1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next 68 Replies Latest reply: Nov 12, 2012 9:48 PM by MadMacs0 Go to original post
  • 15. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    Linc Davis Level 10 Level 10 (118,405 points)

    I don't recall where the hidden file was. Somewhere in the system-wide Library folder. It had a randomly-generated name beginning with a period.

  • 16. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    You're a better man than I, Pr0digy V.! Every time I try to inject a little sanity into the anti-MacKeeper rants I get accused of everything from being an idiot to a shill.

     

    Zeobit claims it is an organized campaign from one of their competitors and there is some credence to that. Back in early 2009 there was a similar campaign against Parallels. I got duped myself and bought a copy of VMWare while it was on sale, just in case. At least that allowed me to see clearly that both products were virtually identical, with Parallels slightly more stable. I made it a point not to fall for any internet groupthink again.

     

    One of the key anti-MacKeeper points was that the uninstaller either did not remove all files or actually sabotaged your system. I downloaded MacKeeper (in a VM), installed it, and removed it. Not only did the uninstaller work perfectly, it was actually quite slick. The application watched itself and when you put it into the trash, it would ask if you wanted to remove the rest of it. People have since backed off on that point and claim that the newer versions are better. Who doesn't write better Mac software over time? Intuit abandonned the Mac market altogether for years and no one ranted about that - they ranted about Apple not supporting Intuit.

     

    I don't think any Mac users need antivirus or "clean up" software. The operating system will do both on its own. As for their advertising, I find it over the top with way too many pop-ups. But it does seem to be very effective. Why stop doing something when it works so well?

  • 17. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    MadMacs0 Level 4 Level 4 (3,735 points)

    Something that I didn't see mentioned was a few reports (I am unable to check with my setup) of hard disks being filled up with invisible files. I've seen this with other utilities that provide a quick way to "unerase" a file that has been trashed. In order to do this as rapidly as possible, they keep a copy of everything that is erased in a hidden directory so that when the user requests it be restored it can be done as quickly as possible without having to resort to scanning freespace for it. The other app that I'm familiar with monitors the amount of freespace remaining on the hard drive and starts permanently removing files to make room, starting with the oldest to have been erased.

     

    When the users I mentioned uninstalled MacKeeper it suddenly freed up a large amount of hard drive space, leading me to believe that the uninstall process removes a hidden directory full of previously erased files. Perhaps you can confirm this for us.

  • 18. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    According to MacKeeper's web site, its File Recovery is the passive type that just scans free space and recovers certain well-defined file types. Before Time Machine days, I paid $80 for FileSalvage to recover some important documents. Perhaps the "Shredder" feature scrambles free disk space too.

     

    MacKeeper is just a catch-all of a number of utilties that range from useful, to not-necessary, to redundant, to dangerous. If Zeobit just dumped the antivirus and "clean up" modules (not-necessary and dangerous, respectively parts of MacKeeper, I would have a much easier time defending it.

  • 19. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    cozar Level 2 Level 2 (340 points)

    One thing, though - it keeps the support forums busy rescuing data from messed up systems. And as for advertising, ClamXav´s Mark Allan wasn´t happy about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7YXcjadks&feature=channel_video_title

  • 20. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    cozar wrote:

     

    One thing, though - it keeps the support forums busy rescuing data from messed up systems.

     

    Not as busy as Apple keeps them


    And as for advertising, ClamXav´s Mark Allan wasn´t happy about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd7YXcjadks&feature=channel_video_title

     

    From the misinformation I've heard, this was supposedly some overzealous marketing services. That sort of thing seems quite popular with anti-virus folks. The whole industry is shady. If someone wants to bash anti-virus, fine. But when they start bashing only one anti-virus product and promoting another, that raises a red flag for me. The clamxav.org site is a good example. The site is still up. The big green "free download" button is still there. Buit now it directs the user to AVG instead of MacKeeper or ClamXav. Apparently nobody has any problem with that.

  • 21. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    MadMacs0 Level 4 Level 4 (3,735 points)

    etresoft wrote:

     

    The site is still up. The big green "free download" button is still there. Buit now it directs the user to AVG instead of MacKeeper or ClamXav. Apparently nobody has any problem with that.

    I haven't visited the site since they took the big green button off and you are the first to mention the AVG connection.

     

    I visited the site with three different browsers and am not seeing a big green button anywhere???

  • 22. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    thomas_r. Level 7 Level 7 (27,985 points)

    Unfortunately, you're at the end of any productive help you might have gotten. Based on some of the posts (and posters) that have showed up, this topic will simply degenerate into pointless arguments.

     

    The problem you're going to have getting decent information here is threefold. First, any mention of MacKeeper usually triggers extremely negative responses. There's good reason for that, but it gets in the way of someone who is trying to gather information to assist with testing and review.

     

    Second, none of the experts here, to my knowledge, have actually installed MacKeeper (except for etresoft, who installed a trial version once, very briefly). So none of us are likely to be of any help to you in describing first-hand experiences with MacKeeper.

     

    Third, MacKeeper is a moving target. When people start complaining about something too much (like the stuff its uninstaller used to leave behind), it changes. One could argue that this is good customer service, but knowing other things about the company's behavior, it feels like something else.

     

    If you are able to successfully run some decent tests of MacKeeper, I would love to read the review that you write! (Hopefully, even if you don't find any problems with the software, you'll keep in mind the unethical marketing practices of Zeobit, including falsified "reviews" on sites with domain names similar to their competition.) Where would we find it when it's ready?

