Slashdot Mirror
No Anti-Virus in Vista
truthsearch writes "Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows. Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service."
So I am wondering... how many seconds after Vista launch until we have first virus for it?
1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.
what's that, the politically correct terminology for GREED?
We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we? ;-)
It at least looks like competition.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Unspecified Reasons? Like not wanting to get sued for bundling again? So the EU doesn't make them release a "Vista Version V without Antivirus Protection" that nobody really wants to buy anyway?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I don't even know why people even thought Microsoft could even integrate an antivirus without the anti-trust folks raiding the Redmond campus within 30 seconds of the annoucement.
It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.
Of course MS won't include it, they can make additional money by selling it seperately, just as they have always done with Plus! for Windows.
Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.
I found the "Any" key.
I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.
Way to put a spin on that one. However, let's not forget MS is getting it's butt chewed off for monopolistic behavior in a few countries ( not that they have any danger of that in their home country ). If they were to include an AV as part of the base OS, AV companies would be lining up to take shots at MS.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Symantec, McAfee et al would scream bloody murder if MS starting shipping AV software bundled into their OS. They're probably only able to ship an anti-spyware tool because the other primary Windows anti-spyware tools are "free."
Firewalls, media players and other stuff is generally included in distros and the other commercial desktop OS (MacOS X) now. AV isn't. Therefore, it could seem intrusive by MS to include it. (On the other hand, we are all quite aware why noone else NEEDS to bundle that.)
I'm not certain what the big deal is. Most OS vendors do not ship with an AV solution. I'm not certain I would want to have an AV solution integrated into the OS. Can anyone comment as to why MS 'would' integrate an AV solution?
BBH
... thinking that the necessity for an Anti-Virus is the sign that an OS is not secure?
I know that no OS is 100% secure, but if virii can find their way in on a regular basis...
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
What, exactly are they upgrading??
The new Taurus will have seat belts only as part of the optional FE (Family Edition).
...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.
I'm not sure that obscurity makes is much more secure than XPsp2.
once the hackers get to work, there will be new flaws found at the rate of 6 a week.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Vista will sell, sure, but only because it'll come with every new PC. But I can't believe Joe User running XP will spend the money to upgrade to a new version of windows for "security" purposes. Not a chance.
Now, Joe Pointy-Haired-Boss may want to upgrade -- but his network admin will probably insist on sticking with the Win2k/ActiveDirectory system that is "good enough" right now.
Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.
boxlight
Security does not have to come in the form of virus protection as the post has implied. This is a common misconception. BSD is considered a very secure OS, but it's not because it has a lot of virus protection software.
No Sigs!
that the visual upgrade from fisher price to MacOSX isn't enough for you? Cause I'm sure MS is going to charge about $300 for the desktop clock upgrade.
The DoJ argument for "unspecified reasons" is quite nice and profound, but lets keep it simple.
Microsoft aims to make more money by selling AV software separately. Period.
where I will have to rent out the seatbelts on a subscription basis :-\
this is not a flawless plan.. this is inspiration
Now M$ is making money so the small guys like realplayer can't cry.
If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Microsoft never fails... To give me reasons to stick with XP.
I have yet to read or see anything to make me want to jump ship to Vista when it comes out.
I don't see whats the problems. An anti virus is like rust-proofing your car. Its needed and its your own damn fault if you never had it made. And you can't accuse the manufacturer of not doing it for you either /. of course) laugh at the built-in firewall?
Microsoft claim that Vista is so secure, wouldn't it seem redundant to include an antivirus? You know, just like people (some of them, no one on
And beside, wouldn't they expose themselve to Anti-Monopoly law if they were to include an antivirus?
(not that it dether MS usually but still...)
So I am happy to see that Vista will not be coming with Microsoft AntiVirus software. The last thing anyone needs is Vista being shipped with an AntiVirus suite that won't you install Norton's AntiVirus because Vista doesn't like it. But I am wondering how long it will be before Vista gets hammered with viruses after it gets released. I am not holding my breath for M$ to actually code up an OS that has no obvious flaws.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
Why would they ship a product that is likely to erase their own .dlls? What if it removed IE?!
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
...is doing the right thing. This way the user can choose wich anti-virus he wants to invest in without having one chosen for him by default.
