Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Officially Announces Anti-Virus Product
Harry Maugans writes "Microsoft has officially announced their entrance into the anti-virus market. By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh. So fresh they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year." From the article: "Microsoft's Windows OneCare Live program will be launched in June and made available online and via retailers for an annual fee of $49.95 on up to three machines. Customers who beta test Windows OneCare Live between April 1 and April 30 get to take advantage of a special $19.95 promotional price. Microsoft's pricing means Windows OneCare subscribers are likely to pay less up front than if they bought traditional anti-virus software like Symantec, for example, whose Norton AntiVirus 2006 protection pack for three PCs lists at $89.99."
So now they sell you the problem and the fix!
My penguin ate my sig
Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service? I have seen arguments both ways, but I can't help but feel that charging for such a service amounts to little more than extortion. I mean, it's their operating system, and problems with their code that *often* (but not always) allows for these problems in the first place, so why should I have to pay extra for protection from malware that should have been stopped to begin with?
Now, I know that often times it is the fault of stupid users when spyware, viruses, etc. get loaded onto a system, but for any reasonably computer savvy individual, these things blindside you when you least expect them.
I'm sorry, but anti-trust issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than a mask to use as an excuse for what this really is - extortion intended to nickle and dime consumers that rely on Windows because they can't/won't/don't know how to use anything else. Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them.
A community-oriented lyrics site
I predict a lot of comments along the lines of
:) I still remember the last AV from Microsoft years ago... that offered less protection from Viri than a xxl-condom stripped over the hard disk.
1. Produce crap OS
2. Wait for exploits
3. Make people pay for fixes to the exploits
4. There is no step 4
5. Profit!!!!
But at the end of the day, the exploits are real, regardless of what may cause them and what you're paying for really, is the comfort of hassle-free self-updating protection. Sure, you could get it all for cheaper (as TFA notes, Norton may be more expensive in initial acquisition, but subscription renewals are cheaper - $49.95 for Microsoft vs $29.99 for Norton) or even for free (linux, free AV/Firewall software), but that involves more effort and people tend to be lazy. You are merely paying for the right to be lazy and that's got to be fair enough.
Assuming of course, that the product is worth it
I wonder if the OneCare AV can detect the Microsoft Windows® virus..
[joke mode]
Detailed information available here.
[/joke mode]
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
This sounds like a racket to me. Let's pay the people that produce our operating system a little bit more every year to make sure that it is safe to use. I know there will be a lot of comments saying that Microsoft should just do their job in the first place, and I agree. Why not make an operating system that is safe, and then keep it safe for free? Isn't that what the weekly updates are for? Sorry, I just don't understand ... can we get Bill on RICO charges?
Funny sigs make your Karma go down.
I know there is a lot of concern in the security circles about MS' entry into A/V. First, there are some many ways to get Norton or Mcafee for free or next to it, I don't see that as a big threat. I see the much bigger threat being the potential for MS' A/V program to not be such a freaking enormous, bloated pig, like Norton and Mcafee.
Jerry
http://www.networkstrike.com/
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Sell a shoddy, insecure operating system prone to virus infection and security compromise, then make your customers pay even more monoey properly secure it.
"Hey Vinnie... put a cap in his guy to shut him up... He knows too much."
So MSAV didn't qualify as antivirus?
You want me to PAY YOU for protection against the very problems your bad design made possible?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
another product for me not to care about and for the IT community to ridicule.
Would be a shame if something happens to it...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Is not is very similar to charge for the bug fixes in their own products which I think was held illegal by a court some years back? Afterall, viruses are nothing but exploits which take advantage of the windows bugs.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
1. Create buggy software that encourages virus and trojan attacks
2. Create software to protect against against siad threat
3. Profit
Must be out of the mafia handbook
They finally put their programming skills to use... instead of trying to clean and prevent viruses they just crash them, beautiful!
This is probably the best thing that could happen. The alternative is that Microsoft includes competent anti-virus software for free, which will damage other anti-virus companies, or at least create potential conflicts between the anti-virus software included in Windows and the stuff you will prefer to install.
Of course, the other alternative where Microsoft creates an operating system resistant to the vulnerabilities used by virus writers, belongs to an alternate reality.
an annual fee of $49.99 per year.
Oh, an annual fee per year, as opposed to all the other kinds of annual fee.
It always annoys me when people use duplicate unnecessary redundant superfluous words in their sentences.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I installed the beta a week ago, and it works well enough but can slow my machine down. The problem is, YOU CANNOT TURN IT OFF! Only uninstall from what I see.
1) Build and sell insecure product
2) sell security that should be inside the product (Windows) not inside a card box.
3) Profit
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Instead of antispyware, it should come with Firefox, I have had _no_ infections after switching.
hehe, you couldn't make this stuff up. And people are going to choose the MS option because it's "the standard" and feel grateful that for only $50/year they're "protected". Damn they're good business people.
Deleted
$49.95 per year for this product doesn't sound like a bargain to me.
I seem to remember that story (dunno if its simply urban legend or not) about Gates chastising the auto industry about how much farther computers have come in the previous years.
Imagine if the auto industry followed the same logic here...Are you willing to pay an extra $50/year to make sure your cars manufacturer fixes any safety issues? I imagine there are some auto industry leaders kicking themselves for not making safety recalls a subscription based service.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Well this will get the better part of the windows security software industry up in arms. T-Minus 6 months for the lawyers to start flying from their subterranean (or is that suburban) caves to feast on the blood of the cash cow that is Microsoft. Of course like real vampire bats they only take a little blood and the bites don't relay hurt such a large cow. I wonder who will win ... this time.
It's kind of a damned if you do; damned if you don't thing. If they ship Vista with an anti-virus suite, the anti-virus vendors will all cry "anti-trust!" If they don't ship Vista with an anti-virus suite, they will be condemned by the technical community. Either way, the slashdot community is happy to criticize :)
An annual fee of $49.95 per year, eh? That's to differentiate it from annual fees levied monthly and weekly, presumably?
Clue : Annual means "per year" idiot.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I guess the rest of us don't need Windows Update anymore, right?
...remember, if they bundle it with the OS for free, they will be "abusing their monopoly position" to gain a large share of another market...damned if they sell it, damned if they give it away. Of course, they could try making windows code better so less viruses can be written that affect windows, but where's the profit in that? Most of the civilized world buys Windows regardless...
NOT! Who would pay M$ for virus protection. They should focus their resources and energy on fixing all their stupid security leaks in their crappy OS.
Windows is not a virus. It has many of the same attributes: makes your computer unstable, eats up memory, slows down the computer. But a virus does something, windows does not.
Fight Spammers!
I think this is funny.
Like a Mafia hitman offering "Protection Insurance".
Or a car-salesman offering a car dirt-cheap, but if you want a seat-belt and bumpers, well those are "Extras".
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
I wonder what competition authorities will say. Yet another antitrust suit?
Does the OneCare system automatically turn off/on features that make Windows safer?
Does it automatically patch holes that you have, or do you do that manually?
Why did it take Microsoft this long to release such a badly needed product?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Suppose GM would sell you a car and the thing steers like you are coming from a booze slap-up on saturdaynight, while in fact, you are bringen your children to school on a mondaymorning...
... would you accept they'd charge you extra for merely patching - not even replacing - that defective steering column?
Personally, I'd rather mudwrestle with my own mother over paying piles of cash yearly for a shoddy produced solution.
Pay us to use our incomplete (and probably insecure) software.
But you can pay us even less to beta-test it!
What incredible hubris... charge users to beta-test for you.
But... I guess they've been doing it for years, and it's been pretty profitable so far.
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year
...actually, I'm surprised it's not an annual fee of $49.99 TWICE a year.
