backtop

Print 78 comment(s) - last by s404n1tn0cc.. on May 9 at 2:41 PM
Today isn't a good day for McAfee users running Windows XP SP3

Virus protection software like Norton Antivirus and McAfee Total Protection are supposed to protect your personal machines (along with corporate machines) -- they're not supposed to wreak havoc on your system. Well, McAfee has quite a crisis on its hands today and we're sure that IT admins across the globe are probably going crazy right now.

According to the New York Times, McAfee issued a routine software update today (5958 DAT) which detected a false positive for the w32/wecorl.a virus in svchost.exe. As a result, McAfee deletes the file and systems running Windows XP SP3 began a continuous reboot into hell.

McAfee has issued the following statement regarding the serious problem according to Krebs on Security:

McAfee is aware that a number of customers have incurred a false positive error due to incorrect malware alerts on Wednesday, April 21. The problem occurs with the 5958 virus definition file (DAT) that was released on April 21 at 2.00 PM GMT+1 (6am Pacific Time).

Our initial investigation indicates that the error can result in moderate to significant performance issues on systems running Windows XP Service Pack 3.

The faulty update has been removed from McAfee download servers for corporate users, preventing any further impact on those customers. We are not aware of significant impact on consumer customers and believe we have effectively limited such occurrence.

McAfee teams are working with the highest priority to support impacted customers and plan to provide an update virus definition file shortly. McAfee apologizes for any inconvenience to our customers.

For those that need an immediate fix for the problem, please visit this McAfee webpage for detailed steps to get your machine up and running. Unfortunately for now, it appears that this fix must be applied to each and every machine individually and cannot be deployed from a central location – oops.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Brutal
By Cr0nJ0b on 4/21/2010 3:54:58 PM , Rating: 5
THIS IS F*$&ING BRUTAL!!!

I work for a company with like 20,000 users and as far as I can tell, no one can use their computers!!

FU Mcafee!!

This is worse than any virus outbreak I've ever seen.

Users can't login to networks, no email, nothing!




RE: Brutal
By Spuke on 4/21/2010 4:09:40 PM , Rating: 5
I have never used that piece of malware known as McAfee AV. I won't use Norton either.


RE: Brutal
By Spuke on 4/21/2010 6:50:05 PM , Rating: 5
Both apps are pure junkware. Rate me down all you want.


RE: Brutal
By Lazarus Dark on 4/21/2010 9:39:02 PM , Rating: 3
Been using Avast for several years now. I used to use AVG, but had too many issues with some of the media programs I use. Years ago, I took Norton off of every computer of my friends and family and replaced it with AVG, then Avast... it cut down on my tech calls by 90%.


RE: Brutal
By Etern205 on 4/22/2010 9:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
If I was a malware and want to wreck havok, I'll stay away from Crapafee and Suckmantec since they're always hogging my precious ram! :P


RE: Brutal
By jhb116 on 4/22/2010 7:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Something similar happened roughly 10 years ago - McA$$ software wouldn't allow AOL to login - why have AV software if it wouldn't allow you to get on the I-Net. At the time - they were the biggest ISP and yes they suck(ed) too.


RE: Brutal
By The0ne on 4/22/2010 10:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for you and the others here IT departments are deploying MacAfee and Norton in corporate environments. Some are making the decision purely on ignorance, as most IT people are (don't believe me, attend some of MS seminars), some due to contracts and a few because they have no other choice (cost, management pricks, etc.).


RE: Brutal
By BikeDude on 4/21/2010 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is worse than any virus outbreak I've ever seen.


The few times when I've needed AV, it has failed to detect malware as a threat. A few weeks ago, my wife's computer got infected with something, and ESET told us... the day after. Brilliant. I could've managed that much on my own.


RE: Brutal
By borismkv on 4/21/2010 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 3
See, this is what change management and compliance testing are for. To make sure something like this doesn't happen to 20000 people at once. It really isn't McAfee's fault that your whole company went down. It's your IT Department's fault for not testing the patches before deploying them (Best Business Practices? What are those?)


