Google To Microsoft — Give Users Choices In Vista

An anonymous reader writes "A Google spokesman has asked Microsoft to 'preserve user choice for search and other applications' with its future products, such as Vista. The spokesman made this comment after meeting with European Union antitrust regulators, though he added that at this point, the company has no plans to make antitrust allegations against Redmond. Notably, McAfee and Symantec have accused Microsoft of not being forthcoming with the code they need to ensure their security wares run smoothly on Vista, and the EU has already expressed concern about Microsoft's potentially anticompetitive plans."

Comments

Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Microsoft?

Madness, I say! utter madness! And FUD!

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[WhiplashII]

I find it hilarious that Europe is the country/entity/region doing the most to fight Monopolies. Only external ones, of course, but still - very funny!

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[daem0n1x]

Why is it funny? Don't you gringos have better things to do than bash Europe at every opportunity, even when it doesn't make any sense? I assume you are American, and USA is the absolute World champion of protectionism, so what exactly do you find soooo funny?

Can you tell me what is so wrong about Europe actions regarding this matter? Or your post was just for fun?

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[aetherworld]

fyi, europe is not a country. or county. or region. or whatever.

It's called a CONTINENT.

And btw, the EU is doing everything to fight internal monopolies as well.

kthnx.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[WhiplashII]

Just to make sure that you are aware, gringo is an offensive term in the US. (I know that it is not offensive everywhere, which is why I mention it).

The reason this is funny in that Europe in general has an extremely protectionistic attitude towards people/companies/etc - one of the basic tenants of socialism, which I think everyone on Earth agrees the US is further fom than Europe (good or bad is irrelevant, it just is). The fact that the US allows monopolies to flourish when the EU does not is very funny, in that the US ideal is being better served by the EU than by the US.

So, I in fact said nothing bad about Europe at all. Grow a thicker skin, please!

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[gwspazz]

Did you just say gringos? Wow that sounds like an overly intelligent response to a post.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[WhiplashII]

The EU is difficult to describe (do you call it a country?), but there is no way youare going to convince me that Europe is not a region. A continent is a region...

As for fighting internal monopolies, you may have better information than I do - but then again, you may not. My understanding is that most of Europe has complex laws governing competition between companies (which like all laws almost universally favor the incumbent) - and that startups are comparitively rare. Both of these point to me that there are hidden monopolies - though perhaps I am mistaken.

My understanding is that is many countries (outside of the US, Britain, and a few others) the onwership and control of corporations rests in the hands of a very few individuals through what are called "pyramid corporations." Because of this hidden control, many structures that externally appear competitive are actually monopolistic. Because this is all done behind closed doors, the only way to see it is through secondary effects - such as the two that I mentioned, few startups and complex laws concerning companies.

Not saying the US is perfect, mind you - just that there may be problems in the EU that you are not seeing.

Do you have more data on that you could share?

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[kimvette]

and USA is the absolute World champion of protectionism,

Funny, everything I buy in the stores is labeled "made in Taiwan" or "made in China" or "made in Viet Nam" - hardly anything "made in USA" any more. In fact it's so hard to find stuff manufactured here that a few months ago I quit looking.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[daem0n1x]

gringo is an offensive term in the US

I didn't know it was offensive. It's now banned from my posts.

Europe in general has an extremely protectionistic attitude towards people/companies/etc - one of the basic tenants of socialism

Capitalism resorts to that all the time. It is the basis for the prosperity of the rich Western countries (USA, Europe, etc). And is one of the fundamental components of the fascist doctrine, which creates the best possible environment for monopolies to establish and grow.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[Orange Crush]

Microsoft is actually in a bit of a bind if you think about it. They've been raking in money for decades, but they're totally dependent on the Windows tax and MS Office. They already have monopolies with Windows and Office so they can't grow without introducing something new or squeezing the installed base (Activation, WGA, upgrade restrictions, 31 flavors, etc). The only other products they make with significant market share operate at a loss (i.e. Xbox).

Vista has taken so long because MS has to spend money to develop it, but it's not going to bring in more money than XP. It won't do much in retail. Joe Sixpack doesn't install patches, much less spend $$$ to upgrade his OS. It has to come with the new computer.

This is why Microsoft is frantically trying to get into new markets. Unfortunately for them, history has not been kind to these efforts and they almost always fail miserably (it's hard to sell crap when it isn't bundled). Zune (sold at a loss) vs iPod; OneCare vs Norton, Symantec, Trend, AVG, etc; MSN & Windows Live vs Google. Will any of these grow Microsoft? Probably not.

As for the breadwinners, desktop Windows is safe for the time being--it's bundled & the average user isn't going to bother to install anything else. Office is at risk--corporate inertia will keep it in the workplace for a while yet, but OpenOffice.org, AbiWord, and soon Windows ports of KOffice are great reasons for home users not to spend $300 (and getting better). Windows servers look pretty bleak. Outlook/Exchange and Active Directory are the only pieces I can think of that *nix doesn't have a vastly superior alternative for. The Windows port of Evolution, Mozilla Sunbird, Google Domains, SugarCRM, Salesforce.com, etc. will probably kill Outlook eventually. Hell, maybe IBM will get a wild hair and open-source Lotus Notes & Domino. The next version or two of Samba will tackle AD. This could all be mature enough before Longhorn server RTM. There was little reason to upgrade Win2k to Win2k3, I see less reason for Win2k to Longhorn short of EOL at which point it'll be cheaper (and probably easier & user transparent) to migrate to *nix.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[daem0n1x]

That doesn't mean anything. If you seek for the brand owners, they're all from the rich countries, mainly USA.

The brand owners are the ones making real money with those products. The others are just subcontractors manufacturing and earning peanuts for it.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[AlecC]

So the Chinese and Taiwanese are dominating low-margin consumer goods, which you come across every day.

Now look where your high-margin, high tech gear is coming from. Who makes your aircraft, routers, heavy engineering equipment? The sort of thing you only see in a professional environment, and which has twenty times the markup of consumer goods. Overwhelmingly from the US, with Japan and the EU following behind.

China is doing unskilled and low skilled work. The "West" is still holding in there well on the lucrative tech stuff, and will continue to do so for some years yet. But don't rest on your laurels - if you stop running, others will overtake.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[WhiplashII]

Uncontrolled capitalism is what we are discussing - but that is an economic system, not a governing philosophy. What I am trying to show is the difference in the application of a governing philosophy (such a socialism or conservatism) in the controls applied to capitalism. (And pointing out that the US isn't doing as well as it should be, IMHO)

fundamental components of the fascist doctrine, which creates the best possible environment for monopolies to establish and grow.

This is actually a very good point, though a little far from anything that was being discussed prior. The basic design of fascism concentrates power and typically uses the corporate structure almost exclusively as a monopoly. This could probably be used to rate a countries "proximity to fascism", if you will. The best indicators I know of for the tendancy towards monopolies (hidden and apparent) are 1) complex regulations concerning industry - typically referred to as safety regulations/controls, and 2) suppression of startups (since monopolies must quash startups eventually people stop making them). This way you can measure the hidden monopolies caused by pyramid corporations, etc.

More information on startup friendly countries.
More information on Government regulation. (Not as good as the first one, unfortunately)

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[rochi]

actually, the high tech goods are increasingly showing up from japan and asia, as opposed to the US. The US seems to be converting almost entirely to management (note that management is not r&d) and services rendered to the management.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[jacksonj04]

One thing MS does have majorly in its favour for business is integration, which no OSS offering I've seen comes close to. Although yes it uses horrible MS only standards, since everybody uses the MS tools in business it's mostly irrelevant. Active Directory links with SharePoint links with Office links with Outlook links with Exchange links with Windows Mobile...

As soon as somebody comes up with a solid, reliable, open standard for universally exchanging data, then it may be possible to dismantle some of this stranglehold. Until then it's still struggling to make applications 'just work together' without a load of scripts in the background.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[aetherworld]

The EU is difficult to describe (do you call it a country?), but there is no way youare going to convince me that Europe is not a region. A continent is a region...

Right, it is a region but since continent > region that was my first thought ;)

The EU is not a country though, like the US, with several states. It's a confederation of 25 autonomous countries.

As for fighting internal monopolies, you may have better information than I do - but then again, you may not. My understanding is that most of Europe has complex laws governing competition between companies (which like all laws almost universally favor the incumbent) - and that startups are comparitively rare. Both of these point to me that there are hidden monopolies - though perhaps I am mistaken.

My understanding is that is many countries (outside of the US, Britain, and a few others) the onwership and control of corporations rests in the hands of a very few individuals through what are called "pyramid corporations." Because of this hidden control, many structures that externally appear competitive are actually monopolistic. Because this is all done behind closed doors, the only way to see it is through secondary effects - such as the two that I mentioned, few startups and complex laws concerning companies.

That might also be true, but only for very few sectors like telecommunications, postal services and gambling (although the gambling misery has been solved in the last few months, I think). Compared to the US we have few startups, that's also true. But not because the government makes it difficult for people to found a company. In Austria, where I live, the government actively supports startups (lower taxes for 3 years, less health insurance costs, cheap loans...). But people seem just to conservative to try something like that. I think I know a little bit about that, since i just founded a graphics/web marketing company and have received LOTS of help, information and money from both my country's government as well as the EU. So, no, we don't really have more monopolies than the US.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[WhiplashII]

Yeah, but "confederation of 25 autonomous countries" is too hard to slip into conversation... is there some short-hand that people use for it? (Or maybe they just always use EU, and leave that part out?)

I'm interested in your views about the startups in particular - this is where I really work, and where my real interests lie. You say that the government is actively promoting startups, but that they do not happen because the Austrian people are too conservative, right? What scares people off? Is it the fear that they will not be able to compete? Is it the fear that they will lose their own assets (because limmited liability law does not protect Europeans as much as it does in the US)? Is it because those likely to create startups can do better doing something else? Or do they leave to other places?