And in other news from the department of redundancy department...
With this annoucement of yet another pricey yet (appearingly) feature lacking Anti-Virus product hitting the market I have to ask whether there are any Open-Source Anti-Virus Products?
Holy monkey, $50?!
Shoot... and MS will advertise it inside the OS and thus Joe Sixpack will think "Oh, it's made my Microsoft. They know my OS so they should be the best at this stuff..."
At this point it is just extortion... they make a crappy product, make it the world "standard" so every end-user who doesn't know about operating systems will use it. Then they sell the fix? FOR $50 A YEAR?!
Bill Gates + co are racketeers and criminals. I know my dad will defend him vehemently (I'm a 15 year old Linux zealot) but Bill Gates doesn't deserve Man of the Year.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a good foundation, but one must ask, is the money earned by Bill legit?
Customers who beta test Windows OneCare Live between April 1 and April 30 get to take advantage of a special $19.95 promotional price.
APRIL FOOLS!
By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh. So fresh they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year.
Sounds like Symantec's 'Norton Internet Security' package except cheaper. I bet this will come pre-installed on Vista with a nag screen asking you to "Activate this essential service for only....". It will of course kill off a lot of security firms that have hitherto made a living off keeping vermin out of Windows but at least it is nice to see that Apple is not the only company willing pull that sort of a stunt. Oh well, at least Apple is not charging its customers for the privilege of being made safe from the design flaws of it's own Operating System, they charge for all sorts of other things but not that.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Um, so what about this should make me switch from AVG, which takes up almost no resources, cost $40 once, and has free updates/virus defs for life??
Sorry, I'll stick to what works.
I kill harmless processes for sport
Ok, yeah, see the thing is I have this puppy for sale. Adorable little thing - big floppy ears, waggy tail, four paws... I'll let you pay me for him. Then you can take him home, house-train him, feed him, play with and care for him, clean up after him - all of that is on you.
Oh, and one more little thing. To make sure he doesn't catch a cold or anything serious, I'm gonna let you pay me $50 to keep him germ-free. Per year. For the rest of his life. I'm feeling so generous, I'll make sure that $50 covers the puppy and two more that look, act,and bark just like him. You have to love this deal - 3 puppies covered for just $50!
Huh? How do I know he could catch a cold in the first place? How do you know it's not some annoying insurance scheme - a just-in-case kinda thing - that you never actually utilise? Relax, I've been churning out these puppies for years - bred them with germ-catching flaws built right in. I can personally guarantee this puppy is susceptible to germs!
Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
I don't quite understand why a lot of people here allways assume the worst the minute Microsoft announce something new. Sure they've not had a perfect record in terms of security, etc (and then some), but really people...give them a chance - things are getting better (slowly).
This new product can only be good for the consumer; the more protection they get, the better; no OS is secure without protection. If they'd provided it as part of Windows, there'd be another uproar with people saying MS are again being anti-competitive.
Anyway, flame away....
throw new NoSignatureException();
I see a conflict of interest here. The incentive to actually plug security holes isn't there is you charge people to protect them from your shitty products. This is like slashing someone's tires, then making them pay you to patch it.
I hate sigs.
I would consider this to be a conflict of interest. Why fix a vulnerability if you can sell a 49.95 security package instead. Now Microsoft will probably only fix the vulnerability for Vista, and leave everyone else hanging. You have two choices, upgrade, or rent our security pack for 49.95 for year. Too bad option 3, get off the treadmill, is unavailable for those locked in by their applications.
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
There's plenty of customers who are furious Microsoft isn't providing antivirus software. For them this is the fix. They think mechanically, and don't understand that computers shouldn't need fixing unless the hardware takes a dive. To them, this is maintence that ought to be provided by the manufacture. And besides, there's plenty of viruses that can't be stoped by good security (iloveyou.jpg.exe).
That said, Norton, McCafee, AVG, et. al. can kiss their collective butts good by. It's one thing if they had products Microsoft couldnt' compete with (ala Quicken), but last I check Microsoft Antispyware was one of the beter ones out there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
My first knee-jerk reaction/thought was the same as most people here: "They make a lousy OS, now they want us to pay for 'Protection'".
... which is going to get more attention? I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination but given the company's history it's just not hard to make that connection.
In reality, that's not exactly the case. While there are things that exploit Windoze/IE/Outlook security holes, there's a whole lot more things that are just plain old viruses and trojans that people proactively download, execute, and install all on their own. MS (eventually) patches for the former, and the anti-virus products help with the latter.
We've always had these (the viruses), and there's always been virus scanning solftware to combat them. I'm under the opinion that no matter what you do, you're always going to have people who are plenty capable of mucking up their computer all on their own.
The only real problem here is the question of whether you can trust MS not not get confued along the way and focus more on the bandage rather than the cure. What I mean by this is that if they're offering a $50/yr bandage and free cures (patches)
- Brian Roach
Hey, nice operating system you have there. Wouldn't want an accident. You know, me and my friend could look after it for you. You know, stop nasty things happening. Wouldn't want your hard disk to catch fire would you. What's fifty bucks when you'll have piece of mind? By the way, my friend Bill might want to store some stuff for a while. You've some space on that hard disk? As favour? I though so. See you next week.
It's not like Microsoft's OS division is writing this software. While you can make the argument that it's the same company that's selling you the insecure OS, and the software you need to secure it, I don't really think it's an argument that needs to be made.
So Microsoft is coming out with an Anti-Virus product. Good.
There's no way they can bundle this with the OS, so they're releasing it separately. OK fine. Get over it.
The next best thing to "CareFree".
But it still won't detect a rootkit, I'll wager.
Or DRM.
This has the opportunity to really sweep up the anit-virus market.
...Whoa, wait... Microsoft is the one making this?
Using holes first introduced by them, they can identify a virus, protect a user against that virus using OneCare Live, and then dive into their code to see how the virus slipped through, and, two or three weeks later, release a patch to completely stop that virus and any other like it. Since the patch would be available to all users, many would update their system and stop spreading virii, which would cut down on the number of wild virii, which would decrease the work load for the AV service, meaning they can make more profit without changing rates!
They could do more than just make a reactive anti-virus program, they could make a proactive anti-virus program. Within a year or two, they could close up most common security holes in Windows, making their system more lucrative to those trying to decide on an OS.
And, then, they can take what they learn from this, and apply it to Vista, making it a robust and secure OS, rivaling any open source OS! BEST. ANTI-VIRUS. EVAR.
Nevermind. [sigh]
Yeah, they'd obviously done a great job of protecting us so far!
They sell you a product full of bugs, security holes and they want to charge you money to protect you from it?
How much more abuse do people need to take to start thinking with their heads?
Only on Slashdot will people complain about this move. While exploits are found, many are being worked on and have been patched by Microsoft. Secondly, they aren't the only OS or software with larger issues. Norton, for example, had a rar scanning issues where code could be executed while a scan takes place.
If Microsoft was trying to create a monopoly, they would be adding it for free to all of their computers, not selling it as an individual package like their competition.
Microsoft have crossed a dangerous divide. They now have conflicted motives. They could spend (say) $100M a year fixing the bugs in Windows that allows malware to spread - or they could spend the same money putting effort into keeping that malware out of the system using this new product.
If they use that money to fix Windows, their return on that investment is what? Well, I suppose reducing Windows vulnerabilities does improve the product and peoples confidence in it - but that won't sell many more copies of Windows. When you already have a 90 to 95% market share, nothing you can do will improve that by a measurable amount.
