# McAffee Seems to be Blocking Attempts to Download Other Anti-Virus Programs!



## newtekie1 (May 23, 2018)

The story:  I'm setting up two new Dell laptops that were bought this week(Dell Inspiron 13 7000 for anyone interested).

Once I made it to a usable desktop, I start my normal routine:
Install Chrome - Goes Smoothly
Install ClassicShell - Goes Smoothly
Uninstall Bundled McAffee AV - Goes Smoothly
Use Chrome to Go Download Avast - Here is where the issue begins

So, when I'm on Avast's website, everything seems normal until I click the download button.  The "your download will start shortly" page loads.  But right when the download should start the Chrome tab just closes.  WTF?  Maybe it is a fluke, so I try again, nope same problem.  I think, Ok, I'll try AVG.  Again, some problem.  I try Edge, nope same problem.  Then I notice that McAffee WebAdviser is installed.  Even in Chrome, despite Chrome not being pre-installed on the laptop.  I remove McAfee WebAdviser from Chrome and sure enough, Avast downloads exactly as expected.  So I completely uninstall McAffee WebAdviser, not sure how I missed it when I uninstall the main McAffee program, I was kind of rushed to get these laptops done.  But it annoys me that McAffee WebAdviser is blocking the downloads of competitor's Anti-Virus programs.

It makes me wonder if it is even legal for a bundled program to attempt to stop the use of a competitor's software, especially without even a warning message or anything.  I guess I would be a little less mad if it popped up a message warning that the file download was blocked, but WebAdviser just completely closes the tab with no message or warning.


----------



## hat (May 23, 2018)

Well, that's certainly interesting. Especially since most users would just give up and say "well I guess I'll just use mcaffe then". Perhaps that's exactly their goal, get more mcaffe users by blocking the others in a way that's not so obvious to the average user.


----------



## natr0n (May 23, 2018)

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/mcafee_consumer_product_removal_tool.html


----------



## er557 (May 23, 2018)

If true, completely outrageous. Some AV block as riskware or PUWA the apps they don't like, not clean-heartedly. Like access to complete websites if those forums offer activation circumvention methods, and so forth. The big corporations definition of "potentially unwanted software" or "potentially unsafe applications" is moot at best. One has to figure out on his own the false positives


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 23, 2018)

Sometimes the cure is worse than the infection.

In this instance, I'd remove everything of mcafee, purge the registry too. The Guy is a wack job now.

1 thing there are virus that mask themselves as an antivirus too.

I use Avast, Malwarebytes, Super AntiSpyware, Spywareblaster


----------



## er557 (May 23, 2018)

Yeah, of course there's those "windows security system" infections, but mcaffee? I know avg used to take heat for in product aggressive advertising and being resource heavy, and I don't speak about comodo, good luck with that


----------



## Readlight (May 23, 2018)

i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.


----------



## Arctucas (May 24, 2018)

And this happens with any web browser?


----------



## Solaris17 (May 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> The story:  I'm setting up two new Dell laptops that were bought this week(Dell Inspiron 13 7000 for anyone interested).
> 
> Once I made it to a usable desktop, I start my normal routine:
> Install Chrome - Goes Smoothly
> ...



unfortunetly this is common. Though the professional in me likes to belive (and hasnt found yet) a correlation between the oddeties many of them do have them. I can list a few.

Kaspersky (firwall functions after lic expires (this breaks wifi printers generally))
AVG (wont uninstall all subsystems (though this was an older vesion dont see it alot anymore))
Vipre (no uninstall tool, if the uninstall breaks you must do everything via registry and commands availible on there site engineers wouldnt help (even though I have thousands of seats))
Sophos (personally like them but brings browser experiences of any type too an absolute stand still)
Emsisoft (another personal and professional advocate but sometimes when doing core version upgrades pukes itself)

I cant remember any more ATM and im not really dissing them iv also personally seen hundreds of examples of each one (I play with alot of defense and forensic software for school and work) work totally fine including mcafee

outside of odd problems specific to there own flavors iv not met one that likes being anywhere near another endpoint software. Vipre and emsisoft for example will either straight refuse to install or remove the other program automatically (how thoughtful)


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 24, 2018)

Installing a browser by a company that sells personal information for profit... I dont give a shit, its still funny as hell to think this.

I assume the McAfee was preinstalled, are these your laptops for personal use. If they are, I'd find a way to remove it from recovery like when editing the old windows install discs. I've removed programs from the recovery hard disks a very long time ago, but I am unsure if its done the same anymore.


----------



## revin (May 24, 2018)

er557 said:


> , and I don't speak about comodo, good luck with that


Huh ? I've used Comodo for over a decade and never had an issue .... just need to set up the whole suite and it's golden ! 
Sandbox is extremely useful and Comodo can lock down the whole system to ask to grant any permissions while learning what you want to allow.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 24, 2018)

revin said:


> Huh ? I've used Comodo for over a decade and never had an issue .... just need to set up the whole suite and it's golden !
> Sandbox is extremely useful and Comodo can lock down the whole system to ask to grant any permissions while learning what you want to allow.


if you cant run all the components of a suite individually, its garbage. Brand names mean squat except for earning loyalty so that when issues do pop up they get ignored because koolaid tastes great.


----------



## revin (May 24, 2018)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> if you cant run all the components of a suite individually, its garbage


What ?  You can turn On or OFF Firewall, Sandbox ,Hips , Virtual Desktop, Containment each individually not sure where your trying to go with this 
Not sure why some of the best features would want to be turned off tho.
But to each there own so  it's not for you but with a little work it's a fantastic well mannered program that has a lot to offer for Free


----------



## qubit (May 24, 2018)

@newtekie1 Why am I not surprised that McAfee is misbehaving like this?

I've seen some bad stuff from their products, too.

