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.

Comments

So what happens when...

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:So what happens when...

[plover]

That makes no sense. You're going to hold some vague high ground and not install this because it might allow Sony's DRM to be installed? Rather than protect yourself by eliminating 95% of the threats, you won't protect yourself at all? I don't get that attitude.

All the anti-virus and anti-spyware makers have had to make some compromises. The most public recently was when Microsoft made some kind of an arrangement with Claria, and then with the next month's release of Microsoft's anti-spyware they had "downgraded" the default settings for Claria from "threat" to "ignore". But others, even the freeware ones like Spybot S&D, have been approached by spyware and adware vendors claiming "our product isn't spyware, we'll prove it however you want, just stop removing it." Some do get delisted, others make installer/uninstaller changes to get delisted, while others send threatening-looking legal letters (and some even launch DOS attacks.) It's not easy being in the anti-"anything" business.

Besides, looking specifically to Sony and issues of DRM, keep in mind that Microsoft is firmly in bed with the [MP|RI]AA, and they're even bringing the vaseline. Vista is going to contain the concept of a "Protected Media Path" (PiMP) which means the PiMP won't play "protected" content if any non-blessed, non-DRM-enabled drivers are active on your computer. Sony won't have to install crapware DRM because Microsoft will have done it for them. And yes, that's just one reason I'm not going to switch to Vista.

sounds good...

[HTL2001]

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).

True but

[bogie]

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.

Screw Symantec

[realmolo]

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.

Re:Ripping off Google again

[Wellspring]

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.