Just interested in your view on this - most of my information comes from government reports, which have an obviously biase.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[telepilot]

In Sweden it is often not the fear of either competition or loss of assets that turn people away from creating new startups, but rather the social stigma associated with failure. The general attitude is one of "If you've failed, you have not helped us build a better society" and it can be really hard to get a second chance if you try to restart a career or have any business with a bank. To have been responsible for a bankruptcy is often seen as a telling sign that there is something seriously wrong about the way you do business.

However, that view is not shared by those who actively engage in startup activities such as VCs or "serial entreprenours" where a startup that crashed can be as a really valuble lesson for those involved. It does limit the pool of people who will consider starting their own company though, which in some ways explain the relatively low number of startups.

Re:Potentially anti-competitive practices?

[aetherworld]

Yeah, we just leave the country/continent/region part out. It's just "the EU" :)

I'm interested in your views about the startups in particular - this is where I really work, and where my real interests lie. You say that the government is actively promoting startups, but that they do not happen because the Austrian people are too conservative, right? What scares people off? Is it the fear that they will not be able to compete?

I'm not quite sure. I think it's a mixture of several of the things you mentioned. Competing might not be a problem. For example, we have a dire lack of standards compliant web developers. Even the company I last worked for, which was one of the largest around here, still created terrible websites. So that's what my startup is based on. I know I won't have much competition in this field. However, it was still a huge step to found my company. The biggest problem I see for myself is convincing people that they really want/need what I have to offer and use my services instead of sticking with the old, ugly layouts offered to them by my "competition". So.. I think there are enough fresh ideas but the customers aren't ready for them.

Is it the fear that they will lose their own assets (because limmited liability law does not protect Europeans as much as it does in the US)? Is it because those likely to create startups can do better doing something else?

Limited liability laws apply here as well. However, there is an option to found a company as a GesbR (company constituted under civil law) which costs virtually no money to found (no need for an entry in the company register either). However, you are absolutely liable for your company with your own money.

Or do they leave to other places?

I'm quite sure of that. Because of the problems i mentioned above, I was also thinking of moving to Scandinavia or maybe even the US. And I know quite a lot of people who moved somewhere else with their startups since they didn't see any business opportunities in their country with their new and fresh ideas.

What do you mean?

[jeremyclark13]

You mean to tell me that Microsoft is attempting to hide code that would allow third parties to produce valuable software that is of far greater value than what ships with Microsoft.

No not our precious little Billy boy.

Re:What do you mean?

[just_forget_it]

The value of Symnatec and McAffee's software is questionable at best. They leech performance and destabalize systems all in the name of security. It's a cure that's worse than the disease. This is not like the browser market. Norton and Mcaffee exist because of flaws in Windows. How can you fault Microsoft for fixing something they ought to have fixed a long time ago?

Plus with Symnatec's behavior this past year (releasing "studies" that made dubious claims about the lack of security in Mac OS X and Firefox, a transparent attempt to convince the general public that they're still relevant), I can't say I'll miss them one bit when they bite the dust.

Microsoft's security products (like Defender) are just plain superior to Norton/McAfee.

Re:What do you mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft's security products (like Defender) are just plain superior to Norton/McAfee."

Nice thinking...so basically your saying that microsoft's Defender product is superior at fixing/patching the flaws that exists in their OWN product then 3rd party? Well that's a great train of taught...you must be a govenrment employee...

But here's a crazy idea...instead of trying to take over the security market, why doesn't microsoft just FIX THE FREAKING HOLES IN THEIR SOFTWARE...

Re:What do you mean?

[drinkypoo]

The value of Symnatec and McAffee's software is questionable at best. They leech performance and destabalize systems all in the name of security. It's a cure that's worse than the disease.

One might argue that if they could get the proper information about Windows, then their programs would be stable.

Now, I've been using Symantec and McAffee products for a long time and I know that this is not true because they are actually fucking lames, but you could still make the argument.

Re:What do you mean?

[just_forget_it]

"FIX THE FREAKING HOLES IN THEIR SOFTWARE..."

THATS WHAT THEYRE DOING. It's my whole point. Besides, this argument is moot because Microsoft already opened up Vista enough to let the security companies in. It's easy to say your software is secure when you don't have millions of hackers gunning for it every day. I'm not saying Windows couldn't have been a lot better, because it could have, but you just can't expect ANY software to be completely secure.

"so basically your saying that microsoft's Defender product is superior at fixing/patching the flaws that exists in their OWN product then 3rd party?"
Defender is not a patch, it is an Anti-spyware program. Spyware is installed by the user 99% of the time, and Defender cleans up the problem that was caused by the USER, not the OS. And as far as spyware removal software goes, yes, I am saying that Defender does a far better job than most commercially-available alternatives. It's lightweight, doesn't slow down the system, is very effective, and NEVER bothers you. You don't even see an icon in the tray. I feel much better having Defender installed than the utter shit that is Spy Sweeper.

Keep in mind I'm not under the delusion that Microsoft's stuff is great. I'm a mac/linux person forced to use windows. But not EVERYTHING Microsoft puts out is a bloated hole-y POS. Some of it is darn good, like IE 7, WMP 11, and Defender. When someone puts out a quality product against their track record, I don't knee-jerk into deriding it as bloated and unstable. If it's good, I can admit it's good.

Re:What do you mean?

[Volante3192]

One might argue that if they could get the proper information about Windows, then their programs would be stable.

Then one could look at Trend Micro and AVG and wonder how they did so well without that proper information from Microsoft...

Re:What do you mean?

[Taagehornet]

When someone puts out a quality product against their track record, I don't knee-jerk into deriding it as bloated and unstable. If it's good, I can admit it's good.

You must be new here on slashdot... ;-)

No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Microsoft have to maintain broken code just to preserve McAfee and Symantec revenue streams? That's like saying that, say, Ford shouldn't redesign defective brakes on their cars because it would hurt the sales of aftermarket brake parts.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I agree, the aftermarket security products came about due to crappy insecure code in previous MS products. Now I am by far not a fan of MS, I use *bsd products on all my systems. But if MS is going to go the extra mile to secure there product (and it actually is secure), thats a good thing..... Right?? I mean letting the security venders install there code on top of MS's supposedly secure code could in theory introduce holes, I will use Symantec as an example, they have a vulnerability in there code that processed packets a while back, it affected there entire product range (FW, IDS/IPS, AV etc) as that was shared code. Now you let Symantec put that crap on top of the MS secured code (supposedly secure atleast), and you just introduce a major vulnerability.

Personally, I say screw the aftermarket venders, there place is to provide services where the primary vender failed to produce, in the field of security, this means that the vender must intentionally creade insecure code to keep those aftermarket security venders in business... Thats just plain stupid.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Wheatfieldcrows]

You may be over simplifying, they didn't ask Microsoft to maintain broken code. They just asked MS to reveal the Windows code they need to make it easier to write a compatible AV program. It's like designing a new engine and then not telling anyone the size of the bolts you used so they can't make simple bolt on aftermarket parts

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Chosen Reject]

I don't think you understand. McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection. This isn't Ford continuing to make defective brakes so that third-party brake manufacturers can still be in business, this is Ford some how magically making the brake design unknown to anyone else in the world so that only Ford can make brake replacements. Though in a physical world I don't know how they would do that. This is only possible in software.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

I would have to agree. As long as they don't actively block services of their competitors. I'm no huge fan of Microsoft and they do tend to make it somewhat less than easy for their competition but in the end, if you offer a better product people are going to use it. There is a reason Google does so well and it is because their product (search) works well. I don't think they have much to fear from microsoft at this point.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Opportunist]

As soon as Ford holds 90% of the car market we'll discuss it, ok?

Monopolies (or almost-monopolies) deserve different treatment than actually contested markets.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[PeteDotNu]

"this is Ford some how magically making the brake design unknown to anyone else in the world so that only Ford can make brake replacements."

There's no magic about it. It's more like Coca-Cola not publishing their secret recipe, so that other people can't make their own Coke on the cheap. Which is fair enough, really.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[smittyoneeach]

Why should Microsoft have to maintain broken code

• Punishment (but, then, the US seems to have lost its nerve for holding anyone accountable)
• Staying in character
• Maintaining the status quo. Since the US lacks the courage to minimize anti-competitive practices by requiring companies to operate in a single layer of the OSI model. (Such an idea may indeed suck, but it is at least enforceable).

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[torrentami]

This analogy illustrates a good point. Ford does not make its own brakes. In fact, many parts in their cars are designed and manufactured by other companies that Ford OEMs from. This is how most car companies work. They focus on their core competencies and then bring all the parts together and market and sell the end product. Whereas, Microsoft attempts to constantly design their own pieces of the OS and go as far as they can to prevent 3rd parties from adding value. The OS should be a framework on which applications can run. Not the framework AND the applications. If MS wants to write their own apps and bundle them with the OS, that's fine, but the OS and the apps should be decoupled. The apps that run on the OS should be chosen from a competitively balanced playing field, not forced down your throat while inhibiting other apps from running.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Chosen Reject]

Uhm, no. Nobody is looking to replace their Windows. If they were then they have plenty of choices. They are looking for already available third-party addons which Vista is going to shut out so that only Microsoft can offer those services. Frankly, I'd rather see MS just make their OS secure. I also don't use either McAfee or Symantec. But I think this is an important fight to win against MS. This is more like Coca-Cola somehow keeping third-party straws from working in their products.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[whitestone]

Ford might be sued when it is selling better cars, at least in the USA. But Microsoft isnt sues for shipping a more secure os, but because it is still crappy AND bars the competition from the info that its own av programmers do have. So MS is steering to less comptetion, not to a better OS.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[joshetc]

There should be no easy way for any company to have access to low level kernal functions. I think Microsoft's gripe is just that. They have made it so no virus should be able to get to that low of a level thereby erasing the need for an antivirus application to be that low. Any virii should be in user-space which is where antivirus should be looking..

