is mackeeper safe on my systems as i have already downloaded and installed it

MacKeeper engaged in unacceptable practices when it was first started, namely a trial version with no uninstaller, then a uninstaller that didn't act correctly, data mined on it's exit, giving itself awards that didn't exist and so forth.

It's the deceptive practice of this company, and it's cost for stuff one can get for free, plus the countless people who have trouble with this software by a bunch of developers that apparently lack a lot of skill or awareness of the Mac platform in general that has drawn the ire of many seasoned Mac users.

So if the company is willing to engage in deceptive practices, what else are they capable of?

Most of all their features are unnecessary on a Mac, speed up does nothing etc., so it's preying on unsuspecting users with problems the MacKeeper folks can't solve.

It's better off the users come here or other support forums where they can get better advice to solve their original problem rather than add another layer with crapware like MacKeeper.

I have installed and removed MacKeeper and can definitely say that what Thomas has written is false.

No you can't, all you can say is that your one single test gave different results.

I will admit that I have not installed, and will not install, MacKeeper. After keeping an eye on the company behind it (Zeobit) for some time, I wouldn't trust it on my machine. (Which is ironic, because I actually did install some variants of the MacDefender malware.)

However, neither does that mean that my claims that MacKeeper left bits behind are false, just because I did not personally observe them. I trust that the back side of the moon exists, even though I have not personally seen that. In order to criticize my information, you must first know more about it, but you have not bothered to do that.

In general, I would agree that basing information solely on a few reports here is not good practice. However, there have been more than a few reports of MacKeeper pop-ups appearing after it is removed here. In addition, I have had a number of private correspondences with people who have told the same story. And this was before I said anything about that on my blog.

I have absolutely no doubts that this was actually happening, based on the number of reports I saw. (Most of which you were not privvy to.) However, I should also note that I have seen absolutely no reports of this behavior lately. So, it is entirely possible that Zeobit removed this behavior once it started having attention drawn to it. That would fit their typical pattern of behavior. For example, a number of people called them out publicly on the fact that they bought the clamxav.org domain and put download links for MacKeeper all over it. Since then, they not only hid the site's ownership behind a service specifically meant for obfuscating that information, they also eventually removed all references to MacKeeper. (The site still remains, however.)

In other words, etresoft, all you really know is that you tested it once and, at that time, it did not display that behavior. To extrapolate from that that my claims are false, especially when you have absolutely no idea what data I am basing my claims on, is not logically sound. But then, your arguments have never suffered from an excess of logic or soundness, so that does not surprise me.

Let me see if I have this straight. I have only test it once. Therefore, I can't possibly be expected to know more about it than someone who has tested it zero times.

Tell me. Who should I put my trust in? A software company that, even according to its enemies, is improving both its product and business practices? Or some random guys on the internet who are repeating derogatory, malicious statements about said company and its software, even though they have never even tried it?

MacKeeper has done nothing to you to warrant such attacks. You have repeatedly tried to sell Mac users on the need for anti-virus, which MacKeeper provides, among a number of other tools. Yet you claim, admitting no direct evidence, that MacKeeper is junk and advise people to install Sophos instead. Perhaps Klaus1 was right after all and there is an anti-virus corporate shill lurking among us.

Your idea of what is and is not good evidence is laughable. Obviously you have never had any real training in any of the sciences.

As to your repeated implications that I am a shill for anti-virus companies, I'm curious as to how exactly I could be a shill for recommending two completely free products, with some very serious limitations on how they are to be used? Especially when I try to emphasize that there is really no need to use those tools?

As to who someone should trust... seems to me that you're telling everyone here that your opinion is the only one that matters, and that we're all wrong. With only one single data point to back you up.

Thomas A Reed wrote:

Obviously you have never had any real training in any of the sciences.

Not unless you count computer science.

As to who someone should trust... seems to me that you're telling everyone here that your opinion is the only one that matters, and that we're all wrong. With only one single data point to back you up.

I am telling people that their opinion is the only one that matters. They should evaluate software themselves instead of relying on the advice of people who have never used it. If they come here asking for help or advice, they should ignore any advice that starts with "I heard on a blog that..." or "People tell me that...". That is just an indicator that the person giving that advice really doesn't have the technical expertise to be saying anything.

So, if someone comes looking to my wife for a diagnosis for their child, do you think it would be appropriate for her to say "Here, read this thick medical book and then tell me what your opinion is?" No. People look to experts for help, not for non-information like "Try it yourself." And very often experts must rely on data gathered from external sources. There is nothing wrong with that, provided adequate samples are obtained. All of science relies on such techniques.

Further, telling a technically unsavvy person to try out software from a company with a proven track record of unethical and dishonest behavior is extremely irresponsible. Kind of like telling a kid "I don't know if jumping out of a tree with a bedsheet will let you glide down like it's a parachute... why don't you give it a try?"

LOL

If I saw this, I might start getting suspicious.

You don't become an expert by reading blogs. You wouldn't trust a doctor that had never been to medical school, never worked in a hospital, and had never actually seen a particular illness or used a particular procedure. If that is the case, the number of medical journals they have read is irrelevant.

