Microsoft Agrees to Changes in Vista Security

An anonymous reader writes "Bowing to pressure from European antitrust regulators and rival security vendors, Microsoft has agreed to modify Windows Vista to better accommodate third-party security software makers. In a press conference Friday, Microsoft said it would configure Vista to let third-party anti-virus and other security software makers bypass 'PatchGuard,' a feature in 64-bit versions of Windows Vista designed to bar access to the Windows kernel. Microsoft said it would create an API to let third-party vendors access the kernel and to disable the Windows Security Center so that users would not be prompted by multiple alerts about operating system security. In addition, Redmond said it would modify the welcome screen presented to Vista users to include links to other security software other than Microsoft's own OneCare suite. From the article: 'It looks like Microsoft was really testing the waters here, sort of pushing the limits of antitrust and decided they probably couldn't cross that line just yet.'"

Comments

I find it kind of interesting...

[dghcasp]

Companies like Symantec (aka Norton) have profited immensely from an industry created because Windows wasn't secure.

Now they're upset because Microsoft wants that piece of that market; in other words, Microsoft wants to profit from the fact that Windows isn't secure.

Yet in pretty much every other operating system, the solution is simply to make the darned thing secure.

Now, I realize that the issues are a bit larger than this, but I do wonder: IF Microsoft ever released a truly secure operating system, thus making Symantec and other such companies as relevant as the buggy whip, would they then sue to prevent the release of the O/S?

Re:testing the waters?

[Guppy06]

"Microsoft isn't a monopoly though. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using any number of other x86 operating systems on their PC. Don't like Windows? Fine, install Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc. Hell, buy a Mac and use MacOS X."

We've all been over this before...

1. Computer manfuacturers are bent over a barrel to include an OEM Windows install on every machine they sell. The only realistic way for a user to get a computer without Windows is to build one themself.
2. Since everybody is already getting a copy of Windows, what incentinve is there for the end user to try an alternative OS? Better yet, even if they do, they've already paid for Windows and Microsoft still has their money and their "installed base" numbers
3. People write software for the dominant OS rather than invest even more money into R&D for multiple OSes. Meaning that most applications (read "games") out there are designed for Windows

The 95% of end users out there who don't build their own PCs from scratch are left with choosing to continue running the Windows their machine came with, or to take on the Sisyphusean challenge of working to install their own OS and tailoring their software shopping (if not their life in general) around that OS instead of simply using what they already paid for.

"You know why people use Microsoft Windows? Because they like it."

Microsoft will never allow anybody to test that hypothesis in any meaningful way. You can't say that with any certainty until Dell and HP start saying "Would you like Vista or Fedora with your new computer?"

And how does Microsoft do this? By abusing their monopoly power.

Re:I don't get it.

[jb.hl.com]

MS had decided to close off that access to all software except their commercial security apps (which they will charge extra to the customer)

Lies. Trend and Avast have apparently been able to run on Vista without any problems. They knuckled down and wrote code so they worked on Vista, and indeed Vista has an API called Windows Filtering Platform, which allows anti-virus makers to monitor file activity. Symantec and McAfee, on the other hand, threw a hissy fit.

Microsoft is, for once, clearly in the right.