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

their there they're - Learn them. Use them. You sound like an eight year old.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Mr. Underbridge]

There's no magic about it. It's more like Coca-Cola not publishing their secret recipe, so that other people can't make their own Coke on the cheap. Which is fair enough, really.

As long as your market share isn't 95%, sure.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[ksalter]

They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.

There is no evidence that this is happening or is going to happen. Their complaints are without merit, since other AV vendors are running on Vista now with no problems. Further, this code was in the 64bit versions of XP and Windows 2003 server already, and there were no complaints then.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[rbarreira]

So when Ford has 90% of the market, they shouldn't be allowed to fix their brakes?

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[chroot_james]

You have a good point too. I think, however, that maybe Ford could take a lesson from MS.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[DJCacophony]

I DECLARE AN ANALOGY WAR!

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Provocateur]

To paraphrase Officer Wiggum:

Can't we have a Slashdot discussion that doesn't end with a car analogy?
 

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again Coca-Cola has a similar market share on cola drinks.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the best you can do.... bitch about grammar? Maybe you should stop being so artificial and address the substance and stop acting like the 8 year old on the playground.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Fordiman]

"crappy insecure code in previous MS products"

Heh. Previous, current, future. I've heard the 'most secure OS ever' schtick before. Hype does not a good product make, and MS has pretty much proven itself the be more capable of the former than the latter.

It could be a prettied up XP with incomplete security packages and feature rot (which is what I've been hearing from beta testers who haven't been paid to say otherwise). It could be the One True OS that blows the rest of 'em out of the water. History points towards the former, but past results are not an indicator of future performance.

All in all, it's taken MS way too long to get the system out - this speaks to me of a development team that's gotten themselves lost in the details and started designing by committee. My opinion is that it's going to be worthless until about SP2 - right when all MS products start being useful.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[k33l0r]

The point isn't that MS are making their software (more) secure. It's that there locking out anyone who wants to provide security solutions while they themselves will be SELLING a separate security solution that will have access to areas of the OS that the competition will not have.

Is that fair?

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Tim C]

McAfee and Symantec aren't complaining that Vista is better and more secure. They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.

I have to wonder why, of the half a dozen or more companies that produce Windows AV software, they are the only two to be complaining...

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Fordiman]

It's, ah, nothing like that. Stop smoking crack.

I'm not going to say what it's like. It *is* locking out competition; these companies rely on being a security blanket for their customers. The system upon which it works changes out from under them, and then refuses to document the changes. Then, coincidentally, they come out with their own product, that, in fair competition (ie: the documentation was forthcoming), would probably fall by the wayside as an inferior product.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Jtheletter]

They have made it so no virus should be able to get to that low of a level thereby erasing the need for an antivirus application to be that low. Any virii should be in user-space which is where antivirus should be looking..

A) Microsoft and its security track record thus far have in no way demonstrated that they have comprehensively eliminated the ability of a virus to infect the kernel. Why should we trust them when they say "trust us?" Additionally, why does Microsoft's own antivirus offering use the low level kernel functions if there will never be a virus at that level?

B) 'virii' is NOT a word. It is not even an apporopriate use of 'i' to pluralize the word virus, as that is a Latin pluralization and in Latin, viri means 'men'. I point you to the wikipedia explanation for reference.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Fordiman]

'requiring companies to operate in a single layer of the OSI model'

That's a shockingly good idea.

Thing is, it would DESTROY Apple.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if your "substance" were legible and didn't read like an 8-year old's scrawl, there would be something to respond to beyond your pathetic grammar capabilities.

But don't feel too bad, you're probably just another victim of the US public-school "education". I should feel cheated, were I in your position.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[master_p]

You are right, but it is not even possible in software...given enough time and powerful tools, one can reverse-engineer an operating system and get access to the required knowledge; and since hackers can do it in 0 days from the software release, so can companies...

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[bberens]

You're talking about security through obscurity. Not publishing an API doesn't magically make it not exist. Instead, it leaves the power in those bored or motivated enough to figure out what those low level kernel APIs are. Selling the keys to those APIs on the black market will be very very profitable. Microsoft is effectively weeding out other people on team good (anti-virus software producers). Team evil, however, will still be just as strong.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[GNious]

No, more like Twinnigs making it possible to only eat their cookies for tea!

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[PsychicX]

while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection

Is there any evidence that this is actually true? The things I know are:

• The new Microsoft guideline thingies say, no using undocumented or non-public APIs.
• The kernel and low level system guys gets pretty angry when software uses undocumented functionality. That stuff is undocumented precisely because it's not intended to be used.
• Windows Defender, like any other program, is easy to analyze. Determining a complete list of APIs that it uses would be easy using existing tools and techniques, and use of undocumented APIs could be trivially uncovered.
• The only way the MS guys could actually lock out anybody except themselves would be to hardcode a hash of the Defender exe inside the kernel or something. This is another thing that would show up under analysis (though more complex than the previous point). And they couldn't really do that, since it'd make patching Defender kind of hellish. And simply checking executable name would be no good, of course.

So, I guess it just strikes me as extremely unlikely that Microsoft is using undocumented APIs that nobody else knows about or has access to. People -- and by "people" I mean major products from major corporations -- have used undocumented APIs frequently in the past just because they happened to find something that sounded handy in the various DLL export tables. Microsoft using APIs but not allowing access to anyone else sounds pretty good, but I've yet to see any actual evidence to support the claim.

So I ask again. Where is this claim validated?

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Orange Crush]

My opinion is that it's going to be worthless until about SP2 - right when all MS products start being useful.

You misspelled useable.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Thaelon]

I have no sympathy either. Their products suck. Plain and simple. For the full rant, read here.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Orange Crush]

And so did I! Stupid e's. (Well, stupid ME actually)

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[ericlondaits]

To me, MS always bundled too little apps with the OS.

It took them until Windows XP to bundle a .zip decompressor (not as good as most shareware decompressors), or CD burning capabilities (so basic that any CD burner comes bundled with something better, though they might come in handy on occasion). And there's still no PDF viewer bundled, altough it's a very basic piece of software and Mac OS X comes with one.

Wordpad and Notepad are hardly enough for anyone, and I don't know why they still bother with Paint. The sound recorder app is so basic it's hardly useful. Hyperterminal and Imaging (two sort of "third party" apps) are a welcome addition, but they're less and less relevant each year. The games are the same old same old (they add a new one every five years).

It'd be stupid for them not to bundle Internet Explorer and Outlook express, since a browser and e-mail client are mandatory pieces of software in any new computer. Whether they should also bundle Mozilla and/or Opera it's a valid discussion, but since people would then expect them to give support for either I can see why Microsoft would never bundle them... or answer every call with "see if it works with IE" causing outrage among slashdotters.

Since they're free, I welcome that install CDs come with IIS, ASP.NET and other "Application Server" tecnologies... specially if that means they get security patches through Windows Update as any other standard componentes. I'd fail to see the harm if SQL Server Express (free) and Visual Studio Express (free) also came bundled as optional components, since almost nobody uses a DBMS or compiler/IDE just because it came bundled (as can be said of a web browser and a new user).

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[daem0n1x]

If that's something that gets on my nerves is ignorant people in love with their own ignorance getting annoyed when someone corrects them.

Pointing your errors is "bitching"? Writing shit is lack of respect for the readers.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Mr. Underbridge]

But then again Coca-Cola has a similar market share on cola drinks.

Not sure where you got that, a little company named Pepsi would have something to say about that. Worldwide, Coke's in the low 40's, Pepsi in the low 30's, and Schweppes (Dr. Pepper/7-Up) is in the teens. 40% isn't a monopoly, 95% is.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/07/news/fortune500/ cokepepsi_sales/?cnn=yes

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[EXMSFT]

Microsoft won't be using the native API's either. McAfee and Symantec just want to use the crappy, cobbled together kernel hooking mechanisms they've used in the past, which will no longer be available for any vendor - including Microsoft, to use. McAfee and Symantec need to grow up a little and learn the proper ways to do this without needing to hack the Windows kernel.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[d3ac0n]

Actually, even IF your market share is 95%. Heck, even if it's somehow 100% you still aren't required by Anti-Trust laws to hand over your core company secrets.

To extend the analogy, if Coca-Cola somehow managed to totally out-market every other cola maker in the entire world and completely "OWNED" the Cola market, they still wouldn't be required to hand out the secret formula. They just wouldn't be allowed to strong-arm thier bottlers into not allowing bottles and cans from being used for say, Faygo Orange soda. Or from preventing another Cola company from starting up and purchasing everything it needed to compete with Coca-cola.

A Monopoly isn't when one company wins the marketing game, it's when one company prevents other companies from playing. See the difference?

Just because MS is choosing to (Finally) secure thier OS doesn't mean that Symantec et al can't still offer thier products., They will simply have to rewrite them to work within the new Vista framework. And yes, as others have stated, you can easily setup Google as the default search engine os-wide. So none of them really have a leg to stand on here.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[mgblst]

They are the biggest, the other really amount to nothing in the Corporate world. They could complain, but it wouldn't mean a great deal.

The issue comes down to do you trust Microsoft to secure its OS or not - personally I don't. Micrsoft has made claims about secure OS before, but if the number and sophistication of vulnerabilites released is anything to go on, then it seems to be getting less secure, not more secure.

Do you trust Microsoft, well do you, punk?