The one I remember clearly was one time about 4 years ago. I went to a client's house where they had an ancient Pentium 4 PC connected to the internet that they just used for browsing. Old, but functional for the job (still had XP though...) The thing was barely able to pull down a web page, with it often getting stuck half way, or erroring out. It had installed on it McAfee Crapware courtesy of BT internet. I didn't even have to uninstall it for the PC to function properly. Simply selecting the disable McAfee option in the menu was enough to restore normal, if slightly slow, web browsing. Turning it on again killed it again, so no doubt that this was the culprit.

5 minutes later this McAfee Crapware was gone and I'd installed one of the free a/v programs, could have been Avast.

What gets me is that being bought out by Intel didn't do anything for the product. You'd think after paying millions for this piece of shit, the parent company would want to transform it into a quality product, wouldn't you? Doesn't look like Intel cares though.


----------



## Red_Machine (May 24, 2018)

I just tried this myself.  Using Firefox with McAfee WebAdvisor and McAfee AntiVirus Plus.  No issue downloading either AVG or Avast.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2018)

Red_Machine said:


> I just tried this myself.  Using Firefox with McAfee WebAdvisor and McAfee AntiVirus Plus.  No issue downloading either AVG or Avast.



Cool story, ymmv on this


----------



## newtekie1 (May 24, 2018)

natr0n said:


> http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/mcafee_consumer_product_removal_tool.html



I use that a lot, but recently it hasn't been necessary.  They have done a pretty good job of cleaning up after themselves when you uninstall it the normal way through control panel.  I only need the removal tool these days if the uninstallation screws up somehow.



eidairaman1 said:


> In this instance, I'd remove everything of mcafee, purge the registry too. The Guy is a wack job now.



He hasn't had anything to do with the company in years.  Intel owns McAffee now.  And up until today they seem to have been moving in the right direction with it.  But this is a huge step backwards.



Readlight said:


> i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.



And it is nice that that works for you.  But I'm not going to give a computer that I configured to another person without AV on it.  It is just stupid not to run an AV.



DeathtoGnomes said:


> Installing a browser by a company that sells personal information for profit... I dont give a shit, its still funny as hell to think this.



I have a Facebook account.  You think I care if Google is selling the list of nasty twisted porn sites I visit?



qubit said:


> What gets me is that being bought out by Intel didn't do anything for the product. You'd think after paying millions for this piece of shit, the parent company would want to transform it into a quality product, wouldn't you? Doesn't look like Intel cares though.



I thought that once they got it to the point that it would gracefully uninstall that they were on the right track, but not after today.  I'm hoping though that this was just an unintentional issue, but I'm also not holding my breath.


----------



## biffzinker (May 24, 2018)

Intel spun off Mcafee in late 2016 in a $4.2 billion deal. However at the time it was reported Intel still owned 49%. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-spins-off-mcafee-2016-9


----------



## qubit (May 24, 2018)

biffzinker said:


> Intel spun off Mcafee in late 2016 in a $4.2 billion deal. However at the time it was reported Intel still owned 49%.
> http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-spins-off-mcafee-2016-9


Maybe that's why they didn't care about it.


----------



## er557 (May 24, 2018)

revin said:


> What ?  You can turn On or OFF Firewall, Sandbox ,Hips , Virtual Desktop, Containment each individually not sure where your trying to go with this
> Not sure why some of the best features would want to be turned off tho.
> But to each there own so  it's not for you but with a little work it's a fantastic well mannered program that has a lot to offer for Free



How is comodo on resources? iirc ESET SMART SECURITY is the most complete package with firewall that is the lowest system hog of all, plus unlike comodo It does not nag you constantly to authorize what you are doing in the background


----------



## revin (May 24, 2018)

Very Light. Uses about 25k, another 10k with Viruscope and Auto Containment can set  FW , HIPS to "Safe Mode"  and it will rarely ask about something. There is  "Learning" that will ask the first time's about Allow or Deny, and then you can even Lock down the system with "Paranoid" it will ask about everything.  Once a couple week's you can go back thru the various feature's and review if you want to change the "rules" of something that was auto contained sandboxed. There is great tutorials online to help understand and setup the features.


----------



## er557 (May 24, 2018)

Few people seem to think so:
https://malwaretips.com/threads/comodo-internet-security-8-vs-eset-smart-security-9.61444/


----------



## newtekie1 (May 24, 2018)

er557 said:


> Few people seem to think so:
> https://malwaretips.com/threads/comodo-internet-security-8-vs-eset-smart-security-9.61444/



Dude, you are linking to an article from 2 years ago...

ESET isn't free from its problems either.  I've experiences quite a few from it over the years.  Example: For a while it had this nasty bug where whenever it couldn't update for whatever reason, it would just write a log file to a certain hidden directory under the Windows folder.(Why is it even writing logs to the Windows directory, that's a big no-no.)  It would never delete these logs, so it would slowly fill up the drive.  You can imagine this actually filled up pretty quickly in machines that only had 60-120GB SSD.  I saw it write 1GB of log files in just an hour of the internet being down.  And, of course, because it was under the Windows folder, most people were freaked out about deleting anything in there.

Plus, its not free.  For a paid solution, there are definitely better options out there.  But you're comparing it to Comodo, which is free, and today ESET isn't really any better than Comodo even though Comodo is free.

And the days of complaining about anti-viruses taking up  resources should be dead.  Unless the AV is particularly bad at it, computers now are powerful enough that the resources used by the AV isn't noticeable.  So unless you are running some really old/weak hardware, the AV resource usage doesn't really matter.  Anything with a decently modern dual-core and 4GB of RAM, won't really be affected by the load of any decent AV.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> I have a Facebook account.  You think I care if Google is selling the list of nasty twisted porn sites I visit?


