Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta
Chris Gondek writes "The Register has a story reporting that Microsoft has released a free beta of its upcoming anti-virus application. According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'. Microsoft announced in May that it would be releasing an anti-virus application based on software developed by GeCad, a Romanian anti-virus company that Microsoft purchased several years ago." More details from InformationWeek.
What happens when one of the major Movie studios implement some bullshit DRM tech that smells, looks and sounds like a virus? Will they take steps to treat it as such, or will their obvious conflict of interests prevent them from acting on it?
They have a lot to prove before I even think about using this application.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
For most users, the only thing in the windows security alert that could not be fixed by simply turning something on was antivirus software. All the others (auto-update, firewall) were included and could just be activated. Now they have one for that last bit (not like I use thier versions of the stuff, and hate autoupdate, but its good for the _normal_ user).
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
Victims of M$ Wordstar, DRDOS, OS/2 and soon Norton
From the MS site: http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=b 78afccd-47f0-460e-b09b-33c2d53ac53b
"The beta version of Windows OneCare Live is free, though the final service will be a paid subscription."
So now they make money off their own bugs. Genius!
Should they have to pay for it? I think the only fair way to do this make it free for users. There is something very wrong about paying MS "protection" fees monthly or whatever to keep your OS "safe".
Microsoft may claim that the reason they need to charge for it is that if they bundled it they would run into anti-trust issues. But when has that ever stopped them before? Make is free, integrate it into the OS, and take some responsibility for your poorly thought out security framework.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
A large number of problems with viruses/spyware/etc involve the fact that users click on the wrong things, not an unpatched or poorly designed OS.
No matter how secure the OS is, virus protection is still required to protect users from themselves.
Not only that, OneCare (I'm using it right now) has a VERY slick backup thing, and it's very easy to use--almost good enough for grandma. It recognizes quicken files as "financial records," for instance.
So not only do people now have to pay a huge amount for Windows, but people will have to essentially pay for 'protection' from vulnerabilities built into their own product? Sounds like a regular racket to me. "Pay us or your OS gets it in the knees"
I believe he was implying that they don't take enough steps to secure the operating system. If a lock is faulty and someone breaks it and steals from a house, the locksmith can potentially be held (at least partially) responsible in a civil court, even though only the burglar would be criminally responsible.
Have you used their products in the last few years?
Norton Anti-Virus: An incredibly bloated AV scanner that rarely can REMOVE any viruses, on the off-chance it actually detects them.
Norton Internet Security: Includes the bloated AV scanner, and a Personal Firewall that regularly shits itself and screws up the whole TCP/IP stack. The only fix? Un-install Norton Internet Security.
Ghost: A good program until Symantec bought it, now most of the features that made it useful are gone.
Screw Symantec. They're actually WORSE than Microsoft when it comes to selling shitty software. Much worse.
When your greatest competition is making effective and useful products for free, you will have to follow that same route. So when does google come out with its own free operating system?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Its good that they are helping out those who can't help themselves. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us who run windows, who DON'T run antivirus/antispyware, and do just fine. I am vehimently anti-anything on my gaming machine at home. If you are smart about your online habits you don't need antivirus/antispyware. If you aren't then you do. Platform doesn't matter.
-everphilski-
I agree with you, but not without reservations.
Norton AntiVirus used to rule the market by virtue of being the undisputed best. I haven't looked at MacAfee in a while, but it's tempting me, and I can see why MS would see an opportunity here.
It's like when MS announces that they intend to compete in a market that the current ruler gets covered in Stupid Juice. NAV has really gone down in quality in the past few versions. Whereas before it only prompted me when there was, you know, an actual virus to stop, Norton Internet Security is constantly pinging me for love and attention with status alerts and 'features' that aren't fully baked. It's annoying and has more bugs than I'm used to in a Symmantec product (still less than MS of course).
I saw the same thing happen to Netscape and RealAudio. Their marketing droids start demanding more "brand awareness" and more bullet points for the product slicks, and suddenly the product's main feature-- quiet competence -- is lost.
Logically one would be incredibly stupid to rely on an anti-virus product from the same vendor as the OS, particularly when that vendor has so frequently identified issues reported to them as not critical or not a bug and then they are shown months later to be critical. However I have no doubt that the average Joe Public will embrace this new product. Particularly when PC builders and suppliers have to pre-load it to maintain their discounts on Microsoft products.
If Microsoft can make anti-virus and anti-spyware software to cover shortcomings in its own OS, shouldn't this be included as PART of the OS? They can make a great argument why file compression, web browsing, disk defragging and other utilities should be part of the OS. Why not this as well?
(Before I get flamed because Microsoft is currently giving its BETA away for free, check the facts. They will most-likely charge a subscription fee for them later.)
sig: sauer
Norton corporate is pretty sweet, but the home version of Norton is bad.
You know, I haven't had a problem with NAV/SAV for many years, and I've never understood the ranting. It occurs to me that I've always used the corporate version, however. You might be on to somehting here.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.