But putting that same amount of money into the anti-malware product pursuades people to continue to shell out $50 per year - its a revenue stream that's potentially bigger than Windows itself because Microsoft don't charge computer makers more than $50 for a copy of Windows - and most people don't upgrade their PC's every year. So the potential size of this new market is bigger than for their entire Operating System business! Furthermore, they currently have a zero percent share in that market sector - so there is huge room for expansion (both in knocking out competitors AND in expanding the market). That's a massively good reason to spend their money here RATHER THAN IN FIXING WINDOWS.
It's actually even worse than that. By spending LESS on fixing Windows, the size of the anti-malware market actually increases because more malware shows up and more people are upset by it to the point where they'll rent software instead of buying it (which is what this amounts to).
With finite resources, a fiscally responsible thing is to divert effort from fixing Windows to enhancing this new service. Microsoft is in business to make money - so guess what they'll be
doing?
In effect, Windows becomes a deliberate gateway for malware - they can feel free to add more dangerous interfaces to the network - and all of that just forces people to rent the 'real' product which is now the anti-malware gizmo/service.
In the end, Microsoft has done what Bill Gates always said they needed to do - move to a subscription model. We should not be at all suprised - it's exactly the "right" direction for a profit-motivated organisation with no moral scruples or particular interest in the happiness of their customers.
Bottom line is that as time goes by, you'll either be (in effect) renting Windows for an annual fee of $50 or using the "nearly-free" version that's unusable because it's riddled with holes. Get used to it.
If you don't like it - you know what you have to do. MacOSX and Linux are awaiting you with open arms!
People have already pointed out how step one is to create an insecure product, etc. but one crucial step is missing:
1. Create shoddy product.
2. Let third parties fix the problems for you. This will accustom users to paying for these fixes, (after all the third parties aren't expexted to work for free, in order to patch something that they're not responsible for.)
3. Once people are fully accustomed to the fact that you need fixes, and these fixes cost money, present your own solution to the problem.
4. Aggressively market your own product. Make it difficult to run other companies products. Make people believe that since it's your OS, you know best how to fix it.
5. Watch 3rd parties go out of business. Remember to laugh all the way to the bank.
Wow. MicroSoft has managed to come up with an incredible disincentive to actually fix the basic security flaws in their products. One has to wonder how this is going to impact the patching program: will patches now require a subscription to Microsoft's Windows OneCare Live?
The smartest man in the whole, wide world really don't know that much. - Mose Allison
It's a different department sir. You'll have to call our OS department between the hours of 11a and 2p PST (their working day) for any issues with the operating system.
Please- you really think the left hand knows what the right is doing at Microsoft? You really think they're going to make a good feedback loop in this process?
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
then are they liable? Are they going to stop (attempting to) secure the OS now that they have an incentive not to? Will they ever have to pay up for damages that this is causing?
All viruses out there are MS viruses. There have been rumours of viruses possibly existing for other operating systems, but I've never seen any. 100% of all viruses I've ever seen in my life, and I've seen thousands, are all Microsoft Windows viruses. Those viruses do not infect any other operating system.
This reaction is so predictable from slash dot readers.
Sure, its a marketing thing. Big deal. Ignore it.
Now when someone releases a specialized tool for Linux to monitor something 'suspicious' - how many tools are there like that, a lot, no one cares.
And crashes? Really, how often does windows crash these days? Lets get it straight. Early versions of windows did not implement virtual memory. Hence, crashes when one process tried to overwrite the memory of another process. How often has windows been using paging now ? For a long time folks!
until hackers start finding the exploits in the anti virus program. Then MS can start selling you and anti virus program for your anti virus program. Oh what a great money making scheme
I've been testing this OneCare program and I gotta admit - it's really nice. Who knows how well it works, but the interface is slick and it takes less resources than Norton does. The only thing I wuold like to see is a registry cleaner built into it - if they do that, I will definitely buy it.
Why don't you fix your fucking software in the first place?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
The new Microsft AV product is based on the former Gecad AV. Microsoft bought Gecad few years ago, recruted all the brainiacs from the company and developed a product for a better OS. Gecad had one of the best AV software on the market and sold it for $10 mil to Microsoft. Windows based viruses are a pain in the ass and I hope we could finally have a product to cover all the signatures in a very short response time.
Silly Microsoft. I believe free antivirus is going to take over the market. I hope it does.
Microsoft are starting to blatantly rip-off their customers. Not that they weren't already, but now it is going to be obvious even to the computer-illiterate.
Ubuntu Linux is increasingly becoming a quite acceptable replacement to Windows, for the majority of home users who just want web browsing, letter writing, and email. Currently, a lot of these users probably just have friends/relatives who copy Windows for them.
Presumably, Microsoft will now be putting less effort into preventing security flaws and more effort into catching all of the shit that flies through security holes in their software. At least, they now have a $50/user per annum incentive to. This means those users who previously freeloaded on Windows will either have to pay up, or find an alternative. Owning Windows without Microsoft's anti-virus software will probably become a recipe for disaster. After all, if Microsoft didn't think it would cause problems for people, they wouldn't be selling this "fix what comes through" software, right?
Most casual users are not going to want to pay hundreds of dollars every three years for the latest Windows, PLUS $50 per year for their anti-virus software. Ubuntu is picking up pace, and it won't be long until the mainstream media picks up on it. If Google were to come along and give Ubuntu a bit of a push and recommendation around Vista release time, this conversion process would become easy.
I see this whole thing as Microsoft fighting casual piracy by forcing people to subscribe, as well as Microsoft forcing more money out of all their users. If it were possible for copyright laws to suddenly become perfectly enforced, I think we would see a much larger opposition to things like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, and a lot more computers running operating systems like Ubuntu.
Wow, the beta test will only cost you $19.99...What kind of lunatic thinks he can charge a beta tester to find bugs in a product they know won't work. If it worked perfectly, why would they need beta testers... I predict Google will offer something free in the next year or two. Just to spite M$.
Some people here have actually suggested that Microsoft has deliberately made Windows full of security bugs over the last decade to allow them to take advantage of this marketing opportunity.
So let me get this straight. The claim is that Microsofts evil plan is to profit at a rate of $50 per year from a group that consists of people that (a) don't use a free antivirus product, (b) don't stick to their pay product out of inertia, or (c) don't avoid Microsoft products on principle.
Really. Well, no matter what you think of their product, their marketing and business strategies are not that bad.
"By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh."
What will you think of next Microsoft, you innovators of all things new!
I lost my sig...
I've been involved with computers since the 80's when I got my first TRS-80 model I, and I currently work in the software industry, though I'm not writing code. For a lot of that time, I've used Windows. When it first came out, I thought it was interesting to fiddle around with, and later when it became that "standard" OS, I pretty much just went along, since I was most interested in using the computer for programming, graphic design, etc. I knew there were some flaws, but inertia is a powerful force. Even the anti-trust case didn't phase me too much because frankly, at that point, Netscape sucked. I wasn't "happy" with Windows, mind you, it's just that the irritation hadn't risen to a level where it was worth switching.
About three years ago, I was working for an AV company when I first heard that MS would be getting into the anti-virus business. There was some question about how that would work, but the very idea made me uncomfortable--when you're selling a defective product and then providing the "solution" that's a Bad Thing. As I've posted here before, you don't set the wolf to gaurd the sheep, and how could you trust someone to "solve" a problem that they were unable to correct in production. But it still wasn't enough to get me to switch, as I have a big "investment" in Windows software (unlike 90% of slashdotters, I actually own licenses for DreamWeaver, Flash, Acrobat, Illustrator, etc.).
A while back, I heard that this MS anti-virus software was going to be a pay service, and that was the tipping point for me. It's just too much like extortion.