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Tim C]

Reducing the scope for interfering with the running kernel can only be a good thing from a security point of view. McCafe and Symantec may well be the big two, but if what MS want to do would prevent AV software from running then all AV vendors would be complaining, as they'd all be staring at a long, slow death; being smaller wouldn't keep them quiet, and if I were one, I sure as hell wouldn't rely on a competitor to complain on my behalf.

Personally, I'd rather the security of the OS were improved, than I had to continue to rely on buggy, resource-hugging third party products to temporarily plug the holes that could be closed once and for all.

Oh, and I'm a goth, not a punk ;-)

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Mr. Underbridge]

Actually, even IF your market share is 95%. Heck, even if it's somehow 100% you still aren't required by Anti-Trust laws to hand over your core company secrets.

Secrets, no. Means of interoperation, in many cases, yes. ATT was forced to let other companies use their actual networks, so there's some serious precedent. In this case, we have MS using hidden APIs to let their AV products be better - or actually functional - compared to their competitors. That's pretty much textbook anticompetitive behavior.

To extend the analogy, if Coca-Cola somehow managed to totally out-market every other cola maker in the entire world and completely "OWNED" the Cola market, they still wouldn't be required to hand out the secret formula.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Imagine Coke had 100% market share, and now they enter the cup business. And let's say that put a chemical in coke that rots through competitors' cups, so that you can only use Coke's cups. Would that pass Sherman scrutiny? Not likely.

Just because MS is choosing to (Finally) secure thier OS doesn't mean that Symantec et al can't still offer thier products., They will simply have to rewrite them to work within the new Vista framework.

I think you need to look more carefully at what's going on here. It's not that MS is offering an AV product (fine), it's that it will use kernel hooks that are simply not available to other competitors. I think Symantec et al are clever enough to rewrite for Vista, assuming they're not literally locked out. That's what MS is apparantly doing, and that's a problem.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[dctoastman]

If that's something that gets on my nerves is ignorant people in love with their own ignorance getting annoyed when someone corrects them. Pointing your errors is "bitching"? Writing shit is lack of respect for the readers.

If there is something that gets on my nerves, it is ignorant people in love with their own ignorance getting annoyed when someone corrects them.

Pointing out your errors is "bitching"? Writing shit shows a lack of respect for the readers.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[CmdrGravy]

You are making a valid point although it's ironic that it is it's self extremely badly written !

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[CmdrGravy]

Almost but it seems more like Captain Birds Eye making his fine and delicious Fish Fingers only compatible with his own brand Captain Birds Eye delicious Tomato Ketchup and no others. Quite how Captain Birds Eye would go about achieving this I have no idea.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[smittyoneeach]

?
Apple mainly sells OS X.
MicroSoft sells Office for the Mac.
This would seem a good example of what I'm trying to say: while a purist would say that the market should manage itself, the anti-competitive leverage of the OS/application duo, as eventually excreted by Redmond, is arguably not helping the consumer.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[MeanderingMind]

Actually, I was going to say it was more along the lines of Staples brand paper only allowing you to write on it with Staples brand pens, pencils, or other branded writing implements.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[daem0n1x]

Thanks for the advice. I take the opportunity to enhance my English skills.

English is not my native language.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[VertigoAce]

Is there any evidence that Microsoft's security products have a higher degree of access to Windows? AFAIK any Microsoft product outside of Windows is forbidden from using undocumented APIs. From what I've ready even the IE and WMP teams follow this (despite technically being part of Windows).

Here's a reference to the policy:
http://blogs.msdn.com/calvin_hsia/archive/2005/01/ 26/361033.aspx

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[MeanderingMind]

Actually, when you've got competitors like McAffe and Symantec to complain for you, it's definitively cheaper to keep quiet, sit back, relax, and watch the show. All the legal fees and work can be done by the big dogs, while at most you'll just need to sign a paper or two saying "Yeah, we're with them on this stupid API thing, go go lawsuit" and "Yes please, we'd like to be on the list of important AV companies to get the API".

In the meantime, they can be more focused on improving their security to compete with the big guys.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[ksalter]

Troll? Any particular reason why, or this the standard substandard treatment of posts that might be neutral towards Microsoft?

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[MeanderingMind]

The point the grandparent is making is that Apple works on just about every layer of the OSI model. It's their software running on their OS, working with their hardware. The suggestion would tear that end to end user experience apart.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[SI285]

If Avast can produce an AV product that doesn't need to access the kernel then why can't the others?

Sould they be allowed to access the kernel because they want to use rootkit like stealth technology? Technology that has the potential to make my system more unstable?

IS THAT FAIR TO ME!!!

Forget what is fair to the AV companies...I want what is ultimately best and fair for me.

Where is your proof or documentation that MS is using off limits code?

AV products only protect against known virus threats whereas patchguard may offer some measure of protection against known and unknown rootkit like threats.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Opportunist]

The general idea of the reply was that you cannot compare one with the other, for various reasons.

First, cars are not computers. So far, nobody has been killed by a lunatic clicking every single piece of crap that lands on his inbox. I wish it was possible, so some people would be kept off the net. But that's not the only analogy that simply does not hold a drop of water when it comes to cars and computers.

And second, in hardly any other business sector a single company holds a comparable position of power. MS has the de facto monopoly on the OS market (and please spare me the "no they don't, they don't have 100% and thus it's not a monopoly" dodgeball).

Both of these facts make the discussion presented quite moot.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[MMC Monster]

Actually, he writes like an 8 year old. He sounds just fine. :-)

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[drinkypoo]

Microsoft is nowhere near the "most secure OS ever" mark. That probably has to go to OpenBSD, unless it goes to Trusted Solaris. Linux is probably #2, with selinux, but it might be #1 in a fully locked selinux config. But at the same time, they have made great strides in usability, reliability, and security - it's just that pretty much everyone else has made greater strides and most everyone else started out in front of them anyway.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[drinkypoo]

Actually, it's like a butt plug that only works with one brand of lubricant. Finally, you can have meaning in your statement when you tell them to go stick that microsoft product up their ass.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their product, they should be able to develop it however they want to. I don't see McAfee or Symantec writing any of the code that makes Windows run (or crash). How would you feel if you're being told you have to develop something one way because a company wants to make money off of you but can't anymore because you've improved your product?

It's totally and completely ridiculous what these anti-virus companies are coming up with. When you develop a program to help make another program more secure you have to understand that somewhere along the way those problems will be fixed. When those problems are fixed you will have to come out with a new product (do new products exist anymore?).

It's not like these anti-virus companies have good products anyways, NOD32 is so much better.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[dctoastman]

My bad then. If I had known that, I would have cut you some slack, because your point is valid.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[smittyoneeach]

How so? It would certainly different if all vendors worked to published standards.
Certainly, if you're a vendor, the idea utterly sucks.
The question is whether the unfairness is evenly spread across vendor, market, and buyer.
"tear that end to end user experience apart" seems somewhat subjective.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[ThinkFr33ly]

I think you need to look more carefully at what's going on here. It's not that MS is offering an AV product (fine), it's that it will use kernel hooks that are simply not available to other competitors. I think Symantec et al are clever enough to rewrite for Vista, assuming they're not literally locked out. That's what MS is apparantly doing, and that's a problem.

Actually, that's not what's happening at all. Microsoft OneCare NOT using any kernel hooks. It is using the EXACT same APIs available to all of Microsoft's competitors. Anybody who tells you any different is just spreading FUD.

Several other anti-virus companies have come out in support of Microsoft, and have actually released beta versions of their suites that work just fine on Vista.

The fact of the matter is that Symantec and McAfee don't want to invest the time and money into re-writing their existing applications that rely on all these kernel hooks, which, by the way, were NEVER supported to begin with. They see a great opportunity to do some good old fashion MS-bashing and FUD spreading in an attempt to get Microsoft to give up on one of the most important security improvements in Windows... um... ever.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Regardless of my poor use of grammer, I was making a point, and for the record, I was not edumacated in the US, so your statement pointing out the poor quality of the American schooling system. However, if you are going to point out peoples mistakes, atleast have the balls to do identify yourself, instead of hiding.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I was making a point, whether or not their code sucks or not is irrelavent, if their intentions are to create secure code, and they do so, and it is well implemented, then I see no reason why the security venders should be up in arms.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Fordiman]

It's what the OS secures itself against. Symantec and the like can't hook in at the system level for above-admin control of the system (the only level you can sit at and be certain a virus isn't going to rip your arsehole out).

Not that I like shit that sits there. I'd much rather browse like an intelligent human being and avoid getting virused altogether. Seriously. Anymore, if your system gets compromised, it's a PEBKAC error, not an issue with the OS.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Fordiman]

Well, Apple could probably navigate around it entirely by founding a different company for each OSI layer they deal with, and having those companies do business with one another. Essentially dilute the company while maintaining the end-product.

Still, they couldn't get away with exclusive dealing like they presently do internally - you'd have Dell and HP making OS-X machines. And Macs with the option of having Windows preinstalled. You might even have iWork and iLife running in Linux.

The companies could coordinate their efforts, meanwhile, so that the User Experience remains consistent. That would last several years before the infighting starts.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[drsmithy]

MS has the de facto monopoly on the OS market (and please spare me the "no they don't, they don't have 100% and thus it's not a monopoly" dodgeball).

They don't have a monopoly because choosing an alternate product of equivalent functionality is - and always has been - trivial for anyone who could be bothered.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

As the previous reply pointed out, you are completely wrong. But that poster misunderstands the motivation of Symantec and McAfee. They, quite rightly, see OneCare as a huge threat so they are trying to get it outlawed by misleading clueless competition authorities.