[cheapshot]Looks like there is no way to lock in users with an anti-virus! If other OS's had windows' number of viruses I'm sure windows would have an anti-virus integrated firmly to the OS...[/cheapshot]
It seems that virtually every new feature has been removed. So, what's Vista going to have in it?
This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.
Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.
As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...
and I've never once contracted a disease. I find that they spoil the experience too much.
Migrate to Linux, not Vista
Our company did last year, city of Vienna did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.
No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve some level of vendor independence all at the same time.
Windows Vista won't need any antivirus software, it's practically unsinkable!
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I know viruses/adware/spyware will still be able to be installed, but why not make it just a little bit harder. Hell, if a burglar wants to get in my house, he can kick the door in... that doesn't stop me from locking and bolting the door every night just to make it a little more inconvenient for Johnny Break-in to steal my stuff.
Evil Walrus >83=
Whats worse is M$ actually has the incentive to create and allow virii. Everytime a virus gets a headline people have a reason to go buy thier product.
You mean my PC needs protection from anti-viruses as well as viruses?
Insightful...
MS makes a product that due to its nature, has led to a huge industry. There are ant-virus companies, but also admins, security experts, network gear - all produced and sold on the premise of keeping Windows secure. If MS produced a much more secure version of the OS, all these folks would have to work harder or find other sources of income.
It is like Income Tax reform in the US - we all want it, but if it were to happen, accountants, lawyers, software companies and IRS agents would suddenly be out of work...
Not that I don't have that much faith in MS *snicker*, but seriously, who wants another thing to un-install when dealing with Windows? I have a CD full of up-to-date programs to help do my work when needed, don't make me work around one you put on the system, especially if it sucks...
Less Talk. More Stab.
I wonder if its even worth upgrading to. I mean, WinFS will be available for WinXP and I already like my antivirus http:%5C%5Cwww.ca.com%5C
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You're moving too fast here...
You're just yelling slower and louder to someone who already has no idea what you're truly trying to say...
Less Talk. More Stab.
According to the previous story on /., Vista will be vulnerable to bloat.
steampunk web design
Okay, so first I'm going to have to choose between some seven versions of what amounts to a Mac-skinned Windows Server 2003... and then I'm going to have to pay to keep other people from screwing it up, when I can get FREE virus protection on my current XP box? Yeah, just keep piling on the upgrade costs. I LOVE IT.
I don't think I'm going to be switching to Vista any time soon, that's for fucking sure.
Saying at the same time that will not bundle antivirus and that is more secure could imply people that will not need antivirus, or that be far safer than before to virus threats. While i'm not opposed to MS not bundling its own antivirus with it, i dont think the "improved security" will make Vista safe to virus, even maybe to old ones (think in the amount that is application related, even if that application if outlook or the user behind). Antivirus is still needed, and there are very good ones around, even if they are not from Microsoft itself.
1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.
3) Be like OS X and be secure enough not to need anti-virus software.
I'm not getting my hopes up though.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Another reason may be that Microsoft's hardware partners - Dell, HP, and so forth - already have contracts with existing AV software providers to issue "six month protection" with every new computer purchase. If those contracts are long-term, it doesn't make sense for MS to add a component to Vista that their hardware partners can't contractually let them load on the machines.
As for me, I'll stick with AVG, thanks. http://www.grisoft.com/
Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.
I wonder if their anti-virus software will come with anti-virus software?
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
IT: No Anti-Virus in Vista
IT: Viruses in Vista
I think MS has made the right decision here. TGhere are several reasons for that. One is to avoid those pesky Europeans that keep an eye on the monopolistic practices MS keeps. Another reason is that some people don't need virus protection. Yes, there are people like that, although not many I'll admit. The third reason is the fact that it may be handy for MS to make a separate antivirus program. What if their OS-tied antivirus program is compromised by a virus? That may be hard to correct without breaking other things. Better to keep a separate program that's easy to upgrade.
-- Cheers!
Masturbation doesn't count.
Microsoft can't justify selling an operating system AND requiring a monthly service fee (yet). It'll just take clamAV to really take off before they go down that path.
Symantec, though its assisted enquiries from investigators, has said it would rather take on Microsoft in the marketplace than cry foul to regulators over Microsoft's entry into the consumer anti-virus marketplace. McAfee has made no suggestion it's about to object to Redmond's encroachment on it traditional turf, either.