Its a matter of principle. Google may or may not be profiting from your choices, you are not even in the loop, your choice has been taken away.

btw, nasty and twisted is good!



revin said:


> What ?  You can turn On or OFF Firewall, Sandbox ,Hips , Virtual Desktop, Containment each individually not sure where your trying to go with this
> Not sure why some of the best features would want to be turned off tho.
> But to each there own so  it's not for you but with a little work it's a fantastic well mannered program that has a lot to offer for Free


Obviously you missed the point of what I was saying, I wont explain it.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 24, 2018)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Its a matter of principle. Google may or may not be profiting from your choices, you are not even in the loop, your choice has been taken away.
> 
> btw, nasty and twisted is good!



The choice hasn't been taken away.  That is false logic.  I choose to use their products, that is the choice.  If I didn't want them to profit from selling my information, I wouldn't use their products.

And there are plenty of other companies that do the same thing.  I get so much spam from advertisers that "somehow" got my email address and even phone number it isn't fun.  Every time you sign up for a website that is offering something for free, there is a good chance that website is making a profit by selling the information you give it.  But at this point, the information they are asking is likely already public information anyway, so I don't care.  If someone wants to know my address, my phone number, my email address, it is all already public information.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> But it annoys me that McAffee WebAdviser is blocking the downloads of competitor's Anti-Virus programs.
> 
> It makes me wonder if it is even legal for a bundled program to attempt to stop the use of a competitor's software, especially without even a warning message or anything.


That really annoys me too. As mentioned above, it is not just McAfee that has done this in the past. I have experienced before where Norton/Symantec, ZoneAlarm, Kaspersky, BitDefender, McAfee and others blocked installation of competing products, as well as their own uninstallation. 

It is illegal in most jurisdictions - if intentional. These days, at least with the major players, it is not intentional. Anti-malware solutions must insert themselves very deep into the kernel to be effective. Any other attempt by another program is seen as suspicious activity. I often use the "two dogs guarding the same bone" analogy - each wondering what the other is up too. 

In the case of anti-malware products, I am certain McAfee will soon be updated to correct the bug(?) and allow the other "_known friendlies_" through.


newtekie1 said:


> Install ClassicShell - Goes Smoothly


Do note the author stopped development last December. Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it. I realize it does not have all the extra features of ClassicShell, but for the expected primary core functions desired in these type programs, (bringing back familiar start menu and desktop) it works great.


----------



## er557 (May 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Dude, you are linking to an article from 2 years ago...
> 
> ESET isn't free from its problems either.  I've experiences quite a few from it over the years.  Example: For a while it had this nasty bug where whenever it couldn't update for whatever reason, it would just write a log file to a certain hidden directory under the Windows folder.(Why is it even writing logs to the Windows directory, that's a big no-no.)  It would never delete these logs, so it would slowly fill up the drive.  You can imagine this actually filled up pretty quickly in machines that only had 60-120GB SSD.  I saw it write 1GB of log files in just an hour of the internet being down.  And, of course, because it was under the Windows folder, most people were freaked out about deleting anything in there.
> 
> ...



Look, comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do, and it's developers are a bit quircky, and odd, blocking complaining users on their forums. While eset products I have ran since xp and they generally run like a dream, and update frequently all while staying light and tight in footprint, I have upgraded windows versions many times with eset still installed and it never posed any problems during upgrade. It usually costs 2$ a month, and for me it caught many nasties from the web, It also filters web pages as you go. But to each his own.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> The choice hasn't been taken away.  That is false logic.  I choose to use their products, that is the choice.  If I didn't want them to profit from selling my information, I wouldn't use their products.
> 
> And there are plenty of other companies that do the same thing.  I get so much spam from advertisers that "somehow" got my email address and even phone number it isn't fun.  Every time you sign up for a website that is offering something for free, there is a good chance that website is making a profit by selling the information you give it.  But at this point, the information they are asking is likely already public information anyway, so I don't care.  If someone wants to know my address, my phone number, my email address, it is all already public information.


WE both know that is a naive approach to this. Its hardly false logic.  Granted there are public aspects of ones information that cant truly be blocked or removed, thats not the only information being collected and sold.   That doesnt mean you shouldnt give up trying to limit what is being traded about yourself and your family. The problem you are blind to is that all these free products dont just stop with collecting basic information, they would collect information on how many times a day you take a shit if you let them. But hey, I get you think you have a choice because chose to use thier free products.  Let me know how that all works out when you or a family member has their identity stolen because they sold information to an unknown advertiser and figured out the name of your dog that you used on some security question.

You have your beliefs, I have mine and I have no faith in Google products, hell even their search engine has been tweaked so that their products populate the first few pages.
p.s. leave my tin hat right where it is !


----------



## revin (May 24, 2018)

er557 said:


> comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do


Well if you just install it and don't set it up then yes it's "Training",  like I said there is a LOT of information on how to set it up to Not bother you with every file and it also will filter website's
I just change a few setting's after setup and it really protects me just fine even on warez and adult  sites,
Not sure Eset even has a container or Virtual Desktop to use. And the Secure Shopping is awesome feature .
Any way not trying to convince you to use it, but Comodo is like any other protection s/w you gotta do a little more than just install it

https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture123610.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture122259.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture121890.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture120839.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture119721.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture118.jpg

EDIT :
@newtekie1 I feel like it's getting off track of your OP, I will be glad to delete any my post you like to unclutter. Again I apologize

EDIT 2.  5/25  Forgot to add There is also a *"SilentMode" zero nag's*


----------



## newtekie1 (May 24, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Do note the author stopped development last December. Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it. I realize it does not have all the extra features of ClassicShell, but for the expected primary core functions desired in these type programs, (bringing back familiar start menu and desktop) it works great.



Yeah, I saw that.  It is definitely sad.  I'll keep using it until a Windows update breaks the start menu function, which is all I use it for.  After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu...

But I'm hoping that since he went open-source that someone will at least fork the Start Menu part of it.  I don't care if the other parts are stripped away.



er557 said:


> Look, comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do, and it's developers are a bit quircky, and odd, blocking complaining users on their forums. While eset products I have ran since xp and they generally run like a dream, and update frequently all while staying light and tight in footprint, I have upgraded windows versions many times with eset still installed and it never posed any problems during upgrade. It usually costs 2$ a month, and for me it caught many nasties from the web, It also filters web pages as you go. But to each his own.