MS isn't always the bad guy.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[PhotoGuy]

I think you need to look more carefully at what's going on here. It's not that MS is offering an AV product (fine), it's that it will use kernel hooks that are simply not available to other competitors. I think Symantec et al are clever enough to rewrite for Vista, assuming they're not literally locked out. That's what MS is apparantly doing, and that's a problem.

I experienced the exact thing firsthand in the NT days. I worked for MKS, who provided a suite of Posix/Unix tools and shell for DOS, and OS/2 (at the time). I was tasked with the port to Win32 for NT. Among several other challenges, one particular one that comes to mind was the implementation of the "ps" command. Obviously the Task Manager, and the command-line "ps.exe" command that came with NT had some way of getting the process list.

However, there is no documented API for getting this information. In order for me to create a third party program that listed the processes, I had to reverse engineer (pre-DCMA days) the SYSTEM32\PS.EXE, to see how it got its information (through some undocumented INT call).

It's this type of behaviour that is inappropriate for a monopolistic operating system provider. While they have gotten their wrists slapped (if that) for this in a couple of very narrow situations, they still continue this behaviour in a rampant fashion in every way they can, with very few repercussions.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[tchalvak]

No, worse than that, it's like Ford acknowledging that they have defective brakes, then providing a life-saving brake pad "fix" that you'll need to pay them to receive, and then preventing anyone else from making as effective of brake-pads. Much like buying "protection" from the mob, it does not encourage the seller to ever solve the root problem.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Anonymous Coward]

Two points:

The documented way of getting the process list in Windows NT 3.1 was to query the Process performance object. There are now several documented ways of getting the process list, but the original is still supported.

ps.exe was part of the POSIX utilities. These were based on the GPLed GNU utilities, so MS shipped the source code on the NT 3.1 Resource CD. If you wanted to see how they worked you looked at the source. No reverse engineering required. (And as an OS utility, it's entitled to use internal OS calls. There's no monopoly issue here.)

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[Opportunist]

Unfortunately it is not. At least not for companies who are dependent on compatibility with their partners. Very few companies are in the fortunate position to choose their applications and simply set the standard and protocol. Also, a lot of companies have specialized software that cannot be ported to alternative systems easily, usually this is a very costy process.

It certainly isn't about you or me, and, let's be honest here, we're not the big market. Neither for MS nor for other software companies. The big markets are companies that buy licenses in 100+ bundles. And that are also the companies that can't simply switch over night.

Re:No sympathy for McAfee and Symantec

[drsmithy]

Unfortunately it is not.

Yes, it is. There are numerous functional equivalents to Windows, always has been, and they have always been trivial to find.

At least not for companies who are dependent on compatibility with their partners. Very few companies are in the fortunate position to choose their applications and simply set the standard and protocol. Also, a lot of companies have specialized software that cannot be ported to alternative systems easily, usually this is a very costy process.

You are saying that Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. I hope you realise this is a silly argument.

It certainly isn't about you or me, and, let's be honest here, we're not the big market. Neither for MS nor for other software companies. The big markets are companies that buy licenses in 100+ bundles. And that are also the companies that can't simply switch over night.

No IT infrastructure of any size can switch any OS overnight, monopoly or otherwise. Indeed, non-trivial IT infrastructure is hard-pressed to switch to a different version of the same OS in under a year.

I'd care more if...

[rainman_bc]

If McAfee and Norton didn't make products that suck resources real bad. If ever there was a product that could be called bloatware, those two are it. Give me Trend AV any day thanks.

Then again I'm on my Linux laptop running no AV software.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again I'm on my Linux laptop running no AV software.

That last line invalidated your whole post. I don't care what desktop/server OS you are running, if you are running without AV you are just ignorant.

Re:I'd care more if...

[chrismcdirty]

Why is that? I have a gaming desktop. It does nothing but installs and plays games. I don't browse the web on it. I don't open email attachments on it. The only way I'm going to get a virus on it is if one of the games has a vulnerability that gets exploited somehow.

Same with my Linux desktop. I don't open email attachments that I'm not expecting. I don't run things as root when not needed. The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES. Linux viruses are so rare that I don't think it's worth much processing time for my machine to scan for them.

Re:I'd care more if...

[beavt8r]

They do tend to be a tad bloated. </sarcasm> We use a managed system of Symantec, just switched over from McAfee, and I haven't tested the new on too much yet, but I know McAfee would often take up 90+% of CPU and slow systems down all the time. We used the ePolicy module of McAfee and I never was that impressed. I'll keep my stripped down, "feature"-free Norton 2003, thanks.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who need body armor are the people who get shot at. Not saying people with linux web servers should run wide open, but with linux, I don't have to take quite the same procautions.

The other thing I liked about Microsoft's plan to not play nice with AV solution providers is that it forces heterogeneity. If all AV products work through a common method provided for in the OS, it means they'll all be less effective. If Microsoft cuts them out of part of the loop, they'll have to work harder and come up with new, and likely different solutions.

Re:I'd care more if...

[(H)elix1]

I actually had my gaming rig infected this way. Playing CS:Source, it is not uncommon for the MOTD to point to a web site. My default browser is FireFox, but it turns out Counter Strike is using the IE engine anyhow, and I got nailed by one of those drive by HTML exploits when I selected a random game server.

Re:I'd care more if...

[partenon]

I'm sorry, but I think you didn't get the point. The point is: big players in the market are complaining about Microsoft bundling for free its own software w/ the most sold OS in the market, just to get the leadership for this kind of software.

Take the above statement and see how it fits for "browsers" (netscape) and "anti-virus". So, its not about "anti-virus", the kind of software you, as a good geek, don't use :-)

Re:I'd care more if...

[Chosen Reject]

That's a great mentality. Go ahead and don't care that Microsoft is going to such lengths to crowd out competition. Then once McAfee and Symantec are dead and AVG and Trend AV go away with them, the world will be a much better place with so much less bloatware.

This is the same mentality that idiots have about someone else's free speech when they disagree with what that someone else has to say. I always defend the rights of people to have free speech even if I disagree with them, because someday they might be the ones in power and I hope they remember that I let them say what they wanted to say and give me the some respect. The same thing is true here. I don't support Symantecs and McAfees products, but I do support that either they ought to be given those APIs or that Microsoft should not be allowed to use them. This is about fair competition. If MS found some neato virus detection and removal algorithm and didn't share it that would be one thing, but for them to build into their OS an API that allows for virus detection and then keeps it secret to the other virus detection guys, then they have crossed the bounds, especially as convicted monopolists.

Re:I'd care more if...

[orielbean]

Here is a question for the knowledgeable - which of the AV products (free and otherwise) are the BEST for resources and still competent at catching problems?

Is Trend the smallest footprint? I would love some answers from the people here.

Re:I'd care more if...

[rainman_bc]

That's a great mentality. Go ahead and don't care that Microsoft is going to such lengths to crowd out competition. Then once McAfee and Symantec are dead and AVG and Trend AV go away with them, the world will be a much better place with so much less bloatware.

OS Security is a function the OS should handle, not an external third party app. This is one place where Microsoft DOES belong, more so than windows media player or maybe even internet explorer. Although ultimately you shouldn't need adware and spyware software to use their OS.

AV isn't something the consumer should be forced to pay for. This is a problem inherent in an insecure OS. Anti virus and adware has been reactionary to an OS full of holes like swiss cheese.

This is a feature your OS should come with - protection from viruses (virii??) and malware / spyware. Now the OS itself should be made secure granted, but at least consumers won't get raped by AV companies for a feature that truly does belong in the OS.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Shadow99_1]

*cough* Anti-MS Zealot *cough*

Other AV's work just fine without these tools Symantec and McAfee demand. This is not an issue of MS crowding out a critical component from potential competitors to take market share. This is MS making an attempt to do what they promised (ie secure windows more than they have in the past). Whether I agree with the method MS is taking or not, this has more to do with Symantec and McAfee being whiny brats that refuse to give up 'control' of 'security' to the ones who should have been doign that job in the first place. The compnent they want access to is the layer that provides basic system protection and notification to the user about the systems staus, so they can use their own interface on it with whatever they decide is important to be their. I don't trust either side to really get it right, but at least in this I don't see any point what so ever to allow the other companies access where they really don't need to be. This will not make people more secure, this is about McAfee and Symantec having to face reality that certain parts of the system don't function like they used to and whining all over the place that they changed things is stupid.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way I'm going to get a virus on it is if one of the games has a vulnerability that gets exploited somehow.

Serious exploits in games do happen. Pretty much every major FPS engine has had multiple DoS and code execution flaws in its networking code. Hardly suprising when you consider the oft-reported lack of sound software engineering practices in games development / tight deadlines / "just ship it, we can patch later" mentality.

Re:I'd care more if...

[GIL_Dude]

Except for the fact that MS isn't bundling their anti-virus software with the OS. It isn't free either. Oops!

Re:I'd care more if...

[Tim C]

The most that can happen is my home directory gets blasted. OH NOES.

Heh - that's almost the only part of my hard drive that I do care about. The OS and apps are all backed up on nice, shiny install media, but I'm lazy, so my user area isn't backed up anywhere near as regularly as it should be.

Re:I'd care more if...

[LifeWithJustin]

"Then again I'm on my Linux laptop running no AV software." The last days a few people have asked if I've been sick. I don't think so, but then again I never went to the doctor either. Ignorance is bliss.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Selecting a random game servers is no different than running random programs you find.

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody always says this.... "it's not root so I don't have to worry..." So, what you're saying is that all your documents are stored as root? And no non-root accounts have access to the internet? And your address book isn't accessible by non-root users? Your elite non-rootedness doesn't mean that you aren't going to have problems and that you aren't going to propagate the problem to all your acquaintences.

Re:I'd care more if...

[mgblst]

Agreed. The only thing worse that McAfee and Norton software is Microsofts software. And herein lies the problem.

Re:I'd care more if...

