Slashdot Mirror
Sneak Peek At Microsoft Anti-Spyware
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions Neowin's sneak peek of Microsoft's upcoming anti-spyware software recently acquired community favorite Giant spyware; Microsoft has code-named their re-hashed version of that software 'Atlanta.' It is currently in an internal beta test. There are screenshots of the application in action."
At the risk of sounding trollish... I think it's more than a bit ironic that MS is now going to bundle spyware when a good chunk of spyware is installed thanks to bugs within the present code. Why not deal with existing issues first?
Oh wait, new bells and whistles are good PR and prompt upgrades.
Trolling is a art,
Yes.... just tell that to the normal users that simply use their computer for pr0n or for simple searches
Most people dont know where to get software like firefox or spyware removal - let alone even know it exists
Microsoft will either bundle it for free, increasing the value of their OS (again most people don't know about alternatives) or MS will charge for it, making more $$ - in the end, average joe will think MS is their hero for saving them from spyware (o the irony)
Surely this will be available though Windows Update? If not ... Microsoft fix your damn code first instead of making us pay for your mistakes.
*groan*
No need to get disappointed. That's the concept of OEM. They always just slap a new label on it. Do you think Dell does anything beside slapping their name on the product!? M$ would be stupid to fiddle with any code.
Did it ever occur to you that they might have modified code other than the UI? Maybe there are non-visible changes to the scanning engine or something, perhaps to enhance the integration with the Windows OS?
Imagine for a moment that the computer is doing more than painting pretty pictures on your monitor (that's the TV-thing on top). Could we agree that a program intended to detect spyware could be substantially modified without altering the appearance to the user?
How did this get modded as "informative"?
Oh, that's right--he bashed MS. Sorry.
Well at first glance it seems somewhat silly- as if they are treating the symptoms instead of the problem. Everyone can pretty much agree switching to another browser can alleviate a lot of the problems, or even just mutilating IE so that it becomes a pain in the ass to use (i.e. prompting for confirmation before allowing activex/etc), and thats what happens in 2003 by default (IE becomes a pain the ass to use), but agreed- that doesnt cure all of the problems. For instance, I know I've seen some spyware piggyback in on files played by media player or winamp, or p2p programs (contrary to popular belief kazaa lite appears to be spyware as well, fire up a sniffer and watch the local network). But when you really look at it, solving the problem hardly seems to be the point. Contrary to what a lot of us would like to think, microsoft isn't full of idiots- and a lot could be learned from the 'failure' that is most anti-virus software, namely that signature based detection is not the best way to detect malware. So then you have to sit back and ask yourself why a corporation would follow such tactics if the elimination of spyware/adware was their goal? Money, just like it always is- You don't want to cure the problem because then you start pinching your paycheck. Plus you have the advantage of testing/(further) conditioning the public to subscription based payment methods, and they will thank you for it because you are 'helping' them. IMHO, it just seems like another wolf in sheeps clothing, but thats just my take on it.
One would hope that if somebody actually took the initiative in installing Firefox, or similar, that they would know that the MS tool is, in fact, lying.
That said, dollars to donuts that nobody who'd install FF or its ilk would pay Microsoft for something they can get for free off Lavasoft/Spybot.
You're doing it wrong.
They already did that with IE - it's call XP SP2.
With XP SP2, modulo security holes, the defaults on downloading code are all NO - the user has to decide that they want the rubbish or not.
After that, it's a question of user education.
Fixing IE would involve such a substantial change to both itself and windows that it won't happen. You've seen how long it took to provide the 'fixes' in SP2 for XP, and in the end it diverted staff from development of Longhorn. Imagine that applied to something even more fundamental to windows, like redesigning ActiveX to be easier to manage, or making IE an optional windows component.
That kind of work would be probably be even harder than writing Longhorn, and we've seen how long that's taking. And that would most likely require a development team as big as that of Longhorn, if not bigger. And they wouldn't be getting paid for it - so what do you thing the chances are of MS doing that?