In December when I left the AV company I worked for, I had to give up my corporate laptop (a rather nice ThinkPad). I had been wondering what to replace it with. Last week, I bought a Powerbook, and for my birthday later this month I am getting a Mac Mini to replace my desktop machine at home. At that point, my Windows XP box (an Alienware gaming rig that I bought about 18 months ago) will be relegated to the "game room", disconnected from the Internet, and used only for games I can't get for Mac. The PC in my garage is already running Ubuntu, and my MAME cabinet will be moved over to some other Linux distro as soon as I can figure out what to do with my front end. (Any recommendations?)
The era of Microsoft is over at my place, and I'm feeling pretty good about it.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Realistically, this is just Microsoft putting into action something they've been trying to do since 1998... sell software as a subscription. Anyone else remember talk of selling office as a low $/mo service fee, as well as other software. It was supposed to be the way of the future. The only people who actually followed suit were the antivirus makers, at first. Updates used to be free. No longer is that the case. Now we have subscriptions for MMORPGs, Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, and I'm sure many others. Heck, even most commercial distros of Linux have subscription fees to receive updates and Apple charges subscriptions for .Mac. For a long time now, enterprise software has always had maintenance agreements, too. Heck, we even have subscription models for renting movies. Continued development costs money. This is just another company attempting to capitalize on a product. Nothing new to see here, folks. I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I'm definitely not liking the subscription trend (I've always been opposed to it.) But, I don't think what they're doing is exactly unique. A good thing, though, is that Microsoft's fee is undercutting the competition significantly, which encourages companies such as Symantec and McAfee to lower their fees or lose market share - and competition is pretty much always a good thing.
I'm not much of a fan of Microsoft products. In fact, I've switched mostly to Mac OS X over the last few years. But nonetheless, your argument is really little more than a thinly veiled attempt to "flame" Microsoft.
Your "3rd. option" isn't realistically possible at all. The problem is, Windows started out as a layer to run on top of the MS-DOS operating system. Over the years, they kept adding to it and adding to it. Then they branched off another direction (Windows NT) when they realized building on the MS-DOS foundation was rather like constructing an office building on top of a sand pit. They already had too many "tenants" who didn't want to move though, so they kept on supporting the original effort as long as they could (Windows ME). Meanwhile, NT still had to look and feel like the "old stuff" and have a mechanism for running as much of the old code as possible.
To their credit, they did a really good job of migrating people off the the MS-DOS based code and over to a heavily upgraded Windows NT based structure (Windows XP). But they've always had to make serious compromises in the interest of "backwards compatibility".
But IMHO, they've been screwed from the start in areas like "security" - because they've incorporated FAR too much "legacy" code over the years, as they've made "backwards compatibility" their primary focus. Even their protocols (NetBIOS, etc.) were a kludgy mess that nobody seems to understand 100%. So how do you really expect their people to wade through the entire mess this late in the game, and successfully patch it up so it's just as secure as a newer OS built from scratch, with priorities like "security" in mind?
Throwing money at problems rarely ensures they're solved efficiently or completely. (Take a look at the Fed. govt. and their budget management if you don't believe this.) Microsoft, obviously, would never want to spend their "40 billion saved up in the bank" on patching Windows. But even if they did/could, I doubt it would ensure a truly secure OS. They didn't build on a Unix skeleton from the start, and the Unix skeleton has proven a better "foundation" for secure OS's so far. (BSD, Linux, Mac OSX, BeOS, etc.)
All tired MS bashing aside, I prefer to have a bit of diversity in my security. Seems to me that one product means one exploit can potentially bring it ALL down, whereas ZoneAlarm, NAV, AdAware, SpyBot, and whatever else you want to use gives you more of a chance of avoiding a complete meltdown.
...
'Course, I'm no security expert (so I may be off-base). But then I don't write all-in-one security software that fixes my own shortcomings and sell it for fifty bongos to trapped, desperate, and uneducated customers, either.
Okay, a LITTLE bashing
Please correct me if I'm wrong - I really don't know much about this end of things and would like to know more. But logic seems to be all one needs. The only upside is that Slashdot's ubiquitous "My Grandmother" can go to Target or Best Buy and buy something that installs reliably and only has to be done once. This has more value than can be calculated - we deal with a lot of random customers in our family business and we get a ridiculous amount of infected mail and files. I suspect if there was a solid product that you could just roll into Windows Update (I know, I know), a lot of these problems would go away for a while. Not a great solution, but better than nothing.
'Course, if it breaks, you're sunk. And breakage in the "My Grandmother" scenario above is completely devastating. Personally, give me the Sony rootkit over this any day.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This is a nice little machine you have here. You wouldn't want it to burn down, now, would you. For only a small fee of 49.95 a year we'll make sure nothing like that happens. You wouldn't want that to happen now, would you.
Yup, rent a crappy OS that is so bad, that an industry was created to sell patches to duct-tape over these major vulnerabilities. Now the original manufacturer admits that you need these patches to keep it running, and is now renting their version of these patches on an annual basis.
Now, where is the incentive to fix the problems in the OS?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Like the Fresh Prince?
Especially when you can get Grisoft's AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition, which uses little system resources and does a very good job stamping out viruses. :)
Combine AVG with the current free versions of ZoneAlarm and either Ad-Aware SE or Spybot Search & Destroy and you have a very nice security suite for your Windows 2000 or later-based PC. (thumbs up)
Microsoft released Microsoft Windows Anti-Virus (MWAV) with Windows 3.1! This is nothing new. In fact, had Slashdot been around with the release of 3.1, this would be a dupe!
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
If this included not only the virus protection, spyware protection, firewall and THE OS.
Then they might have something. I'd pay an annual fee for all of it as a package if it was in the $50/yr range.
Besides the obvious extortion theme, the one thought that comes to mind is trust: Why would I trust Microsoft to make their AV software any better than their OS software?
Indeed, Microsoft's history suggests that this product won't be worth more than a tinker's damn until it's been on the market for five years, has been patched several hundred times and is on it's third or fourth major release.
History suggests that only fools trust Microsoft to do anything but put more money into the pockets of Microsoft. People who want or need quality use anything _but_ Microsoft products.
Cheers!
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Why blame Symantec for 3 products ? MS also has two of them One Care Live and Safety Center Live. I am loking for the Badware consortium to take to task these vendors.
Clearly this company has it made in the shade. They release buggy software, and then charge you extra for a program (presumably bug free?) that will protect you from the bugs.
It will be interesting to see how Microsoft behaves on this one. For example, Microsoft discovers a flaw in their OS which can be protected against by an update to their security software. Does Microsoft share this information with everyone at the same time or does it give the information to it's security software division first, then notify the competitors later, and then advertise in the various trade magazines that it's software protects their PC's better/faster?
Why would they do this? Let's cludge up an already cludged up system even more so we can make a few extra pennies on this security suite.
They are doing this because they would look silly if they did nothing. I don't see how this can be extortion. If they were to jack up the price of Windows or send every current Windows user a bill for $49.95 or they would DoS you then this would be extortion. As it stands you have plenty of other places that you can purchase these things from (AV, Software Firewalls and AntiSpyware) not to mention the excellent free stuff that does the same thing. If they were bundling this stuff and charging extra (or nothing for that matter) there would be hell to pay. Anyway it appears you have to actually make the effort and go get it. I rather have them do this then stick their head in the sand and do nothing and deny everything the way they have in the past. Thank goodness for IPTables/Netfilter, free viruscanners and AdAware PE. Cheers
I've used this ( http://safety.live.com/site/en-US/default.htm ) before, and it's free and seemingly from Microsoft. Are they just going to start charging for it?
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
I will give you that including it might be illegal. But the you only rent the software part is pure money making.
Microsoft could have included free updates for the life of the product.