You are starting to sound like you work for ESET, but I get it, you use it so you want to defend your choice.  Frankly, ESET isn't that great, I've used it, I've experienced it, and I'd take Comodo over it any day of the week.  And, yes, any free program will be more naggy than a pay.  But if someone wants to pay for an AV, they might as well pay for something that is better than ESET.  Avira, Bitdefender, and Panda are all ones I'd pick before ESET.  Heck, even paid Avast/AVG is a better option than ESET.  And honestly, Avast in silent mode is the least naggy AV you'll ever experience.

You can go on and on about it all want, but it is obvious that you haven't actually used Comodo any time recently, so stop bashing it.  And stop pushing ESET.


----------



## er557 (May 25, 2018)

I'll take a look into avira paid and bitdefender, if you say so, the interesting part is how compatible is their firewall and does it have an interactive mode


----------



## biffzinker (May 25, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu


Startisback might be worth a shot. 30 day evaluation or $3.00 for a single lifetime license. Been using it myself since Windows 8.


----------



## Athlonite (May 25, 2018)

@newtekie1 so if your running W10 on these laptops why bother with anything else other than Windows Defender


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 25, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it.



I can second this.  It actually makes more improvements than just a start menu. I love it.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> @newtekie1 so if your running W10 on these laptops why bother with anything else other than Windows Defender



Because it isn't that good.


----------



## Athlonite (May 25, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Because it isn't that good.



Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good 
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/


----------



## las (May 25, 2018)

3rd party AV is doing more harm than good


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 25, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, I saw that. It is definitely sad. I'll keep using it until a Windows update breaks the start menu function, which is all I use it for. After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu...


Or again, try Start10. It is much more like ClassicShell than Windows10 own UI. It has a 30 free trial period and unlike many free trial programs, it really does disable and uninstall cleanly if you don't like it. But IMO, if you like ClassicShell better than Windows 10 UI, you will like Start10 better too. In fact, except for the actual start button images (and maybe color schemes) each programs use, I doubt you could tell the different when looking at the start menus without careful examination. 

I do use the default W10 UI on a couple other systems here and it really is not that hard to get used to. But for my two systems, including this one, I still love the old W7 style desktop better, in particular the venerable and irreplaceable Quick Launch tool bar - which fortunately is still available in W10, though hidden by default.



newtekie1 said:


> Because it isn't that good.


Yeah right. That's like saying the Honda Civic "isn't that good" simply because the Toyota Camry, BMW 5 and a couple others scored higher. 



Athlonite said:


> Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good
> https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/


Right! And don't forget to click on the Protection column header to sort on that critical field to see what really "isn't that good"! Note what crowd favorite isn't even listed! Then choose Windows 10 and sort again to see what really "isn't that good"!

Come folks! It is time to put past biases and prejudices away. You have to like it, but not liking it does not mean "it isn't that good".



las said:


> 3rd party AV is doing more harm than good


Like most blanket statements, this one too is wrong due to many exceptions making it untrue. Some products are very good and do good. Others are not, and some rogue products actually do cause harm - intentionally.  

Let's not degrade this thread and drag it down with another pointless debate about Windows Defender. This thread is about McAfee blocking installation of other products.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 25, 2018)

Mcafee and Norton just need to die off already.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 25, 2018)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Mcafee and Norton just need to die off already.


Not likely to happen since many ISPs have partnerships with them. My ISP, Cox Communications (forth largest in US), for example, provides McAfee for free to Cox Internet subscribers.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (May 25, 2018)

So does my ISP Comcast, but that still doesnt mean these terrible AV's dont need to die.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good
> https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/



https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-april-2018-factsheet/

It's detection rate is one of the worst in the industry, and has been for a while.  And it somehow still managed to have an unacceptable number of false positives.



Bill_Bright said:


> Or again, try Start10. It is much more like ClassicShell than Windows10 own UI. It has a 30 free trial period and unlike many free trial programs, it really does disable and uninstall cleanly if you don't like it. But IMO, if you like ClassicShell better than Windows 10 UI, you will like Start10 better too. In fact, except for the actual start button images (and maybe color schemes) each programs use, I doubt you could tell the different when looking at the start menus without careful examination.
> 
> I do use the default W10 UI on a couple other systems here and it really is not that hard to get used to. But for my two systems, including this one, I still love the old W7 style desktop better, in particular the venerable and irreplaceable Quick Launch tool bar - which fortunately is still available in W10, though hidden by default.



The main problem is it isn't just me, I actually don't mind the Windows 10 UI and can use it without a problem.  But I install it on so many other's computers, if it comes down to it, I'll make them pay for Start10 if they really need to.



Bill_Bright said:


> Yeah right. That's like saying the Honda Civic "isn't that good" simply because the Toyota Camry, BMW 5 and a couple others scored higher.



When the Honda Civic fails to get me to work sometimes, which is its only job, then I would say it isn't that good as well.  The fact is, for a good long while, Windows Defender has had pretty shitty detection rates.  And I've had to clean far too many computers that have been infected while Defender just hums happily along like nothings happening.  It's better than nothing, but that's about it.

If you look at the detection rate on AV-Comparitives, Defender is regularly at the bottom for detection rates.  This is last months results:





And this is March's results:





You can keep going back through the months, and the story doesn't really change.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 25, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> If you look at the detection rate on AV-Comparitives, Defender is regularly at the bottom for detection rates. This is last months results:


I find this really hilarious - in a sad sort of way. 

When a review site says something not liked is bad, that is the greatest review site ever and no other reviews count. When a review site says something not liked is good, that is the worst review site ever. FTR, there are several other recent reviews that rate WD highly too. Are they all wrong? 

