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."

Comments

Sure

[jawtheshark]

We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we?
It at least looks like competition. ;-)

So? What's the big deal?

[BigBuckHunter]

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

security != virus protection

[ChrisGilliard]

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.

Re:Two possible reasons

[nbert]

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.

Damned if they do, Damned if they don't

[R3d M3rcury]

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...

Charge for the cow... and for the milk.

[JTorres176]

I know no OS is perfect, but why charge for a solution to end a problem that your OS causes in the first place? Hell, you have to be a "root" user to install anything on windows giving everything you install full permissions over the OS during installation of anything.

• Make users able to install something in the C:\Documents and Settings\Foobar\ directory without affecting the entire system.
• Take away user ability to affect the entire system. (such as connectivity/interfaces)
• Allow a sudo type system to stop forcing people to sign in the system as admin every day.
• Force the creation of at least one non-admin account for every day use during install.

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.

Religion is blind.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

This, of course, is the conspiracy theory de jur. But it seems more likely, in light of legal issues both at home and abroad, it's actually to avoid messy legal bullshit that would end up eating time and money. That they can also sell the same functionality as an additional service is just an added benefit.

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.

Good news

[buddyglass]

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.