[mackyrae]

Right so they're making you pay them more for something that they're blocking anyone else from offering at a better price. Gee, don't you love being told you have to pay more for a sub-par* product because every other one is incompatible? *what? M$ is going to do anything that *isn't* sub-par when it comes to security?

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

keep a copy of Proxomitron with grypens filterset, use it to filter crap from IE

Re:I'd care more if...

[ChoGGi]

winpooch with clamwin (for realtime scanning)
or antivir personal

Re:I'd care more if...

[baadger]

AV products mostly rely on signature files to identify viral threats. To extend your analogy it is like sharing medicine or antibodies, purely reactive, not preventative. You may not goto the doctor regularly, but I bet you've had your inoculations.

If there was any kind of viral threat to Linux users out there at the moment they would have an AV solution installed. The lack of immune system merely means there is a lack of any significant threat. Linux users have had their inoculations.

Re:I'd care more if...

[gardyloo]

Both AVG and Avast seem OK... I recently dumped Panda (total security, with firewall, etc.) for Kaspersky's suite. Panda ate up FAR too much RAM and resources. In addition, Panda's firewall really interfered with some programs I have to use, and so I had to use yet another program (Kerio, ZoneAlarm, Comodo are all OK) for firewall.
Kaspersky has caught several bad things (and they were truly bad, not just false alarms) that Panda couldn't, and uses FAR less system resources. I was really restricted with some of the calculations/plots I could do (and that's on a system with 1+GB of RAM) when I had Panda on there.

      I recommend that Kaspersky be at least tried.

Re:I'd care more if...

[giorgiofr]

Holy schmoly, in an unusual fit of OSS zealotry sometime ago I tried that combo but honestly, it slows down the system like nothing else is able to... not even Symantec and McAfee are capable of such slowness!

Re:I'd care more if...

[Anonymous Coward]

and you can argue further that the av programs that do exist are more of a courtesy to windows users, by sterilizing any wonblows pwning virii that they come across

Microsoft to Google

[phorest]

[start reply] Get a life.

Re:Microsoft to Google

[alienzed]

Good old futurama!

Not being forthcomming of code???

[jedimastermopar]

Gee do you think? One obvious sign of this is that when you upgrade from XP to Vista under RC2 you need to uninstall all antivirus programmes to have the vista upgrade to work. The good thing is vista does run under VM Ware. :) Looks like I can keep linux as my primary desktop os for another 5 years.

Re:Not being forthcomming of code???

[westlake]

Gee do you think? One obvious sign of this is that when you upgrade from XP to Vista under RC2 you need to uninstall all antivirus programmes to have the vista upgrade to work

like it makes sense not to uninstall Norton before upgrading-in-place to a new OS.

Re:Not being forthcomming of code???

[jedimastermopar]

Also have to uninstall a few other apps, like Nero, Never needed to do that before with any other windows upgrade.

Re:Not being forthcomming of code???

[EXMSFT]

Huh? You've had to do that with EVERY version of Windows! The leading cause of upgrade failure from Windows 2000 to Windows XP was a Roxio CD burning filter driver that wasn't compatible with XP.

Re:Not being forthcomming of code???

[EXMSFT]

Not true. Same was the case with XP upgrades - whenever the driver model changes, apps that have drivers installed (filter or others) have to be uninstalled and have compatible versions installed after.

Re:Not being forthcomming of code???

[jedimastermopar]

The installation can continue and the apps reinstalled with a 2k - xp upgrade. With vista you have to quit the upgrade uninstall and then reinstall after. I never had any windows xp upgrade from 2k fail due to a piece of software that was installed. I have had a few apps not work but that is to be expected.

Desktop Search, Toolbar, Picassa...

[EssTiDee]

google as my search engine, google.com as my homepage... i'm not exactly sure where the problem is here. It seems awfully out of character for Google to even raise an eyebrow here - i mean what else exactly are they looking for? They'd perhaps like the words "google.com" to appear in place of the little windows icon button that serves as the start menu? I'm surprised they bothered to even make a public request -- Google Tools have never seemed to have any problem co-existing on my Windoze box. Slow news day already?

Umm.. a bit late?

[krunoce]

Isn't it a little late in the process to ask the developer team to make Vista modular?

Re:Umm.. a bit late?

[EXMSFT]

Yes - which is probably why Symantec and McAfee would be asking now. More detrimental. Smart, eh?

Re:Umm.. a bit late?

[drsmithy]

Isn't it a little late in the process to ask the developer team to make Vista modular?

It's already modular.

An analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The shopkeeper goes to the mobster's de and asks: "Kind sir, can you please stop organized crime in this area? Thanks."

Yup, it'll work fine.

Re:An analogy

[Itsacon]

The mobster will probably reply: "But of course, for a certain fee...."...

Re:An analogy

[dpaluszek]

Tony Two Face will give you some concrete goulashes if you don't accept!!

Re:An analogy

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> ...concrete goulashes...

Mmmmmmmm paprika...

Microsoft to Google:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get lost."

sure

[illuminatedwax]

Sure, they'll do it just as soon as Firefox stops choosing Google by default.

Re:sure

[manno]

They can make MS the default search system, Google is just asking MS to allow the user to select other search engines.

Re:sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hardly the same. Firefox isn't commercial, and while Google is, Google doesn't control FireFox. Sure you could ask mozilla to make their browser choose blank by default...but does IE do that (most likely it points to whatever your computer manufacturer wants is to point, but otherwise, I'm guessing, msn by default).

What I wonder about, if the things that keep AV out of the kernel are a *real* security improvement, do they then have any right to complain. Maybe they shouldn't have access to the kernel. It only becomes an issue if MS has AV software that does have this kind of access. Not that I care. I don't use AV at home. On my Windows machine (2000 btw) the rule is, if its broke then reinstall image. Also don't put anything on there you want to keep.

I honestly beleive these problems would be solved if they forced a break up of management in MS. There should be a diffrent company for each product. One does OS, another Office, another AV...I don't care about ownership (or lets just call that another debate), but if you break up management then you level the playing field. Its a tried and true anti-trust practice, just ask Standard Oil, or should I say Esso, Texaco, Exxon (or any other American oil company).

Re:sure

[ksalter]

When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed. So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.

Re:sure

[joshetc]

Last week someone showed me something really cool. They said, "Check this out, go to www.google.com". So I did it. You won't believe what I saw. It actually let me use Google as my search engine! ON INTERNET EXPLORER IT WORKED!!

Seriously, fuck all these search bars. I'm sick of them wasting space. Whats wrong with just going to the website you want and searching for what you want? Anyone that cares about Google as the default search for their toolbar would know enough to get firefox and use their toolbar anyway..or they could even use Google's toolbar!

Re:sure

[kjart]

When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed. So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.

This is entirely correct, which I why I was scratching my head as to what Google was talking about. I have to assume that they are referring to the new built in search functionality of Vista coming with an option for Google Desktop (or whatever it's called).

Re:sure

[ksalter]

On Vista, if you use the built in search and click on "Search the Internet", it will use the search engine you have chosen in IE 7. In my case, it uses Google. So again, Google's complaint is without merit.

Re:sure

[Itsacon]

Or even better, in Opera, I can specify some key strings (starting at 1 letter), to have that line mapped to an url or url + POST string I can define.
Of course, it comes with a lot of useful defaults, like `g' for google, so typing

`g slashdot' in my location bar will get me a google search on `slashdot'

Some other useful thingies I use:
`p' for the PHP function reference,
`w' for wikipedia,
`a' for acronymfinder
etc.

Indeed, who needs searchbars...

Re:sure

[lseltzer]

Mod parent up.

Not only are you asked what search engine you want to use when you install IE7, but with Vista OEMs can make deals with whatever search engine they want (Google, Yahoo, Alexa, whatever) and set that as the default.

Google has too much money on their hands if they are paying lawyers to secure an order for Microsoft to do what they're already doing.

Re:sure

[mrvan]

tweak UI allows you to do this in IE as well...

Re:sure

[baboonlogic]

Sure, they'll do it just as soon as Firefox stops choosing Google by default.

Sure, Firefox will do it as soon as Microsoft starts paying more than what Google is paying Mozilla for the default place.

Re:sure

[Orange Crush]

Sure, they'll do it just as soon as Firefox stops choosing Google by default.

Which is especially relevant because Google created Firefox . . .

Re:sure

[jalefkowit]

Microsoft is a monopoly. Mozilla is not.

Re:sure

[someone300]

When I installed the official Firefox 1.5 binary on Windows and OS X for the first time, it wouldn't perform any searches until I selected a search engine with the drop down...

Re:sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Google pays them for that privilege:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 590756

I don't think the Firefox team would complain if Microsoft paid them more to be featured up top, though I could be wrong.

Re:sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's flagship product is a search engine. Microsoft's is not.

Re:sure

[illuminatedwax]

Really? I wonder if the "default Google" behavior is a leftover from Firefox 1 - then when people upgrade it keeps their settings?

Re:sure

[someone300]

Yeah. It caught me out at first... I thought search was just broken since it'd defaulted to Google on my previous installations.

Re:sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the point. Although not the point you _wanted_ to make.

This is getting ridiculous...

[X-treme-LLama]

Is there anyone else who thinks it's a little unfair for Microsoft to criticized for cutting out Symantec, etc. They've been railed for years on their complete lack of security focus, probably nowhere more than here. They're finally attempting to fill that need (admittedly in microsoft fashion), and now it's unfair to AV software makers? C'mon Symantec and others built their business around securing an insecure OS, it's not the OS's fault for finally working to secure itself. Sure MS could open up more of their code to allow AV software to get around their own security and AV solutions, but why should they.