RE: Brutal
By TheDoc9 on 4/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Brutal
By bdot on 4/21/2010 5:41:47 PM , Rating: 5
I think most of us are dealing with undersized IT departments. You clearly have an over sized one if you have time to test daily virus definition releases.


RE: Brutal
By Performance Fanboi on 4/21/2010 5:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
If I was in that situation I'd want it in writing that management won't fund staffing for closed testing. Since finance likes to cut I.T. first they should be on the hook when failure to fund proper practices bites the whole network in the a55.


RE: Brutal
By bdot on 4/21/2010 6:06:36 PM , Rating: 4
my cap budget is full of that trust me. I threatened management with snail mail this year if they didn't want to cough up the cash to replace our GroupWise mail server.

PS. I'm not the one who inflicted GroupWise on my company.


RE: Brutal
By cochy on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brutal
By Spuke on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brutal
By GreenEnvt on 4/21/2010 8:34:49 PM , Rating: 3
Before switching all our offices to Google apps, we were split exchange/Groupwise.

Now I can't speak for how well the groupwise side was administered, because I only controlled our office which ran exchange. I can tell you that our users in the Novell office were desperate to get rid of both Novell on the network side, and groupwise for e-mail.

After switching to Google apps, our exchange users were mixed about liking it and not, but almost every single groupwise user was much more happy with Google Apps.


RE: Brutal
By damianrobertjones on 4/22/2010 3:19:21 AM , Rating: 1
POS exchange? Are you REALLy serious? I administer four exchange servers and have for over 8 years.

How many problems have I experienced?

None. Zero, nadda.

Again, if you're a good admin and maintain exchange, you won't have problems.


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:33:02 AM , Rating: 1
Indeed. Exchange is pretty f'n solid.


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
Exchange fan here but you're spot on. Groupwise is fine. See admin.


RE: Brutal
By bdot on 4/22/2010 10:31:53 AM , Rating: 3
As a GroupWise admin I think I am more frustrated with it then the users even are. Just Novell in general drives me nuts. PCs take a very noticeable performance hit from the Novell client. ConsoleOne (the only way to admin GroupWise) blows goats.

I love Novell's tech support articles:
Problem--GW8 has a bug when trying to print more then 5 e-mails at once.
Solution--Print less

PS My GW server is pretty stable, just administering it sucks, and most users prefer Outlook (The connector is buggy so don't go there).


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/21/2010 6:01:11 PM , Rating: 3
It's nothing to do with staffing. Works smarter dude.

When you rollout your AV do it to a test group (say IT staff and some "IT friendly" representatives from other departments). Next day roll out everywhere else.

Same thing with security updates etc.

Unless you've got something out there with a known exploit you can take an extra day to do it right.

This is just an *example*. You can form your policy however you want but running with no patch management policy at all is f'n retarded.

...and McAfee still sucks btw..


RE: Brutal
By theslug on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brutal
By borismkv on 4/21/2010 7:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
And that's the problem. It is fantastically easy to test patches and virus updates prior to deployment. ePO in general is a piece of crap, but you can't put all the blame on a piece of crap software suite if the IT department isn't following industry best practices. If an IT department is too small to implement those practices, you just point the bean counters to situations like this where the entire company was shut down for a day due to faulty software.


RE: Brutal
By afkrotch on 4/21/2010 8:19:46 PM , Rating: 3
We always test these out. You simply push the update to the IT department's computers and let it stew for a day. After that, push it to a limited set of users (typically 10) and let it stew for a day there. The IT department doesn't use all the programs our users use. After that, push to everyone.


RE: Brutal
By angryplayer on 4/22/2010 1:20:24 AM , Rating: 3
Completely agree. Process is everything. Although if I were you, I'd only kick it out to half your IT department - half of security, half of helpdesk, half of infrastructure, etc. Don't want to conk out your whole IT department if something like this came through :p


RE: Brutal
By afkrotch on 4/23/2010 1:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
Even if it conks out our comps, it's not a big deal. I'm leaving out servers, as we have testbed servers for this kind of testing. No patch goes on servers without extensive testing.