According to WindowsReport (which is NOT affiliated with MS) and Webroot, 18% of W7 and W8 users, and more than 50% of W10 users are using Windows Defender. That's 100s of millions of users -  including enterprise/business users. Why would businesses risk so much if WD was so lousy as newtekie1 wants us to believe it is?

I'll say this once again - Microsoft does not code Windows Defender to score well on simulated tests. They don't have to. They don't use those scores to market Windows Defender like every other maker  does with their products! MS is not trying to get you to pay for a subscription, an upgraded product, nor do they use embedded ads in WD for revenue - things ALL the other product makers do so they can stay in business.

MS codes WD to perform well in the real real-world. And if it didn't as folks like newtekie1 and others would like us to believe, then all of us Windows Defender users would be infected. But guess what? We aren't. 

Have I seen computers with Windows Defender get infected? Yes. But I have also seen computers just as infected with ________________ (fill in the blank). Why? Because the users failed to keep Windows or their security current, or they were click-happy on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments, or popups, or they participated in illegal filesharing via P2P sites or Torrents, or they visited the seedy side of the Internet. Not because they used this security solution or that security solution. 

****

Again I ask this thread not turn into yet another biased, opportunistic bash at WD. This thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 25, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> According to WindowsReport (which is NOT affiliated with MS) and Webroot, 18% of W7 and W8 users, and more than 50% of W10 users are using Windows Defender. That's 100s of millions of users - including enterprise/business users. Why would businesses risk so much if WD was so lousy as newtekie1 wants us to believe it is?



For the same reason IE is still so widely used. It is bundled with the OS(for 8 and 10), and they perceive it as good enough. I bet if you looked at the adoption rate of Security Essentials on just Win 7, it is pretty bad.



Bill_Bright said:


> I'll say this once again - Microsoft does not code Windows Defender to score well on simulated tests. They don't have to. They don't use those scores to market Windows Defender like every other maker does with their products! MS is not trying to get you to pay for a subscription, an upgraded product, nor do they use embedded ads in WD for revenue - things ALL the other product makers do so they can stay in busines



The detection rates I posted were with real world threats, active during the month of testing, not simulated.



Bill_Bright said:


> MS codes WD to perform well in the real real-world. And if it didn't as folks like newtekie1 and others would like us to believe, then all of us Windows Defender users would be infected. But guess what? We aren't.



There is something you have to realize, I used to recommend Security Essentials/Defender. In fact, there are probably a bunch of posts on this forum of me saying it is good. But you should also realize I support computers for a living. I'm fighting viruses on a daily basis. And I have experienced Defender outright failing when other AVs haven't. I've been called into businesses that had ransomware sweep through their network, and seen first hand that every computer with Defender was infected and screwed, while computers running other free alternatives(mix of Avast and AVG and Comodo) detected the virus and stopped it before any damage was done to the computer.  Sadly, I wasn't their full time IT person, they just called me after the virus hit.  Because if I was, all their computers would be running a free alternative to Defender, and the virus very likely would have been stopped right at the email source in Outlook before the person even had a chance to open it. And this is the reason my go to free AV is Avast.  It offers email scanning as part of the free product.

This is why I trust other free alternatives more than Defender, and this is why I say defender "isn't that good".  If it works for you, and you trust it, great.  But I don't.  And I know no AV is going to be perfect, but I've personally see Security Essentials/Defender fail too many times now to recommend its use when there are other free alternatives out there that at worst are just as good but more likely are better.  The question was asked why I don't use Defender, that this is my answer.  If you don't agree with it, too bad.


----------



## er557 (May 25, 2018)

From further research I concluded avira only interacts with windows firewall, not a separate firewall solution, and bitdefender seems to have only rules or stealth and paranoid mode. What I'm after is a interactive firewall old school style that prompts if an unknown app wants inbound or outbound connection, and eset is one of the few that has such one integrated, and I didn't experience compatibility issues of it with the core windows firewall. The quest continues...


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 26, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> For the same reason IE is still so widely used. It is bundled with the OS(for 8 and 10), and they perceive it as good enough.


It is not about perception. It is about fact. They are not getting infected, so why change? There is no reason. The perception is introduced by the haters spreading falsehoods, just a s happened with IE6 by the Firefox fanboys who insisted IE was unsafe. It was not unsafe if users only kept Windows, their browser, and their security updated just as they had to do regardless their browser. 

I could always stop those FF fanatics in their tracks with one simple question - "Did you stop getting infected just by switching to Firefox?" Not one could say yes. Either they never got infected, but switched because they believed the hype or hated Microsoft, of they didn't just switch to FF, they also changed their computing habits to stay updated, avoided risky behavior, and more.  



newtekie1 said:


> The detection rates I posted were with real world threats, active during the month of testing, not simulated.


When done in a lab, the scenarios are created in the lab and designed to simulate real world.


newtekie1 said:


> But you should also realize I support computers for a living.


And you can see via the link in my signature that I have been supporting computers to support me and my family, quite successfully, for decades. 

It really is not about the brand of the antimalware solution. It is about the user. The best solution out there will not stop an infection if the user lets the bad guy in. And that is how, by far, most infections happen - the user falls for a trick - socially engineered trick - to click on something. Or the user (or sadly, corporate IT) fails to apply a patch in a timely basis. 

No security solution is immune. Windows Defender is very widely used. That suggests more users may be infected simply because of the numbers of users. It does NOT suggest percentage wise, more are. That is something WD bashers fail to see. 

The Honda mechanic could easily be deceived into thinking Hondas are lousy cars because he see broken down Hondas all day. It does not work that way. 

WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better. But like all solutions, it relies on the user keeping Windows current, and not being click-happy.

I am going to say this then move on, because once again, newtekie1 - while we all know you just love to bash WD and MS at every opportunity, this thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.

Windows Defender is probably not for you if any of the following apply:

If you don't keep Windows updated,
If you don't keep your security solution updated,
If you are "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, popups, and attachments,
If you visit illegal pornography or gambling sites,
If you participate in illegal filesharing via Torrents and P2P sites,
If you connect to public "hotspots" with admin level accounts,
If you let undisciplined users use your computer with admin level accounts.
But if those scenarios don't apply to you, then Windows Defender is just fine.