I guess I don't understand why it's MS's job to make it easier for other software makers. If they want to market their software they should employ some programmers who are smart enough to code around MS. As long as MS isn't actively disabling competitors software I don't see why this is their fault..

We wanted them to be more secure in the first place!!!

And just so no one thinks I'm a fanboy, I'm typing this from a Mac :) -- I'm just against BS in general and against bitching at Microsoft just because it's Microsoft..

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[orasio]

Te issue is that they are a monopoly right now.
Monopolists don't have the same rights than other people.
So they can't do what others can.
One thing is this: using their OS monopoly to impose their AV solution.
That is anti-competitive. You might say that it's not fair, but when you are talking about monopolies, the meaning of fairness changes, because they don't compete under the same conditions.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[backwardMechanic]

Is there anyone who thinks it's a little unfair for a big monopoly to hide the programming interface, locking out a whole bunch of software providers? Yes, I think that's unfair. I should think the EU have an opinion too. Cutting out the AV providers doesn't count as a security measure.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[X-treme-LLama]

This is /. how can you say they are a monopoly when there are other fine choices such as Linux, BSD, and *DOS (aside from MS-DOS)

You aren't required to use their OS. It's true it comes pre-installed on 99% of PC's (It doesn't come installed on the Mac!) but for that you have to blame the manufactures. 95% of their customers WANT windows, why wouldn't they pre-install it. True most people want windows because they haven't seen anything better, but again this is hardly the fault of Microsoft any more. They were much more of a monopoly back in the day when they did everything they could to keep out competition, now it's simply that no one outside of OSS has the balls to compete with them on the OS level. Hell Apple has a far superior, commercially viable OS that we all know can now run on the PC (I have a PC running it for fun) all it needs is better driver support, but they aren't interested in doing it. I suspect the MacOS market, properly managed could be huge, but it would near-completely distroy their hardware market.

This isn't like the *bell phone company of old that owned all the lines, including the ones you installed in your own home and paid for, charged you to hook up a phone IN your own home to your OWN lines, and would come in with guns and dogs if they thought you had an unauthorized phone installed (ok so maybe that is a little exaggerated..) You can still install whatever OS you want on your own PC, and besides why should linux fans care about AV software providers anyway, you guys don't need it, neither do the Mac's really. (I know there are few Mac virii in the wild, shut up, you'd have to be a complete idiot to get infected by one)

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[db32]

Linux and BSD don't seem to have a problem working on security without locking other people out from making security tools. Why is MS any different? Why is their "security" locking other people out? I realize the technical implementations are fairly different, but that doesn't affect the reasons for being critical of the MS lockout attempt in the name of security. That being said, I really have no sympathy for the AV makers since the arguement is absolutely correct about securing an insecure OS, and paying them is quite a protection racket (I remember reading quite some time ago about how one was advertising signatures for a virus that had never been found in the wild, which certainly sounds like we made it in our lab and are protecting you from it). But MS security has been a freaking joke, and will continue to be a freaking joke, and locking out companies (albiet questionable ones) that do make better products is purely anticompetitive and has little to do with any security attempt. When MS doesn't work with the scumware makers to take payoffs to not detect their stuff as scumware...then maybe I will take them a little more seriously.

1. Create OS with holes

2. Lock out other scumware detectors

3. Collect bribes from scumware makers to not detect the scumware

4. Profit!

Sorry there is no ??? here, its fairly obvious.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[UnknowingFool]

It's only unfair if MS is using the guise of security to cut out competitors. MS is trying to secure their OS by eliminating low level kernel APIs. AV makers have used these APIs for years. However, is MS using these same APIs themselves in their own security products? MS says that it is not. Whether you believe them is how distrustful you are of MS.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[X-treme-LLama]

But what is their motivation for steps 1-4. Sure it could be profit, but why wouldn't they rather destroy AV providers business, and they buy out what remains of them to get superior technology :)

M.S. Has no reason to want an insecure OS. They just never had enough motivation to fix it. I can see their point. When someone installs one of the few (what one or two, maybe) Mac virii in the world they're called an idiot for doing it, why because they HAD to go through several steps to do it. Many Windows virii aren't much easier to install, why bust your ass to protect the world against idiots, they'll always make a better idiot. As long as your OS is patched and you don't install crap from dubious sources it's not all that easy to get an infected computer. I didn't use AV or a non-I.E. browser for YEARS and never had any problems, all I had was a *software* firewall. No one can make an OS idiot proof. All they can do is lock out idiots via complexity (ahh Linux).

MS is finally attempting to implement real security and everyone who bitched about their insecure OS is bitching about them securing it.

I don't know a lot about how AV software integrates with Windows, but presumably MS is protecting core files from being modified by malicious programs. But AV makers want their software to be able to modify them to allow their software to function better. Awww shucks. If MS allows that then it would be far easier for a virus to do it too. I don't see it as anti-competitive for them to only trust their own software to muck about with system files. They know who is coding the software that -they- make. Unfair, sure slightly, but there is always Linux if you don't like it :)

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[X-treme-LLama]

Eh, even if they are I don't think it's a huge issue. Why shouldn't they trust their *own* software (I'm not saying WE should trust it, but that they should --obviously-- trust themselves). It's far easier to secure access to those API's while allowing your own software (and NO others) to use them. Allowing Symantec et al. access makes it less secure and more likely a virus will come along and exploit that.

Besides as I've said, AV software was built on the dubious market of scar-tatics and an insecure OS. Secure the OS and their scare tatics stop being effective. Sucks for them, but would anyone in (insert third-world country) complain if they no longer had to purify their water supply because it was done successfully by the government. Would we cry unfair for the iodine tablet industry?

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[kthejoker]

And to get at the heart of the matter, what we as a society (indeed, a world community almost) are saying is, "You have a monopoly on OSes. You make *so damn much* money on your monopoly, that you don't need any more monopolies."

And if you agree with that statement - that one monopoly is enough for any company - then you are right with God.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. But we have made our bed.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[kthejoker]

Oh, and what exactly are all of those Vs attacking that AV vendors want to have a shot at? Microsoft software, that's what.

I can understand most of the antitrust stuff - Internet browsers, accounting software, Office programs, etc - but AV software is unique because it is protecting another piece of software. It cannot exist in a vacuum - some other piece of software must exist before AV software can exist.

In this case, it's Microsoft software. I don't necessarily believe that Microsoft supplying their own AV software to their own OS is anti-competitive. You may disagree, but this is certainly a major point in MS's favor. I'd like to see the lawyerese surrounding this point before deciding.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[tshak]

Monopolists don't have the same rights than other people.
You're right, but I'm amazed at how many people pretend to understand what restrictions are actually imposed. It's complicated. You're not a lawyer. Even lawyers don't fully understand it because it's not black and white.

One thing is this: using their OS monopoly to impose their AV solution.
This is almost like saying that they're also imposing their file system solution too because they won't expose certain API's.

That is anti-competitive.
They're so anti-competitive that they even advertise for Vista antivirus competitors right on their web site.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[UnknowingFool]

It's far easier to secure access to those API's while allowing your own software

In theory, MS should be able to secure their own software better than third parties. Given MS history, some would question the quality of their security products. Just today, Windows XP firewall can be disabled with a bad packet. Also, MS has said on record that it cannot give full API documentation to competitors because they don't have them. That admission makes me question either their competence or their honesty.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[X-treme-LLama]

MS has said on record that it cannot give full API documentation to competitors

Well everyone knows that's just a lie so they don't have to do it :)

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[orasio]

You're right, but I'm amazed at how many people pretend to understand what restrictions are actually imposed. It's complicated. You're not a lawyer. Even lawyers don't fully understand it because it's not black and white.

Ok, I am not a lawer. I don't know, or even care that much about the issue of US/EU laws about monopolies.
But the guy was arguing that it's not fair to restrict Microsoft.
I was trying to tell him that there are restrictions to monopolies, and some times they are forced to be nicer to competitors than everyone else.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[drsmithy]

Is there anyone who thinks it's a little unfair for a big monopoly to hide the programming interface, locking out a whole bunch of software providers? Yes, I think that's unfair. I should think the EU have an opinion too. Cutting out the AV providers doesn't count as a security measure.

I find it amazing after all the times this has been reported on Slashdot in the last few months, there are *still* people out there who haven't yet managed to pick up that Microsoft aren't "hiding" any necessary "programming interface", and that this whole thing is just groundless whining by the two big AV developers who don't want to have to rewrite their software _properly_.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[backwardMechanic]

Maybe this is an odd reply for slashdot, but do you have a link? If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm willing to learn.

Re:This is getting ridiculous...

[db32]

Well it has already been established through the leaked source code that MS has put in back doors throught the code so that their own products seem to operate better than anything written with the API they released. This is a huuuge source of the bad nasties that allow all flavors of IE/Office related nonsense to affect the core OS.

As far as their motiviation...MS has done NOTHING that wasn't ultimately motivated by profit. And generally they don't care for 'earning' their profit so much as stealing or beating it out of anyone who looks like they are doing something interesting. And as long as they are taking payoffs from scumware makers (Remember Claria?) then they DO have a motivation in wanting an insecure OS. Oh that and as long as their OS is insecure, and they are the only one who can provide security products...then they absolutely have a motivation for an insecure OS. I mean really...what better way to not bother cleaning up your code, and then charging your customers $20+/year to "protect" them from your lack of QA. Its perfect, not only do they not have to pay the costly QA costs, but they MAKE MONEY on the lack of QA!. Just wait until they start trying to charge for your hardware upgra...oh damn...they are already doing that too.