  • 23. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    jayv. Level 4 Level 4 (1,230 points)

    You are probably right

    I have had my own negative experiences with MacKeeper in the past so i know the damage it can do, i just have not been able to reproduce much of it this time around (with the level of detail i'd like). As my review focussed on Antivirus i had tested the antivirus feature first. To be fair, the application ran very nice, processor and RAM consumption was very low. It only found one test virus (EICAR test fiile) and skipped PC virus and two versions of MacDefender so it's fairly useless.

     

    Moved on to the other features of MacKeeper just to add to the review and warn people about what it can do to your Mac. The cleanup feature (binary stripper and language stripper) caused damage to the point of the Macs (used a few different Macs in testing to see if results were consistent) had to be re-installed. No permission repair, diskwarrior etc could save those apps as the code was simply just damaged.

     

    Did not go on to test backup, anti-theft, shredder and other features, i believe the cleanup results show enough.

    Is there a way to get a message to you?

  • 24. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    LexSchellings Level 5 Level 5 (5,690 points)

    Hi Thomas,

          Second, none of the experts here, to my knowledge, have actually installed MacKeeper (except for etresoft, who installed a trial version once, very briefly). So none of us are likely to be of any help to you in describing first-hand experiences with MacKeeper.

         In this thread Linc and Etresoft said to have installed Mackeeper, and tried it, they found that it was impossible to delete everything by uninstalling.

    I have (knowing it was scam software) tried it three times (SL, Lion) in a non-production mac: uninstalling completely was impossible (even in KeychainAccess it left remnants), some files found were different everytime, two of the installations did not generate issues as far as I could see, one caused errors and other issues (in this case I had to do a clean install of the OS, as Linc did). In all situations Mk did nothing that is not already in OS or is free from other programmers.

    I missed here that Mk is selling the installed user base to earn money, I could not verify that, but Linc and you might know.

    Thanks for your post.

  • 25. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    MadMacs0 wrote:

     

    I haven't visited the site since they took the big green button off and you are the first to mention the AVG connection.

     

    I visited the site with three different browsers and am not seeing a big green button anywhere???

    It seems to be a rotating ad. Right now it is going to "Instant FTP site" and if I refresh, then I get the AVG ad which then never changes.

  • 26. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    Thomas A Reed wrote:

     

    Third, MacKeeper is a moving target. When people start complaining about something too much (like the stuff its uninstaller used to leave behind), it changes. One could argue that this is good customer service, but knowing other things about the company's behavior, it feels like something else.

    Even if MacKeeper really is the world's #1 scam software, why wouldn't Zeobit want to improve it? Wouldn't it be better scam software then? Is the idea that Zeobit is so evil that they want to actually damage someone's system if they try to remove it? I see no evidence of that. All I see is a company better at selling software than writing it. Zeobit is actively updating the program and trying to imrpove it - something you can't say about all Mac software.

  • 27. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    MadMacs0 Level 4 Level 4 (3,735 points)

    etresoft wrote:

     

    It seems to be a rotating ad. Right now it is going to "Instant FTP site" and if I refresh, then I get the AVG ad which then never changes.

    Ah, most of my browsers block the ads and the one that didn't was showing me something else at the time.

     

    Originally there was always a big green button for MacKeeper and after a few months of protest a smaller link to ClamXav finally appeared and then some months later the big green button was totally gone. I guess they (the agressive advertiser) has changed tactics and customers.

     

    I believe the other site they faked was for MacPaws' CleanMyMac.

  • 28. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    MadMacs0 Level 4 Level 4 (3,735 points)

    Pr0digy V. wrote:

     

    Is there a way to get a message to you?

    Use http://www.reedcorner.net/contact/.

  • 29. Re: MacKeeper, in detail please
    etresoft Level 7 Level 7 (24,270 points)

    LexSchellings wrote:

     

    In this thread Linc and Etresoft said to have installed Mackeeper, and tried it, they found that it was impossible to delete everything by uninstalling. I have (knowing it was scam software) tried it three times (SL, Lion) in a non-production mac: uninstalling completely was impossible (even in KeychainAccess it left remnants), some files found were different everytime, two of the installations did not generate issues as far as I could see, one caused errors and other issues (in this case I had to do a clean install of the OS, as Linc did).

     

    The state of installers and uninstallers on MacOS X has always been very poor. If you want to blame someone for a bad uninstaller, blame Apple. This is where Apple really is ten years, or more, behind Windows. Only App Store apps have a decent, system-supported uninstall process. Although I missed MacKeeper's original uninstall process, from what I understand most of the continuing complaints about it stem from it not removing log, cache, and preference files. I didn't even bother to check for those because I don't know of any apps that remove those files.

     

    Writing installers and uninstallers is just a painful, thankless task. There is nothing fun about it. One of the best things about the Mac App Store is that you don't have to deal with putting together an installer or uninstaller. You don't have to worry about PackageMaker. You don't have to deal with the funky, undocumented DMG files. I'm sorry, but when I saw MacKeeper's new uninstaller, I thought that was one of the slickest things I had seen in a long time. If I ever write any software that has a launch agent for background tasks, I will follow MacKeeper's example for an uninstaller.

     

    In all situations Mk did nothing that is not already in OS or is free from other programmers.

     

    All situations? I don't know of a free undelete tool. There is a lot that Apple puts into the OS that is practically impossible for end users to figure out. You want encryption, Apple gives you FileVault and that's all. You can encrypt just one file or folder too, but Apple won't help with that. I see no problem in any application making built-in tasks easier to perform. My complaints are with the antivirus and "clean up" portions. Those are free from other programmers but that doesn't make them a good idea regardless of where they come from.