suspect you're just the paranoid boob I responded to earlier), but if you think I'm a parasite for offering a service that quite a few people need, I don't much need to waste anymore time on you.

I could (relatively) easily replace my hot water tank in my house, and if I decide to do it I would have to find out which tank to buy, and know how to do all the connections safely. In the fantasy world you live in, the fact that changing a water heater is never that simple means that the plumbers who charge you to do it for you are parasites living off the misery of others.

Oh, brother!

Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Unbefreakinglievable[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:10:57 PM PDT

"Oh, yea, that's some advertisement for my business, considering the only information about me is my name and my signature line."

Of course you posted it knowing full well what people can find with that, a mouse, and google.com.

"I don't know what your angle on this is, bub, (though I suspect you're just the paranoid boob I responded to earlier), but if you think I'm a parasite for offering a service that quite a few people need, I don't much need to waste anymore time on you."

If the "service" in question is only needed because some other organization is allowed to engage in deceptive business practises and deny a decent support/return policy to its customers, then you're damned right I do. You profit (albeit indirectly) from the misbehavior of McAfee and the like -- which, for that matter, profit from the misbehavior of Microsoft. Doesn't that give you even a little trouble sleeping at night from time to time?

As for your dubious analogy with the water heater, this is getting out of hand -- the posting of a Dubious Analogy of the Day(tm) that is. First of all, the consequences of a failure there can be much larger (actual property damage for starters). Secondly, it's not a common consumer product. You can find rows of McAfee boxes in a retail store in the mall, but not rows of water heaters. It's more like a hair curler -- you should be able to buy any old one, take it home, plug it in, and not have it trip every breaker in the house whilst catching fire. And if it does, you'd better be able to return it free of charge for refund or exchange, sue for damages, and get free support! No way would the hair curler manufacturer get away with the behavior exhibited by nearly every major software vendor. Even though both are shrinkwrapped, boxed consumer tools sold at comparable prices and found in every shopping mall in the world.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Shades of Grey[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#49)
by In my humble opinion on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:02:24 PM PDT

Please make it stop. Cut the line and let this fish go.

In my experience, the real world requires a caveat emptor engagement model with technology suppliers. Almost nothing wotks to plan 100.000% of the time. While some people wish they are living in a perfect world and get upset when reality differs, I'd rather take reasonable precautions necessary in an imperfect world (im my judgement) rather than blindly bet on the performance of others. This comment is only intended to be relevant to this discussion thread, not all conceivable circumstances.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Bah.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

"In my experience, the real world requires a caveat emptor engagement model with technology suppliers."

Really. Why? What makes "technology suppliers" so special that they should be held to a weaker standard of conduct than everybody else, and be able to get away with scams that nobody else would dare try in a million years? Let me guess -- you happen to be one of them? :P

Keep in mind that this gripe is at least as much about McAfee's greedy pay-for-pseudo-support policy as about the actual problem with the software -- and the latter is a problem the industry knows by now how to avoid, at that. We're not talking bleeding edge here. Making an installer work even if you have actually had an earlier version of the same product in the past is not exactly rocket science!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Practicality[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
by In my humble opinion on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 06:04:25 PM PDT

Never said I liked it when I get short-changed but rather I consider potential failure scenarios prior to embarking on a course of action. I believe it is called risk management. One of Rob's points was that when you have a valuable asset (data on a PC for example) you may wish to consider reasonable precautions prior to making a change. What is deemed to be reasonable precautions depends on the specific circumstances and the judgement of the decision maker. My point is that you must make a risk assessment judgement, consciously or by default.

I agree that the standards for quality, product liability, and corporate ethics should be equal regardless of industry sector. No debate there. The reality of software product testing appears, in my opinion, to be limited in scope to common system configurations which is a subset of the entire customer base. This appears to be true for both PC software and large software systems (e.g. databases, shop floor control, cellular networks, etc.) It seems to be impossible to test all possible user configurations, let alone even assemble the list of them for products such as PC software. Again, I don't like this status quo but in today's reality we are not smart enough yet to build perfect products, let along perfect software products. Perhaps you can name one perfect man-made product - I cannot.

Thanks for the good laugh on assuming I work for a technology supplier. Quite the opposite mate. I don't care to make public postings of my employment details, but suffice it to say that I am a purchaser of technology products on a very large scale. I have lots of entertaining experiences with global technology suppliers who fall on their faces from time to time. Here's a secret - these companies are comprised of human beings and people are not perfect and make mistakes. When one of them screws up, sure I go for liquidated damages if I can but that never can provide full compensation in many cases of business interruption. Therefore, risk management is essential to mitigate the potential impacts of technology changes, deliveries, updates, etc.