We promise that we won't object to you bundling your anti-virus software with Vista, go ahead and launch it. ***fingers crossed***
We will however have a problem with it when you have tens of millions of copies released.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
no text
M$ doesn't include anti-virus NOW. As long as avast works for Vista/Longhorn, I'll still have my free anti-virus. And it's probably better than anything MS would write anyway.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Good! With every new release, more junk is thrown into the kitchen sink. I'd very much like to seem Windows thoroughly streamlined with all as much of the truly non-OS components as possible tossed out.
Microsoft, charge for AV if you'd like. Just keep your tool optional and not packaged with the OS by default.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
I wonder what the offspring looked like?
XP SP3 with IE7 bundled? Or are we still calling it a new OS?
These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
Wouldn't this probably have something to do with the Anti-trust rulings against MS, I'm sure it could be ruled as unfair to pre-package all operating systems with Anti-Virus in place. This would obviously have a negative impact on software companies like Symantec.
I'm a big fan of maintaining a dividing line between operating system and applications. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft should be free to bundle their apps with their OS, but those apps shouldn't be integrated with the OS in such a way that they can't be easily removed (and replaced by competing products). That principle should apply to media players, mail clients, web browsers, anti-spyware and anti-virus tools. I would love to see Microsoft ship Microsoft-brand anti-spyware and anti-virus tools with Vista. I would hate to see them be as tightly integrated with the operating system as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player currently are.
In other news, MS announced that the new operating system will now be renamed to Windows Vista Millenium Edition.
After all of the security headaches to date, and as soiled their security reputation has become (especially in the last couple of years), Including anti-virus would really be a nice gesture to customers. And it would maybe score a few points at a time which they could really use them. They're so used to being the only dog on the block, it probably never even occurred to them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to watch them continue shooting themselves in the foot.
http://cubemonkey.net/quotes -- fortune-mod quote generator
When did Avalon/WPF get removed? Isn't the Vista demo with the Alt-Tab 3D windows flipping thing a sign of it being in Vista? Isn't Aero Glass another sign?
Pelé!
Haven't MSFT's shareholders lynched him by now?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm fairly certain the question was how long AFTER launch--as in after the product is actually finished.
Ugh. One Care is awful. I installed the public beta for a bit, but it basically turns your computer from a useful, productive tool into a dedicated One Care Updating Device. Constant interruptions and slowdowns, updates, and restarts. I had to remove it, it was such a burdensome application.
Except for the OneCare experiment I've gone without virus protection of any kind for more than two years now, no problems. I think a hardware firewall, exclusive use of web-based email (that scans attachments) and common sense is probably as good a defense against viruses and malware as any subscription "service".
Of course, come Feb. 3, Nyxem will probably delete these famous last words.
You should read /. more often, Vista will have a new soundtrack from Robert Fripp !!
Greetings and Salutations.
I think this is a good thing, as I think that MS needs to get back to the basics and produce an OS that is solid, secure and inexpensive. Let other divisions create Antivirus software, and, compete in the open market with Norton, McAffee, AVG, etc. If they can produce a tool that is more secure, better at finding viruses, and, cheaper than the competition, then, more power to them.
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
Amusingly enough, the old Microsoft AntiVirus for DOS and later for Windows was just a repackaged underpowered version of Central Point's CPAV software. Who bought CPAV? Symantec... http://www.answers.com/topic/microsoft-anti-virus/
[UID-HeinzIntel]
If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.
It'll be interesting to watch... if there are periods during which their anti-virus defends against it, but patches don't, they'll be found to have acted in very bad faith.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Simple reason is Vista doesn't need to sell a single retail copy for it to succeed. It will come pre-installed on 90% of machines sold, therefore it will be a success. And eventually, it will be the most widely used OS around. Give it about two or three years.
It will still suck though.
I see a lot of postings stating that it's a decision based on preventing an anti-competition lawsuit.
/forcing people to subscribe at a fee to get them/ is a permissible business practice? The 'most ubiquitous operating system in the world' is to remain crippled simply because someone is in business helping people handle the fact that it was crippled?
/have/ to call it "Anti-Virus". They chose to, and chose to sell it from a separate business unit at a fee. It's purely a profit motive.
/alone/, should net them a class-action lawsuit.