This pay by the year is bogus.
PS. I will not by buying this program. Besides I doubt it will run on my Linux box anyway.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Hopefully Microsoft will update their anti-spyware/anti-virus/anti-whatever more frequently than they do their lame O/S. Which is really why were in this mess to begin with!
So if MS produces the product with the holes, and then sells the fix to those holes, who is liable if something still get's through? "oops, sorry, we missed that one?"
Not that I will participate, but this seems like it can be a good thing if it ends the era of Windows viruses Joe Consumer who signs up for this (or gets a free subscription with their new Dell?). But if we continue to have worms and viruses, even with the fix, then what have we gained??
If anything, Microsoft is being responsible by making their product affordable and consumer-friendly, which is hard to say of most other computer security suites.
Symantec, this is what you get when you write software for Windows. HAHAHAHA!! Suckers!
Unfortunately, these alternate versions of the anti-virus solution were scrapped:
1) Windows uninstaller
2) GNU/Linux
3) Mac OS X
Maybe we'll have to pay to fix the holes on the AV too?
Once again, Bill and Steve are going to try to play catch up and use their dominance to position yet another product they've bought and repackaged. I can only imagine the conversation in Bill's office:
Bill: "Steve, these viruses are killing us...."
Steve: "I know...hey we should find a way to make some money off of this!"
Bill: "Brilliant! We should buy up some anti-virus program no one's heard of and repackage it!"
Steve: "Brilliant!"
Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.....
First, good-bye Norton. Nice knowing you (I guess), but soon you will go the way of the Netscape.
Second, once M$ is well underway, expect them to switch the whole OS cost model to an annual subscription fee --for updates and security at about $100 per year.
:T:R:A:N:S:
It is like buying a boat with holes in it from someone and then renting a bucket from them as well.
There is at least one viable alternative to windows.
Apple Macs (many people don't feel comfortable unless they pay for it)
Multiple Linux Distros(suse's commercial desktop OS version is my preferred)
Multiple BSDs (freebsd is nice, a little feedback on pcbsd would be welcome)
There are three right there.
I'm not sure why anyone -needs- windows any more. If you tell me your enterprise application needs IE for XYorZ, then that's a specialized legacy problem. For the 80% of desktop users, I'd say they would do just fine in an alternative desktop.
Loosen up, change is good.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You owe us $49.95 to fix the shit we already sold you.
pwnt,
Micro$oft
Finally, the missing piece of the long-known but much-debated 'South Park' economic model has been revealed!
(1) Create operating system with many obvious security vulnerabilities.
(2) ??? [Create for-pay security hole patching subscription service.]
(3) Profit!!!
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
TFA doesn't have an official announcement, and linked articles in TFA don't have any official announcements.
How long before we see Microsoft TwoCare Live, to fix the holes and crap in OneCare Live? Maybe they can call it TwoLive Care. I hope the lead developer is Martinez....
I pay $30 per year for Trend Micro Internet Security, which has...
So let me think... Am I going to pay Microsoft $50 for a 1.0 product, which I expect to function as well as any Microsoft 1.0 product ever has--not to mention making blatantly false claims about being 'fresh' because they've come up with an all-in-one security suite? Or am I going to stick with a program with a great track record for home and corporate applications, that costs considerably less?
Ooh, this could be a tough decision...
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
What?
This latest move, selling a subscription service to fix a broken operating system is another smart move. Most people as so uninformmed and ignorent that they don't see a problem here. Most users have zero experiance with non-Windows systems and don't see Windows as being "broken".
If you ask me it's a bit of a comflict of interrest isn't it. The more effort they put into fixing Windows the fewer subscription they sell. I bet the fixes come out real fast now.
People should keep track of what they spend getting their windows pc unfucked. They might notice that in many cases they spend more in 1, 2 or 3 years so buy a Mac G4 dual off ebay which is more than enough for most people.
Hey Dad, you listening?
Need Mercedes parts ?
I'll be first in line to get my beta virus protection from Microsoft!
I'm trying to work this out, but keep getting an integer overflow. Let's try and work this out...
10 Make bad product with loads of security problems
20 Watch as the world creates viruses to take advantage of bad product's security problems
30 Create a program to cover over the cracks
40 Before testing it all the way, release to the public
50 Goto 20
I'm sure there should be a "??? Profit!" stage in there somewhere too...
All I seem to end up with is a system that does nothing but cover over it's own problems. HELP!
Honestly, why would anyone use onecare. When Microsoft acknowledges a flaw in any of their programs, including windows, it takes them up to 3 months to fix it. Imagine if they had the same work ethic with an antivirus program. We'd all be screwed.
Really, if the guy who built your house did a crappy job, would you go to him to build a deck or a new wing on your house? Wouldn't he apply the same crappy work ethic to the new work that he did to the first?
This seems to me to be the very instance when you would want a third party doing the work, writing the software.
As other posters have said, it's too bad that more people don't expend the energy to look for free alternatives. A quick trip to download .com or Ned Wolf's site usually does the trick for me.
I've found Avast anti-virus to take care of my needs, and have installed it on computers for my family members as well. It auto-updates, so they don't need to trouble themselves with any configuration, or worry about how old their virus definition files are.
Best of all, the product is free (and just requires annual (free) re-registration).
All your sig are belong to us.
No offense editors but you'd think that a story title "official announcment" would at least link to something official from Microsoft?
Instead we get a story linking to the register, which in turn links to some website I've never heard of that claims to have interviewed someone from MS.
Seriously editors, let's at least try to have these stories reflect the articles they actually link to.
No, thank you. I mean until there are some free (as in beer) av scanners and protectors some even combined with intrusion detection and some even with alteration monitoring, with frequent updates (I won't tell names and brands, they are not that hard to find), no, I will not pay Microsoft for their solution for a problem they can not solve otherwise. If I am a company making crap wood doors, then the solution is not to begin selling nails, hammers and wood so as you can fix your own door at home, but make damn better doors.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Now Microsoft wants me to pay them for a service to fix holes that they themselves overlooked? I don't think so.
Heh, I think it's more like a restaurant offering to sell you their own brand of anti-acid pills or Pepto Bismol with your meal. :)
"Only $4.99, sir, and you'll probably need it considering the ingredients we use."
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I can see how the idea of iterative development vs waterfall development can be used as a justification of not having all the security checks and balances in place. But for Microsoft to charge for a product to protect its client base, is like a car dealer selling you car insurance after you have been smacked into a wall. So many business opportunities to get your software out in lights, has negated the need to provide a real security layer. Like all business oriented companies they will catch up to the real innovators eventually. Hey OS's have had machine instructions for years that cause segmentation faults when operating outside the privilege zone. May be the programmer that caused the blue screen of death was actually sensing the Windows Desktop as a virus.
Just curious.. I've always wondered why everyone is always so quick to offer AVG as the ideal no-cost antivirus solution. I tried it maybe a year ago or so and found it to be a bit slow. I went and spent money on Trend PC-Cillin (3 computer bundle) and NOD32 (four our 4th PC), and I was happy with both, but it does get expensive and I didn't renew when the year was up on each of them. When I found myself back in the market for a free AV again, I ended up going with Avast! It's every bit as good as Trend (minus the firewall), although nothing is as fast as NOD32. I highly recommend it, but it doesn't seem to get much press at all. Also, I haven't kept up with the newer versions of AVG.. maybe the newer versions include this, but Avast! also gives you anti-spam and IM protection. All no-cost, no adware, forever, for non-commercial use.
Steps:
1. Offer pathes on paid subscription basis. Market the idea and let public get used to that.
2. Lower the price of the original product. Use it to show your public consciousness even though you are a monopoly. Improve your overall image.