RE: Brutal
By Hieyeck on 4/23/2010 9:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
But who'd fix YOUR computers then? Safety first!


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:36:53 AM , Rating: 3
They should be treated just like security patches.

Test groups get daily updates and the rest of the company gets something like weekly. Also, just as with security patches if there is a known exploit or outbreak in the wild you step up the pace. Only in the case of a known major outbreak would you roll out without testing.

This is not a new problem. Other AV definitions from many companies have caused similar problems in the past.


RE: Brutal
By bdot on 4/21/2010 6:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
We take our patching seriously but if McAfee is like Symantec the corporate definitions are daily and we don't have time to test everyday.

We are a telco so for most things we do change management out the a55.


RE: Brutal
By borismkv on 4/21/2010 7:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
The preferred method is to set up two deployment schedules (AV Servers have group management capabilities that allow you to determine who gets what update when). Have patches deployed on 20-30 computers across the network one day. That gives you 24 hours to stop the full deployment if something breaks.

The big problem is that most IT departments aren't willing to spend an extra hour or two configuring the software to work according to a plan. And that's where the company loses a million dollars because of a full day of unexpected down time.

With all that said, if you haven't moved your infrastructure to Windows 2008 and Windows 7, you're working harder than you need to (in addition to having to deal with this screwed up definition).


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big problem is that most IT departments aren't willing to spend an extra hour or two configuring the software to work according to a plan.


Yep. It's not like it costs *ongoing* man hours to do this. You can automate the testing process.

quote:
With all that said, if you haven't moved your infrastructure to Windows 2008 and Windows 7, you're working harder than you need to


Amen brother go tell it on the mountain!


RE: Brutal
By The0ne on 4/22/2010 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize you're asking WAY WAY too much for people to work smarter. To test a DAT file on a VM XP machine. That's just too hard and takes to damn long! That 10min can't be spent watching youtube videos for Christ sake.

Seriously, IT guys complaining their job is hard and there's not enough time? Try design engineering, or any engineering for that matter.


RE: Brutal
By Performance Fanboi on 4/21/2010 5:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Have to agree with you. Letting McAfee, Microsoft, or anyone automatically update system wide is not supposed to happen but we all know it does.


RE: Brutal
By theslug on 4/21/2010 6:01:54 PM , Rating: 5
It is not made clear whether this was a software patch or a regular virus definition update. For patches to any program, yes IT should test them. For virus definitions, no. Those are pushed automatically by the vendor like in this case and are deployed too often (daily) to be tested every time before going out to the end users.


RE: Brutal
By VaultDweller on 4/21/2010 7:55:30 PM , Rating: 4
That will not fly in most organizations.

Sure, you could hold back anti-virus updates for a day before deploying... but no, there is almost no point in running anti-virus software if you do so. AV defintions need to be pushed out immediately. If they aren't, then they're next to useless.

And yeah, McAfee really should have some internal testing procedures. They pushed out a definition update that renders every system on which it is installed unusable. HOW could they possibly let that through quality control? The dat file was clearly not even tested on a single test system by McAfee.


RE: Brutal
By Smilin on 4/23/2010 10:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not true.

If there is a known outbreak you can do an immediate rollout. Same with security updates..if there is an exploit in the wild you move fast.

Otherwise you TEST both AV defs and security updates before you roll them out. Get two different install schedules going and apply one of them to a test group and the other to the rest of the company.

It's just common sense best practice. Why do you think there is an "approve" button on update servers?

If you disagree and think this is not a good practice then how do you explain this current mess?


RE: Brutal
By afkrotch on 4/21/2010 8:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say it's both their IT department's fault for not catching the problem before it became a problem and it's McAfee's fault for releasing such a patch.


RE: Brutal
By Performance Fanboi on 4/21/2010 5:36:08 PM , Rating: 4
But according to the McAffe spindoctors it's only "moderate to significant performance issues". I'm glad they don't make airplanes.


