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."
1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.
Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.
I found the "Any" key.
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.)
...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.
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
Have not heard about that in the wild... proof of concepts do not count.
I agree. While I do think that certain basic applications such as a web browser and media player should be bundled with any typical "PC" operating system these days, I think that adding antivirus would be going a little too far. Perhaps if there was more competition in the OS market it would be ok, but in this case it would just hinder antivirus competition.
Selling an cantivirus application as an add-on is the way to go, and it looks like that's what they're doing. I still expect to see the other big antivirus companies complaining, especially if MS pimps their product in the OS install/setup procedure or in the help service, which I'm sure they will.
I use the free version of AVG on my PCs. It works well and doesn't dig its heels into places that it shouldn't, like a few of the big brand applications that I won't bother to name do. I'm suprised that there aren't any OSS solutions for antivirus and anti-malware on the PC. They would be very welcome. If there are some, please let me know.
You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by 'properly configured'.
You certainly can't mean anything that is close to the default settings.
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 !
Now, if Windows Vista runs slow all the time, it'll be because of viruses/malware, not because of virus protection.
Much as I hate to respond to the trolls, yes I have administered a Windows system. I happened to find the Windos group policies, file ownership, file permissions (execute, read, write, modify etc) over Active Directory a fairly efficient way of controlling the permissions of around 1300 users with hugely varied needs over some 200 terminals across two sites.
However, I agree with your point about stock Dell boxes not being bulletproof. <sarcastic_tone> Of course, the Ubuntu CD managed to install a completely secure and totally configured environment on my machine without requiring me to know anything about what it was asking me. </sarcastic_tone> Yes, Windows has issues but Linux or Unix is not a mystically secure-by-default solution.
Both security models are fairly sane as far as I am concerned, but I'm afraid Windows wins hands-down for me in terms of networked permissions.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
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.
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.