3. Give your original product for free. This is the only way to get on the same footing as those "free-download" Linux-es.
4. Increase the price for maintenance.
That is it: now you have your customers paying annual subscription for software and you are succesfully competing with Linux.
Pffft. Once again, Mac users are left out in the cold. Where's the Mac version, Microsoft?
but the latest issue of PC World gave AVG Free the lowest in their AV round up of about 10 products. I'm not sure how one could consider that the porducts above it all purchased add space, but read into it what you will. I still use AVG Free without issue.
Given that Microsoft can't secure the OS in the first place, does anyone really expect them to be able to put out an anti-virus product that does any better after the fact? Not to mention the fact that if they wrote the software right in the first place, anti-virus/spyware wouldn't be needed (at least to no where near the extent it's needed today).
I think you're taking "fix" a little too literally. One good fix would be to toss out the new stuff in Vista, leave the secure stuff, and stive for good backwardwards compatiblity. (In fact, I hear they're striving for this already). Then GIVE THE OPERATING SYSTEM AWAY to all licensed windows customers. Admit they fucked up their design decisions along the way and do something helpful for their customers.
This, in my opinion, would be a fix. It would also help fix their diminishing customer good will.
And I think it could be done for a lot less than 40 billion, athough admittedly, I haven't done the math. I hear you need a special computer for that anyway.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
charging $49 a year for Windows. If the security suite takes off, and I imagine it will, it will provide the infrastructure for Microsoft to start selling their OS like they sell their apps to business. Annual subscription, only now with online activation and authorization. Jan 1 will roll around and your Amex gets charged another $49 to keep running Windows.
A friend of mine (who is an IT pro) installed a machine with Win XP, installed SP2 and enabled the firewall and then connected the machine to the internet and got infected within 20 seconds - which at least proves that the internet contain some really bad things. It also proves that M$ is rather unsuccessful when it comes to fighting off threats. It may be that Windows is more targeted than *NIX-boxes, and the reason is probably that there are a lot more of them connected to the net.
Currently most of the threats are still either proof of concept or just using machines as bots on the net. Highly annoying and consumes resources. A few are actually tapping your traffic, and if you have a bank that doesn't use a two-factor authentication with a token that also signs your transactions I would recommend you to switch bank. The mini-token is not sufficient, and the soft-token is outrageously stupid to use since if your computer is infected - then that token can be accessed without your knowledge. The use of pre-generated passwords that you get from a scratchpaper is also insufficient. Any malware may just lay dormant until you have accessed your bank that way and then when you perform your transactions it can provide you with an overlay that covers the real transactions in the background. This may happen with any solution that doesn't require a signing of the actual amount you are paying.
Me - Paranoid? Well... just because you are paraniod doesn't mean they aren't out trying to get you.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I am all for it!
The bugs/holes/vulnerabilities that Symantec and McAfee products fix are almost all in microsoft products. Microsoft, by selling antivirus software, is aknowledging that the other products they sell are vulnerable and flawed. Rather than provide security patches, microsoft is charging for the protection. Microsoft is morally oblidged to fix their software, and if they did it for free Symantec would be just as out-of-business as if microsoft charges for it. Symantec has no grounds on which to sue microsoft.
The viruses exist because there are bugs to exploit, AND because there are people exploit them. Microsoft is at least as guilty as anyone, and they know it.
"By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package"
Hey, lets not forget their biggest contribution, a terribly buggy OS that has holes in it you can drive a truck (much less a virus) through. Personnally I think that's what they should be most proud of! Now they can charge you even MORE to to protect you from their bugs and on a subscription basis too!! Very nice of them if you ask me.....
Hey buddy, you wouldn't want to get sick or nothing would ya? Well, for a price I can make sure you and the family stay real healthy. You wouldn't want anything to happen to your family would ya? I didn't think so.....
Why do you think they call it virus protection?
And besides, there's plenty of viruses that can't be stoped by good security (iloveyou.jpg.exe).
.jpg file was 'not normal' and probably dangerous.
All it would take to eventually turn such trojans into endangered species is to always overlay a red circle (or some other standard symbol) over any and all icons for executable files. Thus users would learn that a red circle with a supposed
Really, I don't get why desktop environments have to engender such confusion. Making apps and their data files appear totally interchangable to users may seem neato-cool from a 1993 architectural standpoint, but its not even useful. In some cases, data files are shown with the SAME icon as their associated app.
Didn't BeOS automatically make this distinction with a "!" prefix?
I've been beta testing OneCare for several months now, and I like it more than any other "Internet security" product I've tried--far more than both Norton and McAfee (I've used both in heterogeneous environments).
Mostly, I like that OneCare isn't nearly as pervasive as either Norton or McAfee. It certainly doesn't seem to be, anyway. It's also much less annoying. It will only get in your way when it detects a real problem (a virus, or a program trying to access the Internet). The only thing about it that annoys me: every time you update an application (say, World of Warcraft or iTunes), you have to re-authorize the application to access the Internet. Many times this requires opening the newly-updated application, authorizing it, closing it, and opening it again.
One thing that most geeks will notice upon first launching OneCare is that there isn't much you can configure. You get to configure the basics (e.g. what to scan and when) but not much else. At first, I saw this as a major disadvantage. I usually like to configure every little setting in an application, so I was a bit miffed when OneCare only presented me with a few options to change. But as I continue to use it, I don't really care so much. It does what it needs to do and I haven't had any problems with it. Besides, when it works, why do you need to change anything?
I found the built-in backup utility useless, however. The thing will scan your entire computer for documents, media files, etc. then back it up to a file, very similar to the backup utility built into Windows. But you can't choose folders not to be backed up (that I can find), so your multi-gig music or video collection will be included in every backup. For some people, this won't be a problem, but for me it made it impossible to do a backup with the utility (I don't have the hard drive space to back up every audio and video file I've got). So I guess there is one place where a lack of configurability actually causes a problem. Worse still is that OneCare will show a yellow shield (green means you're all good, yellow means there's a problem but it's not severe, and red means you have a problem that requires immediate attention) if you haven't performed a backup with OneCare--so anyone that can't back up their data because of this problem will see a yellow shield, which may cause some people to worry.
I've been pretty happy with OneCare overall, and I plan to continue to use it even after they start charging me for it. At $50 a year, it's a reasonable, competitive price. But at $50 a year for up to three computers, it's a steal. (Getting it for $20 my first year doesn't hurt, either.)
AVG Free Edition is by far the best anti-virus program I've used, and I've used most of the leading brands. As for anti-spyware, we've still got Ad-aware and Spybot S&D. And the same goes for firewalls. Meh.
Microsoft included a virus scanner already in MS DOS 6.00, released 1993. They also offered one or two updates during the lifetime of MS DOS. "Nice try, better luck next time" was the common answer. The other AV software (like McAfee) was simply much better, faster and simply up-to-date.
I doubt Microsoft will do it better this time. Sure, they finally learned that you have to update your OS and some major applications. But they decided to distribute the updates not when the updates are ready, but when the regular patch-day happens. Bad luck if the update is not ready at that point. In 1993, experts recommended to update the AV software weekly or at least monthly. Now, we are told to update the AV software at least daily. The AV software I use checks for updates every eight hours by default. IMHO, that's simply too fast for Microsoft. My guess is they won't release more than one update per week for the scanner, and I think they will do it via the Windows update service.
Tux2000
Denken hilft.
how is babby formed?
Subject says it all. Solves the same problem.
.. where if you're Microsoft, you can't win.
Give AV for free and you're anti-competition.
Sell AV and you're milking the customer for every dime.
Don't do anything and you just make crappy software and don't care about security.