So, now, making a secure and competent operating system is considered anti-competitive simply because - in the past - an industry sprang up around compensating for Microsoft's poor design and implementation? Issuing patches to address one's design and implementation flaws and
They didn't
That,
why don't they make vista virus free? Others (unix/linux) have made a fair fist of it without the billions of dollars behind it that vista has
Maybe they want their product's performance to not look too bad...
Once an antivirus is bundled, chances are that the overall performance will fall.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
It's probably for the best for users that MS do not include their own AV for few reasons:
o A diverse population of AV is better for stopping virus epidemics
o MS need to concentrate on securing the OS itself and not rely on AV to cure the cold
o Some AV vendors manage to write exploitable AV and MS could too
It's probably for the best for MS if they do not include their own AV for a few reasons:
o Bundling & Anti-Trust
o Selling AV subscriptions
So this news is only really negative for Viruses.
$2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
Most OS vendors dont make their own Anti-Virus software to begin with. How do we honestly know Microsoft wont put backdoors in their own operating system for the sole purpose to sell their own anti-virus software? Unless we have people auditing them and their source code, I really dont see how this is anything but a conflict of interest by selling this. It should be integrated into the OS, and I have a feeling they might be forced to do just that after a few large mistakes take advantage of Vista that only Microsoft seems to know how to fix.
Name another OS with 60,000 viruses in the wild. (All time aggregate count, not current.) Macs have so few it's just not worth it. Unix servers have bigger issues with individual break-ins. But Microsoft servers are succeptable to the same viruses as the desktops thanks to a mandatory graphical UI, IE and Outlook Express integration, among other things.
Developers: We can use your help.
1. Withdraw free anti virus software
2. Help viruses along
3. Sell anti virus software
4. ???
5. Profit!
I agree that the OS should be secure enough that an AV isn't necessary. MS bothering to write a separate AV software that they will then charge an additional fee sounds like a conflict of interest as far as making the OS as solid as possible is concerned.
Now, if Windows Vista runs slow all the time, it'll be because of viruses/malware, not because of virus protection.
Where did you pull *that* from?!?!
And they told us there wasn't going to be an XP Service Pack 3. They just changed the name! Oh yeah, and jacked up the price a couple hundred bucks.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Many diseases have no obvious immediate symptoms, so how do you really know that you've never contracted one? ;)
definitely vista is 50% vaporware. always the same. "the next windows will be a revolution". false. "the machines will regonize the human voice". false. bill gates masters this lucrative tricks.
Careful with the 60K virus comment. It's more like 4K when you consider that butPlug.a is the same virus as butPlug.b through butPlug.z. Heck, I could make 60K linux in the same amount of time that it takes me to write one. I honestly have little problem with the graphic UI of windows. It's no worse then FBDev. I do have a problem with MShtml being in the dependancy tree of "everything" though. I think ActiveX is an abortion. I think that the win32 API could use a ton of improvment.
At this point in time, I have largely forgotten about MS and their software. I gave up on them 2 years. It had nothing to do with security, it was simply that their software would not fuction in the enterprise for any respectable duration. I do have an old laptop with win98 on it. Latest updates, no AV (no need for one since I only use it for TS and am behind a firewall).
BBH
Does any version of windows come with anti-virus software? If they are talking about promoting the idea that windows anti-virus is not needed, they are making a big mistake. For any platform as popular as windows (which means a lot of stupid, gullible, banner-clicking, adware-installing people will be using it), anti-virus and anti-spyware software is needed, no matter how secure the operating system may be. Even if Vista will no longer allow malware to install itself without explicit user consent, the masses will find a way!
(( (CRAYON) )) >
How much incentive would your roofer have to build you a solid leak-proof roof, if he new he could get you to pay extra to fix leaks in your new roof?
Bemis (a toilet company) will not be shipping air fresheners with their new line of toilets. A spokesman said "the toilet is a platform around which a whole economic environment can thrive".
From my anti-Microsoft site: "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory. (Granneman, Scott. "Linux vs. Windows Viruses." The Register 6 Oct 2003)
Developers: We can use your help.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong if people expect Microsoft being sued if they make an operating system which is even close to other OS:s in the market or free download in regard to security.
Hell, that's like IRobot being sued by housekeepers for reducing their work and income.
I think this is a very unfortunate symptom in the economy. The people who think they're set for life suddenly find that their income/job is in jeopardy. Oh yeah! Lawyers to the rescue; sue everyone and hope you have invested enough in lobbying to have the necessary tools for those lawyers to drive into ruin new ideas and businessmodels.