RE: Brutal
By Etern205 on 4/21/2010 7:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can do is just pop in the disc, run repair computer and select system restore.

Oh wait...


RE: Brutal
By Shawn on 4/21/2010 11:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
This happened at my work too. I don't think we have 20,000 users, but every Windows computer in the 5 story biology department where I work was out today. Really screwed everything up. Couldn't get stuff done today.


RE: Brutal
By dewlim on 4/22/2010 1:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Oh man.. feel so bad for you. God help the IT admins!


RE: Brutal
By FITCamaro on 4/22/2010 12:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Knocked out over 50,000 computers in the company where I work.

And yes McAfee is a piece of crap.


RE: Brutal
By neelsblom on 4/25/2010 5:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% - I'd rather take my chances with running a PC without ANY antivirus protection than use this piece of Malware disguised as Antivirus software!

I'm an IT technician at a big university and unfortunately most of the campus machines are running McAfee and even students are forced to have it installed on their own private computers that they brought from home to use while theyre studying here.

The statement was made that McAfee is no different than malware... let's see...

Malware often uses up lots of system resources and slows down your PC to the point of making it unusable - yeah, McAfee does that.
Malware sometimes prevents your Windows OS from functioning properly and even makes it impossible to log on.. yep they've got that covered too.
Malware does not prevent "competitors'" malware from wreaking havoc and spreading freely... Hmmm judging by the number of PCs that I've worked on with up-to-date McAfee definitions and still terribly infected with malware I'd say this is a yes as well.
Malware is often very hard or impossible to completely remove from a PC, sometimes preventing antivirus software from being installed after it's been introduced to a PC - McAfee likewise.
Malware names often have absurd combinations of capital and small letters... can you spell M-c-A-f...

Well.. if it quacks like a duck...


Good day?
By thurston on 4/21/2010 7:34:11 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Today isn't a good day for McAfee users running Windows XP SP3


Is their ever a good day for McAfee users?




RE: Good day?
By fatedtodie on 4/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good day?
By marvdmartian on 4/22/2010 9:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with ditching McAfee, but there's still plenty of systems that run XP well, with no reason to update.
1. netbooks (how many out there with XP??)
2. businesses whose software runs fine with XP, who didn't want to "upgrade" to Vista, and see no reason to run Win7.

Did you consider that, "big boy"??


RE: Good day?
By Cullinaire on 4/22/2010 6:26:00 AM , Rating: 3
If I correct the grammer (sic) of a 6 post, does that mean I get downrated to -2?


RE: Good day?
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:31:28 AM , Rating: 3
No, but that was a pretty stupid thing to give a 6 to. It's true but not enlightening and funny but not hilarious. Meh.


RE: Good day?
By thurston on 4/24/2010 3:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you try it and see what happens?


McAfee?
By ChugokuOtaku on 4/21/2010 3:53:54 PM , Rating: 5
that company is still in business?




RE: McAfee?
By HWAddict77 on 4/21/2010 3:59:40 PM , Rating: 5
TODAY they are . . .


Holy Crap
By Spivonious on 4/21/2010 4:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
How did this get through McAfee QA?

Anyway, all this proves is that most users of McAfee don't get the most recent updates, or we'd be hearing about this a lot more.




RE: Holy Crap
By DanNeely on 4/21/2010 4:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
If McAfee had a QA dept they wouldn't have shipped any of the software they've written in the last decade+.


RE: Holy Crap
By ipay on 4/22/2010 1:05:16 PM , Rating: 3
Now ^that's worth a 6.


F*@#$ McAfee!!!
By ashtonmartin on 4/21/2010 8:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
My company's network went down because of this bug. Over 100,000 employees had their computers downed. McAfee sucks!




RE: F*@#$ McAfee!!!
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
No, your company's network went down because your retarded IT department doesn't have proper patch management in place.

100k people with no testing AT ALL?


RE: F*@#$ McAfee!!!
By geddarkstorm on 4/22/2010 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
As someone else pointed out: where was McAfee's patch testing before they rolled this out, I wonder? I smell a fail chain.