-David
They added a feature to WSUS for signature updates.
If you run WSUS, go into your options and select synchronize options, then select Update classifications.
You will see a new category for definition updates.
This One Live software will be able to get it's updates from Automatic Updates, or from WSUS.
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
Sheesh, and I thought *I* was bad. d00d, here in the western hemisphere we live in a system called capitalism...ppl AND companies have every right and oppurunity to provide a service or product and make a profit from it. There are no boundaries at how MUCH of a profit said company or individual can or should earn from said product. Again, NO limits. **Free Enterprise**. Along with free enterprise comes free choice...if you want something else, you're free to choose it, instead.
I use MS, sure, but also *BSD, *nix, even MAC. Yes, all paid for (where applicable). There is no one-size fits all in the world of computers, at least not for me - I like 'em all, regardless of OS.
Does MS have a monopoly? At the moment...yes, after all, they've created the market for themselves, and have listened to the market ever since, delivering what the market asks them too. Key word, *market*, not *individual*. When someone else comes along and builds an OS that anyone's granny can learn to send e-mail with, bring 'em on, I say! Buy it and give it to granny if she likes it better. Again, there's that "choice" thing.
What disturbs me FAR more than MS coming up with a low-priced virus scanner is the US Gov't wanting to index and essentially control the Internet...a previously un-regulated, community-built village that will soon be no more.
"In fact, they now have a big incentive to make the OS less secure." No, they are listening to the market as they always have. The market wondered where the MS antivirus solution is, and here it is! Now that it's here, the /. crowd doesn't like it!
But what makes the /. crowd think that MS is even listening to you? Clearly, /. isn't MS's market :)
... I think I had contact with a thing called "virus" before I was using Linux, but what is this "spyware" thing you mention?
Just like lawyers don't have an financial interest in tort reform and accountants don't have an financial interest in tax reform, now MS doesn't have a financial interest in producing a stable, secure product. To the contrary, if they did, they'd lose the $50/mo/user revenue stream created by the security holes in their own product.
Wonderful. Is there an antitrust issue somewhere in here?
-k
M$ has "bundled" IE deep into the OS. IE is the primary channel that viruses and spyware exploit. Why can't they "bundle" the fix in the OS?
What a scam!!!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Maybe they will even integrate anti-virus into Windows in the future and make windows more expensive and lead to disappearance of competitors. Hopefully this won't happen.
Here's an excerpt:
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
It can't be legal! It is not ethical to profit from a problem that results from your failure to do due diligence.
First, your analysis is flawed because Microsoft is still providing security updates for free. It's funny that so many here that consider themselves technically savvy confuse system flaws with trojans, spyware, and the like. There's no way to make a system that's secure from such malware. A system can limit the damage through limited user accounts, and the default account in Vista will be non-admin. What more can Microsoft do?
Red Hat gives the product away for free to make money on support. Since they depend on support they have a disinsentive to make the proverbial "perfect" software, software that is so easy and powerful that it requires no support. Red Hat intentionally makes hard to use systems to force you to call them for support. Sounds like extortion.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I think you're taking "fix" a little too literally. One good fix would be to toss out the new stuff in Vista, leave the secure stuff, and stive for good backwardwards compatiblity. (In fact, I hear they're striving for this already). Then GIVE THE OPERATING SYSTEM AWAY to all licensed windows customers. Admit they fucked up their design decisions along the way and do something helpful for their customers.
What you're describing is WinXP SP3, and Microsoft isn't going to do that because they want something they can sell for $200.
I think part of the problem here is backwards compatability means not securing stuff. Part of making things backwards compatable is letting programs use admin access whether they need it or not, having applications install dll files rather than handling all their functionality in their own executables, RPC usage, ect.
I think the solution is for Vista to be rewritten from the ground up with more security in mind, create a separate, sandboxed environment for apps to run in that do not conform to the new policies, maybe even with degraded experience (lower priority for CPU usage, no access no new Vista features, ect). Customers not happy at their apps running this way will pressure the developers to update to the new standards. Eventually (like two or three major Windows releases later, depending on how often they release) you drop the sandbox and it becomes update or die for apps.
Some common arguements to this are:
"People just won't upgrade if it will effect their apps like that"
Yeah they will. If they don't pay for the upgrade for their current machines they will get it when they buy their next PC. If they want to watch HDTV from their cable company or HD-DVD or BluRay DVD's in full resolution they will, if they want to keep getting the newest software for their PC they will becuase developers will eventually stop releasing for for pre-Vista systems.
"This will never work"
Apple just started a transition like this for the third time. Yeah, you lose some users and you lose some developers, but in the end you attract new users and new developers becuase you platform is better than before.
"It only worked for Apple because they own the OS and the hardware business, they could easily mandate that all new machines use the OS"
If Microsoft makes an operating system release worth upgrading to for the average consumer (in other words, stops stripping any feature worth paying for from it) consumers will want the new OS despite slightly lesser performance on some of their apps. The marketplace will decide. Also, it's not like Micorsoft has to continue to sell OEM licenses for XP. Maybe they can use their monopoly for some good for once and force better security on the industry.
I'm not sure why anyone -needs- windows any more.
Let me give you a hint why most people still -need- Windows: gaming. How many top-notch PC games are available for OSX or Linux or BSD? Very few. The only recent popular OSX games I can come up with offhand are World of Warcraft and Battlefield 2, and I can't think of any that run on Linux or BSD (without Wine, which is probably beyond Joe Average). Obviously this isn't a concern for business, but until this situation changes at home Windows will be with us for a long time yet.
Classic chicken-and-egg situation, nobody develops games for OSX/Linux/BSD because there's only a small market for it, and people don't want to switch because there's no games available. Not that I think this is a good situation, but it's a reality.
...even with the name of their product, "OneCare." AppleCare has been around for years.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
This is like credit card companies selling me services to protect me from credit abuse and preserve my credit rating - shouldn't they be doing this kind of stuff anyway? If I don't pay them for 'identity theft protection' does it mean that someone can steal my credit card and they won't do anything about it? This is the way things are going... just try to get a piece of electronics replaced by a retailer if you didn't pay them their 'extended warranty' tax.
Chance of a hole in Microsoft Antivirus that allows remote-code execution: 101%
Quoted below is a previous post I made on the subject of whether this move is anticompetitive, as well as on the idea of it being a conflict of interest for MS to be providing it. I think it's still perfectly relevant:
--
I'm not sure that MS integrating AV software into Windows is the best move for a variety of reasons (both for MS and for users), but all this talk of such a move being anticompetitive is unfounded, and suggests that some people were not paying enough attention during the Internet Explorer antitrust trial.
Recall one of the principle arguments:
US DOJ: Internet Explorer is a bundled product, NOT a necessary component of the operating system, and is being bundled to leverage the Windows monopoly against Netscape et. al.
MS: Internet Explorer is a necessary component of the operating system, and cannot be removed without crippling it.
Now, any computer veteran knows that a web browser is not a necessary component of an operating system. MS' claim was only true in the sense that they had supposedly (intentionally, it is argued) tied IE into the OS in such a way that they were one and the same, making removal of IE impossible.
More to the point, the inverse of the DOJ's argument was, essentially, "Bundling IE with Windows gives MS an unfair advantage over Netscape in the web browser market. Such a bundling might be justifiable if web browsers were integral to the functionality of the operating system, but this is not the case."
Flash forward to now.
Were MS to go ahead with integrating AV with Windows and find themselves in an "unfair product bundling" court case, they should easily succeed with AV where they failed with Internet Explorer. Why?
Show me one security expert who would advise NOT running antivirus software with Windows.
