Macafee antivirus software

  • Thread starter Thread starter elmarsa
  • Start date Start date
David said:
McAfee Enterprise v4.5.1 with SP1 was extremely stable. No problems noted on W98, WinME and
Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
under WinXP (and Win2K).

Dave L.



| In article <[email protected]>, das216
| @NOSPAMMYMAMMYadelphia.net says...
| >
| > I can tell you my McAfee is messing up my Win98SE. The problem arises
| > when McAfee shows up in the systray at the bottom right of the screen.
| > I go to start/run/msconfig/startup and remove all things McAfee, then
| > reboot. The computer works fine until McAfee show up in the tray again.
| > I had NAV before this and it worked fine with Win98SE.
| >
| > I switched because we got a deal through my employer. McAfee takes a
| > long time to check too. Plus I wasn't happy with that plugin we had to
| > download to keep getting updates.
| >
| > My two cents.
| >
| For W98, you'll be on 4.5.1 - it did suck a bit. The newer versions are
| OK, I find.
| I wouldn't touch NAV with yours - every semester I have to clean up a
| couple of dozen laptops that had properly configured and updated
| (apparently) NAV, that still got hit.
| I think your best bet is to dump W98 and move to W2000. Or Linux -
| there's a new distro out of Africa that's quite nice, called Ubuntu.
|
| --
| Post presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - scrollbars at
| the sides of the screen are normal in this format. This high-definition
| digital message was created on a run-of-the-mill PC from the restored
| 35mm negative. To further enhance it, many grammar and spelling errors
| and other inaccuracies have been removed using the DB EBD-TC system.
Click to expand...
One should also make a difference between "corporate" products and "home
users" products. VirusScan Enterprise 4.5.1 SP1, VSE7.x and VSE8i are
totally different than what the original poster is talking about in his
post. The corporate products are running nicely on my systems. But I
really don't like the 'home users' products and they really need some
improvements.
 
I agree with that. The Retail products leave a lot to be desired. One is that starting
with v8.0, they left out the McAfee Command Line Scanner, it does NOT allow the SuperDAT
executable to update the platform and it has a dependency upon IE. I addition, the
registration/updating process is flawed. I have v8.0 on a test WinME platform. It does
nothing except run SETI Command Line and when I periodically check it, it gives errors
updating it as if I never registered it. On another note, it allows one registration per
email address. So if you have a SOHO LAN with 5 platforms, it requires a different email
address for each platform.

Dave



| One should also make a difference between "corporate" products and "home
| users" products. VirusScan Enterprise 4.5.1 SP1, VSE7.x and VSE8i are
| totally different than what the original poster is talking about in his
| post. The corporate products are running nicely on my systems. But I
| really don't like the 'home users' products and they really need some
| improvements.
|
 
T-Bone said:
I don't disagree with you there. However, it is not exactly a silent
approach as the previous poster was saying. If they make it obvious that
your AV will no longer work, then that's fine. Its also smarter on the part
of the AV company to do it that way then by FUD.
Click to expand...

let's look at it this way - virus signature definition files tell the
scanner what to look for, but they don't tell the scanner *how* to look
for it... changes are made to the way a scanner looks for viruses
specifically because new viruses come along that don't fit the old way
(new infection schemes, new tricks, etc)... if you use the old scanning
engine with the new defs it's not going to be able to find those types
of viruses...

an End Of Life has to be planned well in advance, it can't occur
whenever one of these new viruses is discovered... all they can do for
that is create an engine upgrade and hope most people use it...
 
Peace,
Sorry to be so tardy getting back to you. I am presently running
build 9.0.10, engine 4.3.20. and it is working well. It updates the
dat files regularly and seems to be doing its job. I have not had an
infection for some time and have caught several cases of the current
bad guys in some e-mail.
elmarsa

Not that I have seen though thought there was some ME problems

What version of VS are you on at the present.

I will pass the question onto mcafee techs on your behalf
Replied only to 1 forum as do not want to cross post

Peace
Click to expand...

(e-mail address removed)
 
Those that responded,

Thanks to all those that responded. The only problem I had with the
upgrade to build 9.0.10 was installing it. Just for background, I had
to reinstall the mcafee viruscan program because I contacted the Bagel
worm (can't remember the exact name) when I opened an e-mail
attachment while viruscan was in the process of updating itself. The
main problem was that the worm disabled virusscan and though I was
able to remove enough of the bad files to disable the worm I was not
able to uninstall all the remnants of the old program. By-the-way this
seems to be a common problem with uninstalling and reinstalling
programs. I think that all upgrade packages should include a cleaner
program such as that provided by mcafee on their support website.
When I cleaned out all the remnant garbage and intalled the download
everything has worked well since. I did notice that the engine has
been the same for a long time and I am wondering if that has changed
in new retail version. I haven't gotten around to posing my question
to mcafee but will get to it when I get more time. Thanks again to
all of you who have taken the time to respond.
elmarsa


I agree with that. The Retail products leave a lot to be desired. One is that starting
with v8.0, they left out the McAfee Command Line Scanner, it does NOT allow the SuperDAT
executable to update the platform and it has a dependency upon IE. I addition, the
registration/updating process is flawed. I have v8.0 on a test WinME platform. It does
nothing except run SETI Command Line and when I periodically check it, it gives errors
updating it as if I never registered it. On another note, it allows one registration per
email address. So if you have a SOHO LAN with 5 platforms, it requires a different email
address for each platform.

Dave



| One should also make a difference between "corporate" products and "home
| users" products. VirusScan Enterprise 4.5.1 SP1, VSE7.x and VSE8i are
| totally different than what the original poster is talking about in his
| post. The corporate products are running nicely on my systems. But I
| really don't like the 'home users' products and they really need some
| improvements.
|
Click to expand...

(e-mail address removed)
 
If you need more suport for the McAfee program you can also post your
issue(s) at the McAfee Support Forum:
http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/

There's usually a McAfee tech available there and also forum moderaters
volunteers.
 
McAfee Enterprise v4.5.1 with SP1 was extremely stable. No problems noted on W98, WinME and
Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
under WinXP (and Win2K).
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
--
Post presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - scrollbars at
the sides of the screen are normal in this format. This high-definition
digital message was created on a run-of-the-mill PC from the restored
35mm negative. To further enhance it, many grammar and spelling errors
and other inaccuracies have been removed using the DB EBD-TC system.
 
I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
Click to expand...
That'll teach me to use fancy words. It's "demesne". And in a week when
there's a national spelling test competition on TV too. Plus I used to
live on Demesne Road. Tsk. I hang my head in shame.
--
Post presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - scrollbars at
the sides of the screen are normal in this format. This high-definition
digital message was created on a run-of-the-mill PC from the restored
35mm negative. To further enhance it, many grammar and spelling errors
and other inaccuracies have been removed using the DB EBD-TC system.
 
That'll teach me to use fancy words. It's "demesne". And in a week when
there's a national spelling test competition on TV too. Plus I used to
live on Demesne Road. Tsk. I hang my head in shame.
Click to expand...

Funny :))
 
That'll teach me to use fancy words. It's "demesne".
Click to expand...

Probably not that fancy a word to many and i would think that you used it
because of the nuance of difference between demesne and domain.
Continue with celerity! :-)

lm
 
Back
Top