RE: F*@#$ McAfee!!!
By Brazos on 4/22/2010 2:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
My corporation (75k users)IT department only tests the Windows images and the software used internally. There's no way they can test DAT updates as well. There's too many updates. They depend on McAfee to do that unfortunately. They do test MS updates since they normally happen only once per month and if good they push them out after testing.


Ouch!!
By carnage519 on 4/21/2010 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 1
This is why I've taken every place I've worked with to ESET NOD32.. Light on resources, always works, and if I run into any problems the next signature or pre-release they give me fixes the widespread issues.




RE: Ouch!!
By Smilin on 4/21/2010 4:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
How would the next signature or pre-release go back and make all the computers in your organization bootable again so that you install it?


RE: Ouch!!
By eddieroolz on 4/21/2010 5:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. NOD32 is excellent, non-invasive and does what it's supposed to do, quietly. Unlike Norton and McAfee.

Though NOD32 does have its flaws; 64-bit NOD32 doesn't like rainmeter for some reason.


McAfee, Norton, Symatec...
By Motoman on 4/21/2010 6:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
...they've been utter crap for years. YEARS.

AVG or Avast. Either way.




RE: McAfee, Norton, Symatec...
By neelsblom on 4/25/2010 5:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
FYI the last time I used AVG (last year) it wasn't very effective at detecting some malware anymore either :(

I stick with Antivir or Avast (or NOD32 as far as non-free options go) - they actually do the job without making a huge fuss and what's more, the former two options are completely free for home use :) Also, these don't make a habit of "crapping their pants" in public every now and then ;-)

You're right - McAfee, Symantec/Norton, and Trend Micro are all worthless pieces of junk that only wastes precious bytes on a hard drive by having their filthy lines of code leave their unworthy footprints upon its sectors...!


Funny
By karielash on 4/22/2010 3:58:13 AM , Rating: 2

This has to be the funniest shit in a long time....




RE: Funny
By Smilin on 4/22/2010 9:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
lol for those of us on the outside of the event, yes. :)


WTF they should be shot!
By Cr0nJ0b on 4/21/2010 4:10:10 PM , Rating: 3
"Moderate to Significant performance issues"???

Try complete loss of system availability!

"windows DCOM Process Launcher error your system will reboot in 45 seconds" (REBOOT)

repeat.




ePolicy fortune
By webdawg77 on 4/21/2010 4:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
Luckily I read about this before the "DAT update" done by our ePolicy server in the evenings. I disabled the update task and made the server pull down the new 5959 DAT.

As far as I can tell, there's only one notebook out in the wild that actually has 5958 on it. However from what I've seen it doesn't become an issue until it tries to run a scan with 5958 as the DAT file. More than likely I'll be able to get a hold of that machine before the next scan.

To agree with above posters, I cannot believe this got through Q&A (maybe they don't use XP anymore).




F**k you McAfee
By Lazlo Panaflex on 4/21/2010 4:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're fired!

/flips the bird




My company hit hard
By Brazos on 4/21/2010 9:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
My company has 60,000 pc's worldwide and I bet half were hit. Turns out we don't ck Mcafee updates, just link to their servers for the updates. Ouch. Wonder if we get any money back?




By Zillatech on 4/21/2010 9:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped using Norton and McAfee years ago. I can't believe people still pay money for that horrible software. All it does is junk up your machine.

ESET NOD32 FTW !!!




By MCaheehater on 4/22/2010 2:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's a well-known that MCafee antivirus is a criminal crap, as a software vendor I know how they like to detect a virus in every innocent file. More than a half of my own software is detected as a viruses with MCAfee from time to time, and it's impossible to contact them regarding that, even if you do that - they don't respond. This company is absolutely not responsible for all things they do! they damage others businesses without any responsibility! Great!

Moreover, MCafee site Advisor is also a pure criminal crap, and it's weird Yahoo search uses it!