Coming back to the original gripe regarding pay for technical support, I agree that McAfee has a moral obligation to provide free technical support (within reason) in this situation. But the reality of do-it-yourself PC software installations is more like DIY auto maintenance. Lots of people can do DIY auto maintenance, others try and fail/give up, and many pay somebody else to do it for them. I think one of the real issues is that people consider PCs are just another type of home appliance like a stereo or TV. Just plug the things together and they work out of the box. I don't know about you, but I've never installed software on my TV or dishwaher -- yet. But a PC is just a product which allows for almost unlimited customization, expansion, and/or modification by the end-user. As such, PC maintenance, however simple and supposedly harmless, should only be performed by somebody who has the skills to image the drive beforehand and know what to do if a software install/upgrade fails and leaves the system in an unstable or unusable condition. I don't like the status quo but I do take the necessary steps to protect myself in the event Murphy strikes. And in the case of PC software, he is alive and quite well.

My main point is - if the data on a business computer is important, then take reasonable steps to protect it. Risk management 101.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Hrm.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:18 PM PDT

Regarding software's complex environment -- your toaster is in your house with a probably-unique mix of other appliance brands and manufacturers, but you just plug it in and away you go. The cardinal sin of software design is building in too many dependencies or assumptions about its environment. Where this is difficult to avoid, it can actually sample its environment to see what else is there, which is more than can be said for the toaster. All of which leaves aside the unanswered point raised earlier that this was a broken installer that was, astonishingly, unable to cope with the fairly common occurrence that it's installing over a previous version rather than onto a virgin system.

Regarding technology companies making mistakes, you neglected to remark on their curious tendency to make so damn many mistakes, oodles more than anyone else does. Where you see honest error, I see purposeful corner-cutting and a culture of negligence where a regime of lax product liability and consumer protection enforcement has encouraged it for years -- lax enforcement bought and paid for by the selfsame companies. Remember Ed's age-old fight against UCITA? That kind of "bought and paid for".

Regarding imaging your machine before every upgrade: LOL. If your suggestion were made mandatory, you'd have just priced PC ownership out of reach of a sizable chunk of the population that currently can afford one. A complete image of a typical modern PC is around 100GB of data. That's about 140 CD-Rs, costing around $50-$60, and requiring several whole days to burn. At minimum it would have to be done again every month (since I've never gone longer than that without M$ releasing a patch for some security hole or another). You are therefore asking every single PC owner to spend a minimum of $50/month on blank CDs, "or else". That will, for a majority, mean having to turn off either their phone, their TV, or their Internet to free up the money you want. Oh, except that it wouldn't actually go to you ... would it? Tell me sir, do you happen to work in the blank CD industry by any chance? :)

(Other backup solutions are equally expensive if used as frequently as you suggest. Tapes wear out and I haven't seen home computer tape backup hardware in any consumer electronics store anyway. Copying everything to a hard drive used solely for the purpose costs whatever the hard drive does, amortized over its expected lifespan. For a 100+GB drive, that's easily a hundred dollars, plus you need to install and deinstall the drive at least monthly. (Leaving it in just puts the backup in the same danger as the "live" copy of your data!) That will probably shorten the expected life of everything, since Accidents Happen(tm) and the more often you do something risky (such as open the case) the sooner on average lightning will strike. I could go on, but I trust you and our audience (such that it is) sees the point by now.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Externals, dude.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#56)
by foxyshadis1 on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 10:51:37 PM PDT

So what's wrong with an external hard drive? Particularly the push-button sort that come with stripped-down backup software, that you plug in, press button, and unplug when finished? $100 will buy you a 250-300 GB external drive today, easily enough to backup system files and often whole systems (which in xp and above can be hot-backedup, but maybe not in the crippled software packages). In fact, a few CD-RWs or a couple DVDs would be enough for just system and critical data. (An enormous music collection is great, but probably won't destroy your business if it crashes.)

Then all you need is to make sure you can restore, which isn't trivial to test if anything goes wrong. Vista even comes with versioning built into VSS.

$100 won't price a PC out of anyone's budget, they'd just have to settle for a less expensive one. Get it, the old more features vs. more stability deate? If you aren't willing to be remotely factual, quit ranting.

You might as well complain that cars need their oil changed and tires filled every few months, which costs money and isn't entirely convenient. PCs are cranky and need it because they're so easy to customize, either lots of handholding by power users, or regular backups and maybe rare technician visits by those who aren't. You want something not so cranky, use macs with their vertical OS/application stack. Customization is what breeds flakiness in systems, aside from hardware defects.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

The poor[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#58)
by tcsbiz on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:54:58 AM PDT

Watch out! You'll be castigated for not caring about the poor.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

reductio ad absurdum[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by BiffTurkle on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 01:39:59 PM PDT

The Turkle d00d at the start of this thread faulted Joe Consumer for not hiring a consultant, and does not appear to lie within t