Given that it has so many options, I think that virus writers will have a pretty tough time getting into my system!
Did Microsoft get a hold of Mac OS X for PC already?
yeah...not really much of a surprise.
no other OS comes with antivirus. all the other comments around here explain why it would be better for us if MS stayed out of the anti-virus business.
If your statement that no one wants a version of Windows without virus protection is true, then there is no reason to disallow the bundle. Chicago-school economists don't really believe that one can leverage marker power for a bundling good (Windows) to the market for the tied good (browsers/AV software/etc). The only reason bundling is bad is that it forces people who prefer antivirus software from Symantec to subsidize MS' crappy software, which is included in the cost of Vista. If everyone would choose the bundle even when presented with an alternative, then consumers must see value in the bundle.
Of course, I have no idea what the EU said MS should charge for the other version (media playerless, i guess?) of XP. If they cost the same, then the EU has missed the point entirely and of course no one would choose the other version.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
There is one simple reason that OS X is not as hard hit with viruses and that is because the user base is so small in comparison to Microsoft OS. If the user base was larger than they would be the "big boy on the block" getting targeted to make a name.
Do ya' gun for "John Doe" or "Billy the Kid" to gain a rep? If your just anti-((insert company here)) then your sheep and should be treated as such. Baahhhhh!
Sooner or later Microsoft is going to have to admit that it isn't interested in doing antivirus. It deals in boxed product and proto-web services within a rigid framework. Antivirus is primarily a signature service system with a dollop of heuristic programming. It looks like it has bought a few companies, looked at the depth of the problem and decided not to bother. Vista is looking increasingly toothless.
ffs you cant even change the powersettings (to turn your monitor off in say 3min) as a least priv user. the microsoft documentation says, ..Access Is Denied When Use a Limited User Account and Try to Edit Settings for Power Schemes... WORKAROUND
:)
To work around this behavior, log on to the computer by using an account that has Administrator privileges... the only problem being that this changes the administrators powersettings (ie when logged in as admin the monitor will turn off in 3min but the least priv users account is still stuck at the default 30min)
a bit of googling will turn up the suggestion of using regedit as admin to alter the particular arcane registry branch.
now try and look at the calandar as an least priv user... oops its xp, the developers obviously all run as admin..
I cannot see how an everyday user is supposed to figure out how to work around these kinds of issues.
clearly XP is not intended to be run as a least priv user in an average home environment without a professional adminstrator available to maintain windos.
That source also is from 2003. Macs now have less viruses than other Unix clones, since Mac OS has become a Unix-like OS.
...OneCare online backup and security service...
I for one, welcome our new OneCare backup and security overlords!
I have to agree here. Since Microsoft is marketing this as a much more secure operating system (or however they are wording it) integrating an AV solution into it would just be admitting it has flaws. They are claiming Vista is so much better security wise than any other previous version of Windows. Of course any piece of software will have flaws, but integrating protection for those flaws will just make them more apparent. Then people will ask "how is this any better than ?" Then there's the whole anti-trust thing too...
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
I love stupid comments like this. Tell me, how exactly do you 'patch' a user?
Why not just one-up Symmantec? Include the antivirus, and every copy of Vista comes with a free 3-month subscription to Microsoft Antivirus. Afterwards, constantly annoy the user by popping up a screen to renew the subscription for $9/mo or $59 for the year. That should result in way more subscribers (low hanging fruit) than selling a separate package or .net/live offering.
Let me see if I get this right. Implement a bad design that's vulnerable. Force people (more or less) to upgrade to it. Toss normal ecnomic efficiencies out the window so that price never goes down. Then charge folks a premium for a bunch of extra tools meant to overcome the badly flawed design vulnerabilities?
This is like car companies charging you for brakes or airlines charging a premium for not crashing.
So, you're basically suggesting taking away control of the PC from the person who owns it? So who should control it then, someone like you who has a bit more knowledge than most, a certified engineer, Microsoft?
The only way to 'solve' the problem of viruses is to remove the user. The vast majority of viruses are trojans that use social engineering to trick the user into executing them. All the network vulnerabilities that past worms used to infect Windows automatically are long since patched, in fact most of them were patched before the viruses were released.