Now let's move on.


----------



## Athlonite (May 26, 2018)

I have to agree with @Bill_Bright  every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC and nothing else I doesn't matter how secure and up to date you make a system it will always rely on the user to not be stupid and unfortunately it would seem that alot of users are just that Stupid and click on stuff they should not be clicking on


----------



## BiggieShady (May 26, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC


Well those infections are the ones that matter, you know, the ones that actually do happen, and they indeed are because of PEBKAC so the antivirus with 100% detection rate here is exactly what's needed on that particular machine ... nevertheless I always advocate windows defender as good enough solution - it requires some minimal amount of common sense that most people thankfully have.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 26, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> It is not about perception. It is about fact.



No it really isn't.



Bill_Bright said:


> They are not getting infected, so why change? There is no reason.



This is entirely true, and the reason they don't change, all the way up until they do get infected that is.  My 70 year old father doesn't wear a seatbelt.  He's made it this far without it, why change, right?  Clearly not wearing a seatbelt is just as good as wearing one.



Bill_Bright said:


> When done in a lab, the scenarios are created in the lab and designed to simulate real world.



Hardly.  The way these tests work is you have known infected files.  You open said files on a sterile machine and see if the AV prevents the infection.  It doesn't get much more real world than that, that's literally how infections happen in the real world.



Bill_Bright said:


> It really is not about the brand of the antimalware solution. It is about the user. The best solution out there will not stop an infection if the user lets the bad guy in. And that is how, by far, most infections happen - the user falls for a trick - socially engineered trick - to click on something. Or the user (or sadly, corporate IT) fails to apply a patch in a timely basis.
> 
> No security solution is immune. Windows Defender is very widely used. That suggests more users may be infected simply because of the numbers of users. It does NOT suggest percentage wise, more are. That is something WD bashers fail to see.
> 
> ...



This whole thing is just...wow...I don't even know where to begin here...OK lets give it a shot...

The primary purpose of an AV solution is to stop an infection when the user makes the mistake.  If it fails to do that, it is not a good AV solution.  Period.  And at the same time, virus producers are working day and night to figure out new ways to trick people into making the mistake.  Social engineering has become a major part of a successful virus.

So it is completely inane to say "Defender is good as long as you don't do anything that would possibly give you a virus".  Yeah, but by that logic, no antivirus is just as good of a solution too...

So, you've now gone full circle, and without even realizing it, have admitted how poor of a solution Windows Defender really is.  If it requires the user never make a mistake and do anything that exposes the computer to a virus, then it actually isn't a good anti-virus.

So, yeah, we can move on now.



Bill_Bright said:


> I am going to say this then move on, because once again, newtekie1 - while we all know you just love to bash WD and MS at every opportunity, this thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.



Uuuhhhh...OK...yeah, try again there slick.  Go look at my post history.  I'm generally the one defending Microsoft, and until this thread I never really even talked about Defender.  The most you'll find of my "bashing" Defender outside of this thread is when someone asks for a suggestion, I suggest Avast or AVG or Comodo.  I guess if that is your definition of bashing, then...well get out of here with your fanboy bullshit.



Athlonite said:


> I have to agree with @Bill_Bright  every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC and nothing else I doesn't matter how secure and up to date you make a system it will always rely on the user to not be stupid and unfortunately it would seem that alot of users are just that Stupid and click on stuff they should not be clicking on



Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error.  That is the primary purpose of an anti-virus.  If we could rely on people just never making an error, we wouldn't even have a need for Defender, and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.



BiggieShady said:


> it requires some minimal amount of common sense that most people thankfully have.



Sadly, not as many people have that common sense as you'd think.  Especially not workers using machines they ultimately aren't responsible for.


----------



## Athlonite (May 26, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error. That is the primary purpose of an anti-virus. If we could rely on people just never making an error, we wouldn't even have a need for Defender, and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.



not always the case I've seen antivirus programs get side stepped as soon as the virus runs which is what the first thing alot of them now try to do so it's still down to PEBKAC and teaching said problems how to be not so stupid


----------



## BiggieShady (May 26, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Sadly, not as many people have that common sense as you'd think. Especially not workers using machines they ultimately aren't responsible for.



Dear diary, 

this morning at work I got unknown executable over email from unknown person, and immediately I ran it as an administrator. 
Another job well done.


----------



## Athlonite (May 26, 2018)

ROFLMFAO @BiggieShady


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 26, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error.


And its a good thing Windows Defender is a good solution or else there would be 100s of millions of Windows Defender users out there using infected systems - a fact the biased Microsoft haters choose to ignore.



newtekie1 said:


> and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.


Yeah right. Because Microsoft has no interest in keeping their customer's computers secure. 

Thinking about the comment, "_Sadly, not as many people have that common sense as you'd think. Especially not workers using machines they ultimately aren't responsible for._"  

First, I think it's insulting to the human race. Common sense really is pretty common - hence the name, "_common_" sense. Second, I think it insulting to suggest we, as technical providers, don't know as much about human nature, or computer users as "_you'd think_". Especially for those of us who have been working with computers, computer/network security, and computer users longer than most on this site have been alive.

Third and most importantly is the all important "T" word. If you own or manage a company, or you are the IT person responsible for maintaining the company's information systems, and you don't properly "*t*rain" your users how to use those company computers safely, then it is YOU who have failed to do your job properly, not the user/worker, or the security programs on those systems. And it is YOU who needs to go back into training, or do your job properly, or be shown the door.

And if a worker is careless because it is not their own personal computer, you retrain, issue a stern warning, or send them packing. It is that simple! I've been supporting large Federal and State networks and computer systems, large corporate networks and computer systems, SOHO networks and computer systems, and personal networks and computer systems for decades. I have successfully trained young kids, invincible teens, adults and seniors. And guess what? It is not hard! Except for the senior of seniors, almost all have been using computers most of their lives.

And if they are employees and they refuse to learn or heed that "common sense", they no longer get access to those company computers and networks. If they need that access to do their jobs, out the door they go. Again, it is that simple.

To suggest a computer gets infected because it has Windows Defender on it instead of Avast, Kaspersky, or some other solution is just being, at best, totally naive.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 26, 2018)

Again, the majority of your post is all about how it doesn't really matter that Defender isn't really a good AV, because the person shouldn't be infecting the computer with a virus in the first place... I'm done with that argument.  It's idiotic.  You know damn well if it was true there would be absolutely no need for anti-virus programs to exist in the first place.  Time to move on Bill, your logic doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 26, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, the majority of your post is all about how it doesn't really matter that Defender isn't really a good AV


NO WHERE did I ever say that. So you can't defend your position with reality so you misrepresent what others are saying? That's really sad. 

I specifically said, "_WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better_".
Then I said, "_Windows Defender is a good solution_". No where did I say or even imply it "isn't really a good AV". You have just demonstrated you make things up and spread falsehoods. 

You are right. It is idiotic. I asked repeatedly to stay on topic and not drag this thread down with biased, misinformed BS about Windows Defender. But you did it again.


newtekie1 said:


> I'm done with that argument.


Oh that would be wonderful, if only true.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 26, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> NO WHERE did I ever say that. So you can't defend your position with reality so you misrepresent what others are saying? That's really sad.
> 
> I specifically said, "_WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better_".
> Then I said, "_Windows Defender is a good solution_". No where did I say or even imply it "isn't really a good AV". You have just demonstrated you make things up and spread falsehoods.
> ...



Try following the logic, I know it is hard, especially when you only read half a sentence.  I'm saying Defender isn't really a good AV, _your _defense has been it doesn't really matter because people should be "trained"  and just use "common sense" and not open viruses in the first place.(Side note: One has to wonder why something requires training if it is common sense, but whatever, just more illogical nonsense.)


----------



## Tatty_One (May 26, 2018)

This place is turning into a chat room, up and down, back and forth arguing, it seems the topic is McAffee so lets stick to that please before I have to add reply bans.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 26, 2018)

Deleted out of respect for Tatty's request.


----------



## CandymanGR (May 26, 2018)

Readlight said:


> i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.


 Do you reinstall just the window, or the frame also?


----------



## er557 (May 26, 2018)

Readlight said:


> i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.



That's a really really bad approach, most times you never know something is wrong until it's too late, either that or you're a master of common sense and recognize threats by intuition. Today's malware is incidious and calls home, unless your machine has NOTHING important one needs an AV and at least an automatic 3rd party firewall, and 3rd party manual spyware scans once in a while.


----------



## John Naylor (May 26, 2018)

1.  I consider myself  hardware / software whore .... brand loyalty doesn't recognize that things change.  

2.  In the most recent Windows 10 test *(December) ,* 13 products cored 6.0 / 6.0 in the testing.  Only Kaspesky  Internet Security 20.5  and McAfee  Internet Security 20.5  scored the trifecta of 6.0 / 6.0 / 6.0 .... McAfee's score was perfect w/o 100% detections in both categories in November and December testing ... Kaspersky had two 0 day malware atatckes get thru.   many times this will often depend on when the test is done ...  A test done on Wednesday will pick up updates downloaded on Tuesday but an update on Monday would miss.  Performance was identical and McAfee had 1 false positive to kaspersky's 1.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/

3.  With the latest test *February* (Win7) Kaspersky again scored the perfect trifecta but McAfee took a hit (5.5) on performance.  McAfee let (1) 0 day attack thru and again had (1) False Positive.  Kaspersky put up 0's across the board.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/

3.  Microsoft's products get bashed and deservedly so for their performance over the years, but in recent times, they have actually done well.  SE scored a 6/0 / 6.0 / 5.5 in February ... however in December, they also let thru (2) 0 day attacks, the real pain was the false positives where they scored a rather dismal 4.0 / 6.0... performace was OK at 5.5 / 6.0

4  As to the specific problem, it is important that whenever a AV suite is downloaded or installed, you also download the removal tool from the manufacturer's web site.  You should get this from the manufacturer's own web site.

5.  Finally, we have had too many support issues with users who have intsalled Chroime browser.  For reasons i can not understand , identical machines, with identical OS and software and Chrome, one has memory issues and one doesn't.   The more astute the user, the problems seem to arise more frequently.  In your situation I would:

a)  Uninstall the <MAfee Suite
b) Use the removal tool on McAfee web site after above
c)  use a registry cleaner to find and remove any reference to anything McAfee

If you still have issues.

d)  https://www.wintips.org/how-to-completely-uninstall-re-install-google-chrome/
e)  Use registry cleaner to find and remove all things Google / Chrome

See if you can install AV of choice


----------



## newtekie1 (May 26, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> 5. Finally, we have had too many support issues with users who have intsalled Chroime browser. For reasons i can not understand , identical machines, with identical OS and software and Chrome, one has memory issues and one doesn't. The more astute the user, the problems seem to arise more frequently.



It wasn't really a chrome issue, as it was happening in Edge too.




John Naylor said:


> In your situation I would:
> 
> a) Uninstall the <MAfee Suite
> b) Use the removal tool on McAfee web site after above
> ...



Luckily all of that wasn't necessary, just removing the McAfee WebAdviser through control panel was enough to fix the issue. 

Though I do carry MCPRT on my flash drive just for times like this if I can't get McAfee uninstalled the normal way. But my flash drive was busy doing an Office install on another computer.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 26, 2018)

The problem is, those laboratory scores really don't mean a whole lot because regardless how realistic they report they are, they are still synthetic. They are synthetic in the way they set up the test computers, they are synthetic in the way they expose the computers to threats, and they are synthetic in the way the testers respond to threats, and they are synthetic in the threats they are exposed too. 

Again, ask yourself, what incentive do 3rd party makers have to rid the world of malware? The answer is, NONE! If malware goes away, so do those businesses. 

What incentive does Microsoft have for malware to go away? Lots. They will stop getting blamed for the actions of the bad guys. 

What incentive do the 3rd party makers have to score well on those synthetic tests? Hopefully, users will buy their Pro versions or continue to use their free versions where the makers get ad money for ads or addons during install. 

What incentive does Microsoft have to score well on those tests? None! They don't get any ad money from Windows Defender. They don't push a pro version. 

So once again, Microsoft does not code to score well on synthetic tests. That is just a waste of their time and resources. Instead, the code to protect for today's threats. And it works or else there would be 100s of millions of infected systems out there. But their are not. 

Sadly, I really don't know of any way to "test" these products, but in a synthetic laboratory environment. Or else I sure would be suggesting it. But it is important for everyone to understand these test must be taken with a grain of salt. For they are still synthetic.


----------



## DRDNA (May 27, 2018)

I need some popcorn for the boxing match, good luck everyone with your AV choices.


----------



## BiggieShady (May 27, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Try following the logic, I know it is hard, especially when you only read half a sentence. I'm saying Defender isn't really a good AV, _your _defense has been it doesn't really matter because people should be "trained" and just use "common sense" and not open viruses in the first place.(Side note: One has to wonder why something requires training if it is common sense, but whatever, just more illogical nonsense.)


I think you got triggered by my (not Bill's) unfounded faith in the certain amount of common sense humanity possess ... nevertheless, the argument wasn't that 'WD should be enough for everyone' ... argument is that only small percentage of people need something stronger than WD. That percentage as the focus of your business, can never be small from your point of view.

EDIT: I have just noticed the warning  so let me expand a bit to be on topic

It's hard to believe that mcaffe is blocking download of another AV install package ... maybe blocking comes from some generic rule from the security suite, for example something silly like blocking a download as http request from the https page ...
When it comes to multiple anti virus suites being used, IMO every AV installer should warn you that you shouldn't install two AV suites, but the warning should come from the AV you are trying to install (not the active anti virus)


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 27, 2018)

BiggieShady said:


> ... argument is that only small percentage of people need something stronger than WD.


I agree, and I listed the criteria for that small percentage in Post #46. 

I never said it wasn't good. Nor did I say it didn't matter if it wasn't good since people need to be trained or have common sense anyway. I said training was required, and that is a business management and business IT responsibility - just as it is a parent's for their children.

And note that is regardless the user's (or admin's) anti-malware solution of choice. 

I have also said many times that, regardless the anti-malware solution of choice, it is also necessary to always have a secondary scanner on hand to verify the user (again, always the weakest link in security) or the primary solution did not let something slip by. I typically recommend Malwarebytes for that.


BiggieShady said:


> When it comes to multiple anti virus suites being used, IMO every AV installer should warn you that you shouldn't install two AV suites, but the warning should come from the AV you are trying to install (not the active anti virus)


A warning is one thing, blocking without the option to continue with the installation is another, and unacceptible issue completely. As I noted in my first post in this thread, I am certain this is a McAfee bug and will quickly be fixed - if it is not just a quirk for the notebook in question. Which brings me to these questions:

@newtekie1 - I see in your opening post you are preparing 2 Dell notebooks. But I don't see in your opening post that McAfee WebAdviser blocked the installation of Avast on both of those notebooks. It seems you only ran into this problem on the first notebook. Did the Avast install go smoothly on the second? Or did WebAdviser (1) not uninstall with the McAfee suite, and (2) did WebAdviser block Avast on the second notebook too? 

Or did you just ensure WebAdviser was gone before attempting to install Avast on the second?

Just wondering if the problem was isolated to one notebook suggesting a quirk? Or both suggesting a trend/bug?


----------



## DRDNA (May 27, 2018)

Outside of the Corporate arena all good Technicians know that in order to set up a PC for an end-user for Security purposes that you have to understand the level of skill and understanding of security that your PC users are capable of and then set up the PC accordingly. This is the beginning of good Technician skills .


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 27, 2018)

That philosophy applies to the family and neighborhood "go-to" computer "expert" too - whether he or she really is an expert, or if they volunteered for that job or not. Sadly, because of the bad guys, all computer users must be aware there are computer risks and threats out there. Fortunately, this "awareness" is something that's been taught, or at least touched upon in schools for many years now. My kids got it, and now their kids are getting it. 

And fortunately, OS and security program developers are pretty sharp too. It really is pretty hard for Windows 10 to get infected - as long as users don't dink with the defaults. In fact, that is one reason more and more bad guys are concentrating their efforts on corporate networks using Linux based systems, instead of Windows users these days

See: Top 22 Favourite Operating Systems of Hackers (2018 List). They are all flavors of Linux!


----------



## newtekie1 (May 27, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> @newtekie1 - I see in your opening post you are preparing 2 Dell notebooks. But I don't see in your opening post that McAfee WebAdviser blocked the installation of Avast on both of those notebooks. It seems you only ran into this problem on the first notebook. Did the Avast install go smoothly on the second? Or did WebAdviser (1) not uninstall with the McAfee suite, and (2) did WebAdviser block Avast on the second notebook too?
> 
> Or did you just ensure WebAdviser was gone before attempting to install Avast on the second?
> 
> Just wondering if the problem was isolated to one notebook suggesting a quirk? Or both suggesting a trend/bug?



I didn't have time to mess with the second one, I made sure McAfee was gone before doing anything.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 27, 2018)

I don't blame you - that's probably what I would have done if they were client systems and I wanted them out the door and into "production".  But it sure would have been interesting to see if it happened on the second too. But even then, it could have been Dell induced and not even McAfee's fault - since proprietary modifications are common with factory assembled computers - especially notebooks. Oh well.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 27, 2018)

Seems there remains a need to reply ban


----------

