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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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