And don't think LUA accounts will make it harder for viruses, adware or spyware, they'll just install themselves inside the user's profile (home) directory and write themselves into the user's startup scipts. Some part of the filesystem has to be writable, doesn't it? otherwise the system would be useless, and that's where the malware will hide.
Viruses exist because most users are ignorant (in the true sense of the word) to computer security, hell to anything to do with computers, and frankly, they don't care. When you stay at a hotel, you trust that the smoke alarm in your room is just a smoke alarm, and doesn't contain a hidden camera that some shady staff member has installed to violate your privacy. In much the same way, your average PC user trusts that the program a website has told them to install to view free porn, is just that, a program to view free porn.
feature bloat?
1) Vista doesn't come with Internet Exploder, Outlook nor ActiveX so it is as safe an os as RedHat Linux 5. 2) Their online "backup" will make sure that you can restore all your data every week (since you need to reinstall it) 3) All your data is belong to them and stored online (in their so-called backup system). Because of that you can leave the Operating System Suite with Browser, E-Mail and other crap (tm) read-only so those pesky virusses and teenage crackers are out every time you reboot!!
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
In general, anti-virus software doesn't protect you against things that _can_ be patched.
They won't NEED it. Unix and OS X typically don't spend CPU time and waste electricity retroactively battling trojans.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
They tried to include an anti-virus program in Vista, but it just kept on removing Vista itself.
kerrr-ching !!!
I smell anti-trust!
Now if Ford could quit putting those pesky "air bags" in their cars then maybe they won't go bankrupt! Now I heard Kraft foods was laying some folks off.... wonder what corner they could cut to get those people back to work!?
There is nothing inherent to OS X that makes it virus proof.
Remember; If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
What would be the point. Vista will be so secure they won't need it...
"Dear, did the dog fart again? Something stinks in here..."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I know this will likely blow your mind (And I'll get modded troll) but linux and OSX don't have antivirus suits right?
Maybe Microsoft has fixed everything or at least enough to be confidant that they could release a cpu guzzling program later only if needed.
There is nothing inherent to OS X that makes it virus proof.
Well the lack of Active X kind of helps... But seriously, the only way to get a virus on OS X is user interaction by a very unknowledgable computer. Not something in which you go to a web page and *bam* your infected with malware and a rootkit.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Sooo... WinFS is gone, their new Windowing system is out, built-in AV software gets the axe...
So what features are stilll left? If this is just going to add a bunch of DRM stuff to the OS it's looking like less of worthy upgrade by the day.
Insert Sig Here
And if they had included Anti-virus software, you would be complaining about the anti-competitive actions that will push Norton and Symantec (and Grisoft, and, and, and...) out of business.
MS RowBoat (TM) Will NOT come with a bailing bucket as previously speculated, however their new SpoonCare service will send users a new BailingSpoon (TM) update every month. Those who decide not to subscribe to SpoonCare will still be provided with a free monthly CorkPlug Update.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
...because we all know that viruses cause obesity.
Windows Vista: Suck Edition
Hmmm... they can make money by charging for the anitvirus service, then save even more money by not having to pay their programmers to fix as many security holes, because it will mean more people will have to buy the software... Makes perfect busniess sense to me.
Straight from the horse's mouth...
> Allchin: Before you had to get RMS software for a client from someplace else. We're making it simpler.
That's really great to hear. I mean, after you go to the CFO for a PO to an OEM and UPS a batch of PCs from CWH to IT, it'd sure be nice if you didn't have to GET your RMS software from the FSF, roll it into an MSI for the ITW to do an SRO via GP.
On a side note, is it just me, or did anyone else notice that this article had more than its fair share of TLAs?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Built in AV would probably draw a lawsuit from the DoJ with the backing of McAfee, Symantec and Trend Micro.
That would be most of them. Pretty much any user will happily run any piece of untrusted code (ie: just about anything they've downloaded) if it promises them money/porn/warez/etc.
Not something in which you go to a web page and *bam* your infected with malware and a rootkit.
I don't think there are any outstanding IE bugs that allow this.
M$ still want our money for improve protection.
I have been using mac for over 8 moths now, I love it so much, I bought a new iMac core duo with the 32 bug found in it recently, great machine! In the same time, my 1.6Ghz Windows Xp laptop was reformatted 1 time and still is plagued with problems that I never see on mac platform.
Do yourself a favor this year, sell your 400Watt(global warming) PC for a 20 to 40watt Imac, or whatever model you want, You wont regret it, software are superior and loaded into Apple computers when you buy one.
The only drawback I sees with new Apple line is the removal of IWork to favor Office 2004, probably a condition imposed by M$ to continue development of Office on mac platform.
Wouldn't you rather have a 3rd party checking up on windows rather than relying on Microsoft to provide a "security" solution?
I mean, that's like letting the "special" kid grade papers.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
The volume control thing is nice, but by no means important enough to be major feature. It's also something that could be done by a third-party application by intercepting DirectSound for each app accessing the API.
No it isn't. Applications that use the DRM API cannot be intercepted through DirectSound.
As for keeping apps visible, that's what multiple monitor support is for.
Point is that this new technology lets applications use less expensive additional monitors such as character-cell monitors designed for, say, MP3 players.
MS could add a common driver API to do this, and make it available as a DirectX upgrade or something.
That's what Microsoft is already planning to do: selling a DirectX upgrade called "Windows Vista".
- *BSD
- Mac OS X
- Mac OS X
- UNIX/Linux
- UNIX/Linux
- Linux/*BSD
- All Of The Above
- Mac OS X/X11
- Teh Suck
- Same As Above
- Not A Problem On Non-Windows Platforms
- Mac OS X
- Whoopie
- Weeelllllcccoooommmmmeee To The Ffffuuuttttuuuurrrreee!
- Mac OS X
- UNIX
- HOORAY!
- Mac OS X
I can't wait! On, I guess I can...
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place?
Because viruses and trojans can still spread through social engineering. A program gains the user's trust by claiming to be an installer, gets RunAs'd, but then goes and infects all your existing programs, installs a spambot or other DDOS zombie, etc. Define "virus" and/or "trojan" and I'll try to explain how social engineering applies to each point of the definition.
How do you secure against a user deliberately (even if inadvertently) executing malicious code ?
We'll see in four years whether the Xbox 360 gets cracked.
I agree that the OS should be secure enough that an AV isn't necessary.
How would you go about designing this? What would prevent the user from 1. installing an application that allows documents to contain macros that can act on the file system and/or act on an e-mail server, and then 2. opening a malicious e-mail attachment?
Two words: professional courtesy.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
If they just made the damn OS so that it wasn't susceptible to Viruses, I wouldn't have a problem with the unfair competetion.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
and 2006 is the year of the Linux Desktop :P
Yeah, antivirus programs are like paying the protection tax. "Keep the signatures up to date or you get it." It's catch-up protection not real prevention.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Way back when I used MSDOS 5 or 6, I remember installing the AntiVirus product that Micro$oft had so kindly included. No updates, uless you subscribed, but hey, it had a list of hundreds, even thousands of viruses. At which point in time there was news of roughly 50,000 viruses "in the wild".
The firewall included with Windows XP would be the first thing I turned off, if I actually ever bothered to buy it, because I'd be installing a 3rd party Internet Security suite before my PC got anywhere near the internet.
Who is going to believe an AV product included with "Vista" is worth the trouble?
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
Although Microsoft must bristle at the fact that companies like Symantec and others make many times more money from recurring AV fees than M$ does on their every-few-years license upgrade, offering AV directly would be just to obvious of an anti-trust target. Nothing to see here folks.
Your comment is funny, because after thinking about what I would do, it appears that Vista is already including it. I would have a sandboxed environment for IE, limited user accounts that work with 3rd party apps, and a 2-way firewall.
I suppose the benefit of AV is that it can use a database of other peoples experience with downloaded apps or scripts to decide whether you can/should run it or not. That is not something that an OS can decide on without the data from other cases for support.
I would have a sandboxed environment for IE
Agreed, but if you can use IE to download files to your Limited User desktop, you can use IE to download a trojan.
limited user accounts that work with 3rd party apps, and a 2-way firewall.
Whether a 2-way firewall would allow viruses and trojans to spread depends on the user interface for authorizing programs, including how easy that interface is to social engineer.
Really, it's a work of a genious! First you have to create monopoly in desktop OS market, and then sell protection-service for it. From what? From errors and mistakes in design and implementation of the software you (and others) have made! There's a separate word for this, it's called "racket".
They removed the anti-virus so that they can use this as an excuse for why Vista is so damn obese.
Fabio Aquotte