If security is an important goal of the operating system, antivirus software is quite obviously a *necessary* component in today's virus-wild world. The proof of that is in the pudding: any "well-configured" Windows PC has antivirus software installed on it as an integral part of that configuration. And since antivirus software is a necessary component, it is, by definition, NOT a "bundled product" but rather a part of the single overall operating system product, which invalidates the basis of the antitrust argument.
It doesn't matter that other companies want to sell their own AV software, nor that they've built an "industry" doing so. The only question that matters is, does Windows 2000/XP *NEED* antivirus software in order to meet the security expectations of the average user? If the answer to that question is yes, then MS has just as much right to bundle AV software as car makers have to include airbags.
And the argument that "MS should fix the flaws in the OS rather than integrate AV software" misses the point entirely. The broad definition of a computer virus is not "code designed to take advantage of operating system flaws." It's "code designed to do destructive, disruptive acts, act against the will of the rightful owner of the system, etc, etc." Viruses can't all be blamed on Windows.
Oh, also worth noting: Microsoft Office is *NOT* part of Windows! I mention this because of the discussion on email worms coming in through Outlook.
Yes, they should fix the flaws, but AV software is like another layer of defense, it attacks the problem from a different angle, bringing advantages that improve the overall "security" of the operating system. I think most people understand this point and are simply looking to take cheap shots at Windows even though they're well aware that AV software is more than simply a "dynamic OS flaw patcher." Is it sometimes used that way? Yes. But that's not the sole premise of AV software. Especially in Windows, where everything often runs with Administrator privileges, many viruses don't exploit holes in the operating system, they exploit the fact that the user was silly enough to open and run an EXE attached to an email message.
Might integ
will this make your computer TEN TIMES SLOWER?
There is no way in Hell any of the BSDs are a viable alternative to Windows for the majority of Windows users.
OS X: definitely.
Linux: probably good enough, depending on distro.
*BSD: no way.
The BSDs are OSes for *unix hackers*, not ignorant end users.
"FreeBSD is for people who love unix. Linux is for people who hate Windows."
Windows (from 3.0 onwards) didn't so much use DOS as a "foundation" as it knocked the whole building down (sans maybe the water and electricity connections) and erected a new one in its place.
Starting from Windows 3.0, DOS was not much more than a boot loader - Windows replaced nearly _all_ OS level functionality (processor scheduling, hardware access, memory management, etc).
After testing Microsoft AntiSpyware (which mind you worked better than Symantec until NAV 2006) I've come to the conclusion that Microsoft may in fact be committed to writing a genuine fix to the Window virus problem. But here are my concerns.
Unlike Symantec, McAfee, Clam, etc... Microsoft is a major target for hackers. Throughout the past 10 years of computing (which in my estimates is when the virus market really deployed) Microsoft and Linux have been roughly equally secure with the exception that Microsoft was a prime target for hackers. Commercial virus writers (in other words hackers employed by companies to find holes in systems such as Windows and Linux) profit more by publicly announcing that they have "Fixed a blatent hole in Linux" instead of just bragging that they found one. Where the same companies will simply release information regarding the holes in Windows and complain that Microsoft has known about it for at least 6 hours and no steps have been taken to fix it.
So, the way I see it, a Microsoft Antivirus product will in fact be the hottest hacker target for the next few years (or at least months). It's like taking the idiot hunter that doesn't wear identifing material in the woods (such as an orange vest) and putting a set of antlers on his head and taping his mouth shut. Every hacker (whitehat and black) will be targetting the Microsoft antivirus program, the update mechanism for it, etc... everyone will be dieing to show that they can use the Microsoft Antivirus product to install a virus on a machine.
Mark my words, in the next week or two, there will be a headline on Slashdot about how a virus was written targetting the Microsoft Antivirus solution.
You probably won't need to optimize at all if you use Mac OS X. Here's why:
For these reasons, there is little benefit to defragmenting.
Note:Mac OS X systems use hundreds of thousands of small files, many of which are rarely accessed. Optimizing them can be a major effort for very little practical gain. There is also a chance that one of the files placed in the "hot band" for rapid reads during system startup might be moved during defragmentation, which would decrease performance.
taken from About disk optimization with Mac OS
Now, we have to pay $49/y for something which fixes shortcomings in their hideous operating system? Heiko
Most viruses exploit vulnerabilities in windows or outlook or similar. This is by and large due to the inherent insecurity of the operating system.
While one could argue that MS has every right to persue this line of business, the immediate counter argument that comes to mind is conflict of interest.
They are in effect selling a defective product, and then charging a subscription to patch it. Instead they should be obligated to fix the problem.
I believe the traditional analogy is cars:
If Ford made a car which had a really easy to break lock, and had a car alarm subscription service to "fix" their fault, would you buy it? Or ask them to redesign and replace the lock?
Speaking of product names, perhaps Microsoft should name their antivirus tool Microsoft Methadone(tm)?
I thought this was interesting... let me know what you guys think.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=225352
Why? Well instead of fixing the problem now they will make money on selling you a fix. If they weren't "evil" they would fix their OS to where you WOULDN'T need all the "anti-" apps you have to buy to protect a windows box.
Is this not the clue you've all been waiting for that you should change operating system? If Microsoft asked you to eat the poop (sorry for the bad example) would we all rush out and buy their poop and eat it? It seems to be the case with all new versions of windows (yay woot i got me da new windows.) Please, stop using it or put up.Buck the trend.
My name is Luke Abrams, and I'm the release manager for Windows OneCare as well as a frequent Slashdot reader. I was stoked that OneCare was slashdotted today, and read through (almost) all of the comments and replies. As always, no shortage of opinions here, and it's interesting to see what the reaction in this community has been to the move by Microsoft to release an anti-virus solution.
I wanted to post my personal thoughts on Windows OneCare, both as an employee of Microsoft/OneCare, and as a bona-fide geek (if you need any proof I'll show you my nmos/pmos tattoos sometime
1. "The problem...and the fix" - many of your comments were criticisms that Microsoft was selling solutions to the problems that it caused. It's no secret that all software has bugs and vulnerabilities - and like other software companies, we are committed to building software as secure as we can make it and finding and fixing bugs as quickly as possible. But let's not confuse code defects (exploitable or otherwise) with malware, and methods of protection. Let me dive into an analogy for a bit to flesh out the thought - think home security. When you build a house, you also want to make sure that it's secure. You install locks on doors, make sure windows only open from the inside, put your valuables in a safe, etc. But whether or not the builders left any exploitable holes in their design, you aren't really protected without a security system. Let's break this system down:
Good = secure design for the house
Better = above + updates to the design of the house as exploits are made known + good security practices (e.g. key management - don't leave your key in the mailbox!)
Best = above + active security system and a police force/infrastructure.
2. "MS is charging for fixes to their own OS!" - this is not the case. Microsoft will continue to service their products with QFEs, SPs, etc. for free through Microsoft Updates. It's in our best interest to help protect all our customers this way, not just subscribers to one particular service. OneCare (among other things) simply makes things easy for consumers specifically by helping assist with the updating process from Microsoft Update as part of its active protection. As for the active protection piece, MS has long told users they need antivirus protection to be safe - even Windows Security Center in XPSP2 tells you that you're unprotected if you don't have an antivirus or firewall program installed and active.
3. "OneCare will take advantage with Internal APIs" - couldn't be farther from the truth. We take great pains to help ensure that we are competing fairly in the marketplace, and we plan to be a leader in PC care by making a great product that delights our customers. The OneCare service is built on top of the same public APIs available to all vendors.
Some of the questions I've read in here today:
Q: Does the Beta cost $20?
A: Nope - the Beta is free until we release. Use it, enjoy, send us feedback. Beta users that purchase during the special