I hate a crappy, buggy, slow and full of false positives MCAfee antivirus , I never used it and I'm happy, but they're anyway ripping me off via their fraudulent siteadvisor.com website. Why MCAfee Site Advisor is a fraudulent service?

1) The websites are scanned for security issues about ONCE A YEAR. That's not a joke, see http://www.siteadvisor.com/webmasters/index.html#
citing:

"-- How long does this re-assessment period last?
--The re-assessment period can vary from as few as 10 calendar days to as many as 365 calendar days."

Is it good for a real security? The URLs and files on modern websites are updated very often, so scanning a website once a year is completely useless and even dangerous and malicious practice. It may damage website's owners business and ruine the reputation. Of course, MCAfee doesn't care. Why? Well, I'll explaint that later.

2) MCafee siteadvisor is based on a reputation system, where random users are posting their comments with a site rating. That's a great chance for competition to publish a black PR feedback and reduce a competing website rating. Moreover, most users posting the comments there are mcafee BOTS - not people, which are given the most powerful rating 9/9, so you cannot even dispute their posts! What a crap, a machine revolution??

3) MCAfee is interested to assign a bad rating to a website. First, more red sites - more scares, and their users can see, how MCafee software is useful to protect them - even if innocent website is blocked.
The most important part of that is MCAFEE EARNS NONEY on SiteAdvisor, although the end-user software is free. How? That's simple- if you don't want to see your site blocked by SiteAdvisor, you can PAY to mcafee to have a green rating "Tested daily by MCAfee".
That green rating DOES NOT mean a 100% safe website for end-user, for example, I personally saw that refog.com website, containing a commercial spy software, had a green "Tested by MCAfee" rating for years!! Also the sites are scanned so rarely, that MCAfee ratings actually MEAN NOTHING.
So who needs this useless website rating system? Only MCafee!

MCafee is interested to put a red rating on your website! Actually, one of my websites has a red rating , and while trying to find out why, I've found out that some files listed as a "viruses" don't even exist on my website, and the date is from Sep 2009 , more than 6 months ago!!
Also some of definitely innocent and proven downloads are listed as trojans and viruses! OK, I've contacted their support, they even replied me the next day, but NOTHING has changed, now a month after my request! I also saw that some well-known websites like www.snapfiles.com were suffering because of MCAfee blocking.
There was also a story in some blog about a website owner, who stopped to pay to MCafee for a green rating, and after some time his rating was changed to yellow for no real reason! They remind "not forget to pay them"!

A great advice - stay away from this "security" scam, the main purpose of which is to steal your money. There are enough free solutions available - like Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG, AVast, Avira etc. Not all of them are great, but at least they are free. And actually the chance of being infected with something really dangerous is low, if you just learn a basic secrity rules of surfing the web!
Finally, the creators of the service are scammers themselves! See http://pcworld.about.com/od/securit1/McAfee-Anti-f...

Find out more criminal facts about MCafee by searching Google for "MCafee fraud"!




Shame!!
By s404n1tn0cc on 5/9/2010 2:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Tooo BAD..Mcafee your supposed to protect us not to F%^$#%$ us up. I hope you tested the updates before your release it... right?? If not.. then you attacked us. If you did then your S%$#T. Who thought you your trade. Don't be surprised of an array of Lawsuits to come.




McAfee & Symantec ...
By DatabaseMX on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: McAfee & Symantec ...
By sapiens74 on 4/21/10, Rating: 0
By damianrobertjones on 4/22/2010 3:24:13 AM , Rating: 1
What an absolutely stupid post and I was waiting for one just like it.

Did you post this rubbish when the Guest account on your mac erased your account? Apple isn't perfect.

P.s. Post back in five years when we're still using the same pc and apple have fazed out your ipad with an update that only works on later kit.


By damianrobertjones on 4/22/2010 3:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
By B3an on 4/22/2010 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 3
iPad is the most utterly useless POS ever created.
No USB(!!!) No flash, A phone OS... i can go on all day here, but i have work to do on my real computer... anyway we all know how much of a joke iPad is becoming.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki