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."
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!
It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.
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!
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
The real question is however: How long until that thing bites them hard like the security problems they had with XP?
What, exactly are they upgrading??
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.
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.
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...)
4) Since everybody would have this software pre-installed only a virus being able to circumvent the protection would have any impact, resulting in even bigger problems if there is a bug in the antivirus software (no doubt about that IMO), because most of the users would rely on the protection coming with Vista, so it would spread even faster/further than anything we have seen before.
I don't read replies by ACs.
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...
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=
If Vista is susceptible to 99% of known viruses today, it's got a big problematic future ahead of it.
They hopefully told their designers: "Throw Blaster, and Melissa, and Norvag at this new system, and if it dies or allows itself to be infected, FIX IT!"
"Anything related to fix compression/decompression, image file interpretation, or anything that opens a port, must be reviewed against all known viruses attacking those vectors."
Will they, or have they done that? No, but we'll see.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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
Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.
Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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.
I may get a virus that causes some troubles once every couple of years but most of them are pretty easy to remove and if they are not then I just re-install my machine and go happily along again.
However it seems with almost all of the anti-virus products your computer runs slow all the time and you get some nice random lockups when the anti-virus is scanning stupid stuff like a print job and then crashes your printer subsystem, or a new virus signiture that keeps your computer from shutting off correctly, or a new update that just hoses your install.
My advice for most people:
The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash, it displays a dialog box and lets you press 'OK' first. Reg
If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place? I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.
It would be like parachute makers/packers offering body padding in case their parachutes malfunction. Yeah, maybe it'd work (), but it displays a distinct lack of confidence and effort with regards to the quality and reliability of their product.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?