RE: SA causing low memory error w/ OE (??)

[mlempert]

Thanks for the response, Peter. I think people have the impression that you have access to the McAfee people and trouble reporting process. If not, you really need to establish a process that integrates you and what you do here in this forum. After all, this site is accessed directly from the McAfee web site.

Their answer to you is disappointing, but most unfortunate is that it's not surprising. McAfee's reputation for support is not very good. I continue to believe they don't even have a clue.

The evidence at this time is overwhelming. SiteAdvisor is responsible for over two months worth of grief for untold numbers of Outlook Express users. Given the popularity of Outlook, the incidence of the problem must be quite high among SiteAdvisor users. During those two plus months, a lot of people have been dedicating time to finding the problem. This should have been done at the very beginning by McAfee. I can understand how such a thing can be missed during pre-implementation testing, but to have ignored the situation after it was brought to attention here and elsewhere is not acceptable. I've said it before, I think they should have at least made a connection with the timing of SiteAdvisor release to the arrival of the problem. How hard would it have been for them to test the product combination ?

Now, with all of that aside, the problem has been identified for them by others; it has been further verified by numerous users; and reported here in reasonable detail. All involved and affected by the problem are at least entitled to an acknowledgement from McAfee. Every day they delay in taking action is another day of frustration for their customers who have not yet figured out what is responsible for their problem and have not found the support forum on Google.

Mike Lempert

[exbrit]

Mike,

I can only suggest that people bombard Technical Support Chat (disable all pop-up blockers) and ask for the matter to be escalated.

We are all unpaid volunteers in the Moderators' group. We can flag things for the various departments, but can't tell them what to do with it.

Occasionally and only occasionally, a McAfee developer will spot a thread and take it on as the current pet theme of the day, so to speak, in which case those people are very lucky.

I had suggested this topic for the weekly Monday night conference call between (some of) the Mods, the forum Admin. and McAfee management, but it was shot down before the call as not a suitable subject.

[br1anstorm]

I am astonished by what ex-Brit reports in his post about McAfee's attitude.

As one of the many victims of this Site Advisor interference with Outlook Express, I reported the details of my experience earlier in the hope this would help other users and give McAfee tech people useful info to help trace the source of the problem. Since then I've been keeping track of discussions here and in the MS forums. I must say that like mlempert I'm surprised - and disturbed - at this latest evidence of McAfee's apparent lack of interest. Responsiveness to customers, and effective troubleshooting, are what makes, or in this case destroys, a company's reputation.

When I finished uninstalling SiteAdvisor (thereby solving my OE problem), the uninstaller directed me to a McAfee web page with a brief survey questionnaire asking why I had removed SA "so that McAfee could take account of the details in their product improvement programme" (or some such phrase). So I dutifully filled in the form and explained clearly and politely the reason for removing SA and the nature of the problems it had caused.

I wonder - was I wasting my time? If I had told them graphically, in the survey, precisely where to shove their product, might my comments have got more attention?

When so many people devote time and effort voluntarily to tracking down software problems, discussing in forums, and offering information to assist the developers/producers in improving or repairing their products, it is shameful that McAfee seems so unconcerned, ungrateful, and unresponsive.

I'll be very interested to learn what McAfee eventually does say, or do, in response to this saga....

br1anstorm

[mlempert]

Hello Brian. I'm glad to see that you too are still following this thread. I've already resigned myself from using McAfee products, but am continuing to follow this as a fascination, or you might say a pseudo case study of poor customer support and relations.

I have just today sent an email to every PR person listed on the McAfee website. Still not a single acknowledgement received. My last act will be a letter to McAfee CEO David DeWalt. This is all pretty well documented and the lack of support is glaringly obvious. If I were in his shoes I'd be chopping some heads. In fact, I used to run a technical organization, and I would have done just that if such incompetence had existed.

But my real purpose of posting this message is to point to the first thread where the problem was discussed: http://community.mcafee.com/showthread.php?t=214027

[Lorac30]

Peter..

I would personally like to thank you for all your efforts concerning SiteAdvisor. Whether or not you were successful in your efforts, I appreciate your time and concern. It means a lot.

I initially started the thread only to make the "issue" with SiteAdvisor known. I wasn't sure at the time, if it was SiteAdvisor related. It should be of no surprise to anyone, I was the last to be convinced. The last to uninstall it. As I've previously noted, I was using it for almost two years. I felt it was an excellent tool and it had served me well. Regrettably, I've been forced to uninstall it and test similar products.

While I may have abandoned SiteAdvisor, I haven't abandoned my initial quest. I wanted to be assured the SiteAdvisor team/McAfee knew a problem existed. There was no way it was going to be addressed, if they had no knowledge of it. I have since contacted a couple of people who I felt might help. Both replied within hours. One twice already. I will be following up with them. Without going into further detail, I'm satisfied the problem is going to be looked into. Whether McAfee chooses to do anything once "looked into", I haven't a clue!!

Carol

[exbrit]

Well, it was, after intitially being rejected as an "unlikely" culprit, one of the subjects for the weekly conference call which was held a couple of hours ago. I wasn't on the call so I have to wait for the results.

[Lorac30]

Good to hear, Peter! According to what I was told last week, they hadn't been made aware of it. I was 'promised' it would be looked into. Perhaps that promised was kept? I'm going to cross my fingers and remain "cautiously" optimistic.

[br1anstorm]

Just checking in to see if there is any up to date news...

Having uninstalled Site Advisor, I'm now trying what seems to be the closest alternative - T****P******, which seems to be working fine and does not mess up Outlook Express.

But - call me sentimental - I'd still like to know if McAfee have addressed the problem and are coming out with a revised or new version of SA that will work properly without interfering with OE. I've seen some dialogue on the AumHa forum suggesting that there might indeed be a new version of SA - or a patch which fixes The OE Problem. Does anyone have more specific information?

br1anstorm

[exbrit]

Per the site admin:

As per the site advisor issue they are basically trying to change the contract, but right now if you have some issue like that please tell the customer to call into the customer service that’s 1 – 866 – 622 – 3911 and raise a ticket and then they would redirect them to the Right Technical support

A better number in the US is 1-866-897-9325 press 4 then 0 between 8am and 8pm Central Time.

Non-N. American users click Customer Service at the top of the page and go from there.

[Lorac30]

Br1anstorm..

I thought I'd insert a few things while you're waiting for a reply. I tested TP in IE for 2 weeks and found it FAR from the closest alternative to SiteAdvisor. (Maybe the way it color-codes. But.. that's about all sad ) As of yet I've found nothing to compare with SA. I guess it's a matter of opinion. I had planned on posting why I thought it's the better of the two at the same forum you referenced, since I feel this would hardly be an appropriate place to do so. Only one reason I prefer it, is that I feel it's important to know why a site is given a certain rating. SiteAdvisor gives it in detail, while TP doesn't at all. It should be no surprise to you, I'm anxiously awaiting to get SA back. Not really why I posted.

I believe the dialogue you saw referenced was in regard to a patch which was due out the week of December 10th. (Not sure if it means "on" or "week of") Read what Shane Keats wrote in his SA blog on December 6th - "Problems Accessing Gmail?". AFAIK.. the patch was only to deal with that specific issue. I don't know if the patch was released or not. Nor do I know if it included a fix for our problem. Maybe we can get some clarification?

Did you originally write you were using SA with FF, when you were experiencing the OE problem? I thought I read where you were. I uninstalled SA from both browser's, when we found SA to be the cause of our OE problem. With all the unknowns listed above regarding the patch, I decided to install the free standalone SA plug-in for FF.. "just to see". Perhaps premature, but as of yet, I have not had a problem. It's only been a little over a day. (I uninstalled TP from IE prior to doing so, and do not have SA installed in IE. That much of a risk-taker, I am not. :rolleyes I installed Version: 26.5. Build: 6176 in FF. I have no idea whether it's a new build or if it addressed our problem. I'm only passing along the information. Perhaps, Peter can confirm some of this. Or Grif, if he's around.

Carol
Sorry Peter. I hadn't seen your post when I hit "submit".