I have not advised anyone to try out MacKeeper or any other anti-virus software. You are the one that does that. The original poster has already installed MacKeeper and reports "i have not noticed any problems from my mac". For the record, I actually do recommend removing MacKeeper because anti-virus isn't necessary. If people like any of the other features that MacKeeper provides, then it might be worth keeping. The only part of MacKeeper that I have tried is the uninstaller. I found that it works very well. I know this because I have done it myself. You haven't.

You don't even bother listening, do you? I didn't learn anything on this topic from a blog. And you'd be surprised how often doctors may have to diagnose an illness they have never seen. It happens more often than you would imagine. Doctors cannot see everything in medical school and residency, there's simply not enough time.

As to your recommendations against all anti-virus software... have YOU tried them all? If not, you are actively doing what you criticize me of. Worse, I'm sure you haven't spent time gathering data from anywhere other than a forum to support your conclusions, as I have. Don't tell me they serve no purpose for anyone in the face of the Flashback outbreak, or you'll prove yourself to be biased beyond reason.

Take your endless trolling elsewhere.

Medical school? Residency? What are these things? Some kind of formal training and on-the-job experience? You should give them a try. I highly recommend them.

My recommendations against anti-virus software are based on my knowledge of and experience with UNIX. It isn't like Windows where a virus can install itself in your boot sector. The fact that Flashback was stopped dead in its tracks by MacOS X permissions is lost on people who don't understand those permissions. All they could do is repost "the sky is falling" blog links.

I guess Mac anti-virus software does serve some purpose. They will scan your system for Windows viruses and maybe, if you are lucky, will find some pathetic Mac trojan every ten years or so. I don't consider any software that has less than 1% chance of being useful once every ten years to be a worthwhile recommendation.

I have officially lost interest in this pointless argument. If you want to recommend your favorite software as a solution to people's problems, go right ahead. If you want to trash someone's software that you haven't even tried, based on unverified reports from old versions, expect another fight.

If you want to trash someone's software that you haven't even tried, based on unverified reports from old versions, expect another fight.

Somehow, I'm under the impression that you couldn't care less if he trashes someone's software, unless that software happens to be MacKeeper.

Thomas A Reed wrote:

In general, I would agree that basing information solely on a few reports here is not good practice. However, there have been more than a few reports of MacKeeper pop-ups appearing after it is removed here. In addition, I have had a number of private correspondences with people who have told the same story.

Isn't it possible users are confusing popup ads or other web page stuff with something left over from uninstalling MacKeeper? I just went through this with a user a few weeks ago who was complaining about "popups" after removing it, but it turned out that he mistook the MacKeeper ads that appear on some web pages for something MacKeeper had installed. I suggested running an ad blocker plug in for his browser & that solved the issue, although I'm not sure he ever understood why that worked.

If that isn't it, then can someone please state exactly what files the uninstaller leaves behind that cause the popups to appear? If you are telling people the uninstaller doesn't remove everything, & telling them to "remove" it, then this is vital info, right?

stevejobsfan0123 wrote:

Somehow, I'm under the impression that you couldn't care less if he trashes someone's software, unless that software happens to be MacKeeper.

Yes, of course. Thomas claims that Zeobit pays people to write good reviews. I complain about Thomas' unverified and incorrect claims so I must be a paid "reviewer" for Zeobit - is that it?

You have no clue what you are talking about. Aside from one neat trick MacKeeper does with its uninstaller, I haven't said anything good about it at all. I just haven't posted anything libelous or defamatory about it.

For the record, I don't like anyone bashing something without evidence. I know it was before your time, but something similar happened a few years ago between Parallels and VMWare. My reaction then was about the same as now. Here are some examples:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1826193?answerId=8636695022#8636695022

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1796289?answerId=8493280022#8493280022

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1916805?answerId=9048893022#9048893022

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1536219?answerId=7946255022#7946255022

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1520677?answerId=7201137022#7201137022

At the time, I was one of the few people anywhere that publicly defended Parallels. Ric Ford even e-mailed me once to ask if I worked for them. I didn't work for Parallels than and I don't work for Zeobit now. It turns out I was right about Parallels.

I really don't think Thomas is a shill for Sophos. I'm just pushing his buttons. All this is standard practice and has happened before. I'm not here to praise Zeobit or MacKeeper. All I'm trying to do is get people to think for themselves.

etresoft wrote:

The fact that Flashback was stopped dead in its tracks by MacOS X permissions is lost on people who don't understand those permissions.

Are you ignoring or unaware of the fact that the latest versions of Flashback exploited a vulnerability in Java that did not require elevated privileges to install its payload? What stopped it was Apple's release of a patched version of Java that removed the vulnerability.

This whole subject of malware, MacKeeper, et al has, as it always seems to do, caused a lot of bitter, dogmatic arguments among users who should know better. It doesn't help, it just confuses.

Nobody has answered the OP's question, except in vague ways sadly lacking in practical information. What exactly should he look out for with MacKeeper installed? That's what this topic should be about, not all this pointless bickering!

ds store wrote:

MacKeeper engaged in unacceptable practices when it was first started, namely a trial version with no uninstaller, then a uninstaller that didn't act correctly, data mined on it's exit, giving itself awards that didn't exist and so forth.

Care to explain what you mean by "data mined" & how that negatively affects users who use the currently available uninstaller? I think that information would be something the OP would want to know.