Incidentally I keep hearing that stupid line about "I don't use any protection and I never got anything" Do you realize how dumb that sounds? I mean you think you sound smart for not catching anything, but its like "I never used a condom and I don't get tested and I never got AIDS" Sure cuz you don't know that you have caught anything. Now you are right that generally not doing stupid things keeps you safe, but reputable sites have gotten nailed with defacements that allowed for driveby installs of scumware. The days of scumware/viruses causing problems for the user are LONG since past, most are financially motivated in botnets, spambots, keyloggers, etc etc, the whole point is to NOT get noticed by the user so they can continue to do their scumware jobs.

preserve search???

[krell]

Why, is Microsoft actually considering blocking browser users from going to Google.com ??

Google's Strategy

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Google's do-no-evil strategy is in progress here. While lesser companies like Symantec and McAfee are desperately trying to (relatively justifiably) sue Microsoft, Google would rather stand down. When a company as big as Google/Symantec/McAfee sues their product's platform, they make a sacrifice in their reputation among certain demographics. Is /. one of those demographics? Put it this way: do you prefer RIAA/SCO or Google/Apple?

Could this be....

[Churla]

Could it possibly be that Google, with their rapidly accelerating growth into a myriad of markets attempting to leverage search success there, might just be afraid of setting a precedent which could leave teeth marks on their respective posteriors later?

Re:Could this be....

[ScentCone]

Could it possibly be that Google, with their rapidly accelerating growth into a myriad of markets attempting to leverage search success there, might just be afraid of setting a precedent which could leave teeth marks on their respective posteriors later?

You mean, like Yahoo eventually demanding that Google give Google's users the "choice" to have all searches entered at Google redirect to a Yahoo search results page? I mean, that would be a choice, after all, and it would be Evil(tm) of Google to deny that choice... and we can't ask people to alter their own three-or-so-clicks settings to do it on their own, even though they could any time they want. In fact, Google should be required to actually host Yahoo's services, just to make sure everyone's getting a fair shake.

Yeah, like that. Google needs to watch what they "request" of other businesses, because it will come back to haunt them, significantly.

Just the other day I saw a link from a Google results page that flagged the destination as being a potential malware host. Shouldn't Symantec and McAfee be demanding that Google pay them to help with that analysis? That way Google's users would have more choices about which company provided the flagging. *heh*

Right

[suv4x4]

Google says to Microsoft "give people choices", and to Apple "please keep giving them no choices".

To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX from Google to something else, you need a hex editor to hack some binary files.

"But but but MS is monopoly"

But but but principle is principle, you shouldn't be forced by anti-monopoly laws to care for your users, Apple and Google show they are no different than Microsoft: corporations that change their philosophy according to how it affects their pocket.

Re:Right

[dotdash]

Wow! you are one brave soul. I only wish fellow /.ers are as brave and conscientious.

Re:Right

[thestudio_bob]

When you say "To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX", you mean Safari right? Where else is Google Search in Mac OS X?

Re:Right

[frdmfghtr]

To change the search engine used throughout Mac OSX from Google to something else, you need a hex editor to hack some binary files.

How do you figure this? If I'm searching for anything "throughout Mac OSX" on my iBook, I use Spotlight.

If you are talking searching the INTERNET, it just took me three seconds to change the default search engine from Google to Yahoo in Firefox. Maybe you are talking about Safari, which I don't use so I can't comment on that.

Still, I don't see the basis for your comment. Please advise.

Re:Right

[EXMSFT]

Assume his comment was regarding Safari - the default browser on Mac OS X. Are you being sarcastic, or are you really that thick?

Re:Right

[suv4x4]

Wow! you are one brave soul. I only wish fellow /.ers are as brave and conscientious.

I wasn't aware I was a brave soul, just teasing Google fan boys.
But thanks.

I'm off to fighting dragons now. See ya.

Works here

[lowe0]

I've got my copy of IE7 set up to search via Google. It's not the easiest thing to find, but the dialog is still fairly clear.

What's needed, perhaps, is a "set my search engine" similar to setting the homepage. There's definite potential for misuse there, however.

Re:Works here

[asylumx]

I'll probably get modded down by the anti MS crowd, but here goes.

Setting up google in the search bar in IE7 was a snap for me. I think google is bitching because people don't need/want their toolbar anymore since the search bar is built in to IE7. Of course, they didn't complain about this in Firefox because that's only about 10% of the market... who cares about them? Not to mention, FF's default is google.

Not only would I argue that it does make sense for IE7 to point at MSN search by default, but it would make sense for Firefox to point at some open source search engine, rather than google.

The problem with "Do no evil" is that evil is a subjective term... it may not be evil to them but it probably is to someone.

Re:Works here

[GIL_Dude]

I must disagree; it was the easiest thing to find. The first page that comes up when you open IE has on it the radio buttons for either keeping your search engine the default or selecting from others. If you choose to select from others it lists most of the known search engines and you just pick one. That really IS easy.

Actually..

[cybrthng]

IE 7 asks you which search provider you wish to use when you install it. NO big deal if you ask me, not like google doesn't have brand recognition.

Re:Actually..

[krell]

Oh. No difference to me then. I always avoid using a browser's built-in search ability. I just enter www.google.com or a9.com or whatever in the address window and then search on the site.

Re:Actually..

[shird]

Yes, but what about the times when you enter 'nytimes' or something in the address bar. It defaults to a search. Even if you don't.. a lot of people do, without realising they are using the browsers inbuilt search.

But as stated.. the users preference is already preserved by IE7, and can easily be changed. But I get the feeling they are talking about Google desktop search vs Windows Vista desktop search, and nothing to do with the browser.

Microsoft+EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why Microsoft doesn't deal with the EU as everyone else does: Bury the whole "government" with thousands of lobbyists and get them to change all those antitrust laws. Maybe it's cheaper to just ignore them and pay the occasional fee.

Re:Microsoft+EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbying all 20+ Governements of the EU consituent countries is a far harder and vastly more expensive job than doing the same thing on Capitol Hill.
The Army of Lobbyists that they would need would become very obvious and cries of Scandal would soon arise and M$ would be left with possibility of being sued which ( an I might be wrong) part of the EU treaty where the punishment is UNLIMITED fines and the possibility that ALL M$ subsidiaries in the EU could be fored to close down.
This would be disastrouus for M$ and is, I am sure a path that they would be very careful about following.

You can already do this in IE7

[brunes69]

I don't really know what Google is ranting about. Google is 2 clicks away as the default search engine in IE7.

I perfectly understand why Microsoft doesn't want to show a stupid "Pick your default search engine" dialog box at startup - that would be stupid.

Really, this is one issue I don't agree with Google on.

Now, if there comes to light something in Vista that, for example, prevents Google Desktop from being installed, then I would be very upset.

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[Larry Lightbulb]

Now, if there comes to light something in Vista that, for example, prevents Google Desktop from being installed, then I would be very happy.

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[jrspur2003]

That would be interesting to see how well google's Desktop works in Windows espically since windows version is basically integrated now... Personally I've always had bad luck with googles version always seemed to slow the system up...

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[Khuffie]

I was actually surprised that when I upgraded to IE7 on XP, Google WAS the default search engine on it, and there wasn't even an option for Live search in the dropdown box (I had to go to MS's site and add it). On Vista, it was the opposite.

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[mgblst]

Come on, nobody deserves to use that Microsoft POS (and I am not talking about cash registers here), by default or overwise. Sure, I understand that society is filled with all types, and some people like to be punished, but they should have to go out of the way to do it, not the other way around.

Maybe in YOUR world, you use your Microsoft OS to load up your Microsoft browser to search the Microsoft search site and get in your Microsoft car and drive on Microsoft roads to go to the Microsoft shop and pick up a new version of Windows, but the rest of us don't want that.

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem..

Maybe in YOUR world, you don't want to use a Microsoft OS or to load up a Microsoft browser or to search with Microsoft search site or get in your Microsoft car and drive on Microsoft roads to go to the Microsoft shop and pick up a new version of Windows, but the rest of us .. couldn't care less.

Really. The only reason my Mom uses firefox is that I told her to use it.
She couldn't care less. Any browser is ok as long as she can use her online banking. And IE is more okay than the others because she use it at work.

Re:You can already do this in IE7

[brunes69]

Do you realize you are ranting to someone who runs Linux exclusively both at home and at work and hasn't bought a Microsoft product in 7+ years either directly or indirectly?

Just because I disagree with Google doesn't make me a Microsoft fan boy.

It's two clicks away. It's not rocket science to pick Google as your default, it is simple and much easier than any previous version of IE. And trying to argue that they for some reason should *ship* Google as the default is like arguing that Firefox should ship MSN as the default.

In other news

[Bandit0013]

Microsoft asks sony to allow users the choice of playing X360 games on the PS3

Re:In other news

[X-treme-LLama]

And in a related story, no one calls for ANY console to be able to play Wii games. Especially since most of them will be the same ones you could buy for every other Nintendo console, albeit with a shiny new controller.

Why they fight so much?

[jackharrer]

It's already proven that Microsoft's new kernel security is very flawed. So what's the problem for Symantec and McAfee to create proper installer that will skip those protections and install all drivers at kernel level? Viruses will do it anyway. They can also. As long as they prove that they didn't crack the kernel but used 'unreported function' of kernel's security.
I know that Ms can disable this but it's only about clever installer that updates itself from internet.
What do you think?

Please explain...

[InMSWeAntitrust]

... why Microsoft has to do these things? It is, after all, their operating system, to do with as they please. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, I won't stop them, it leaves more room for vendors and end users to rethink their choice of OS. I just don't understand where all this talk of them needing to open up to security vendors and leaving search options open comes from if it is, in fact, their choice. For example, if HP were to make a printer that ran off of a substance that only HP could ever manufacture, wouldn't they be allowed to do as they please, because it's their product?

I don't think YOU understand

[MSFanBoi2]

Other AV products, especially the better ones out there like Trend, Sophos and others don't have any problems working with the API's Microsoft has provided for Vista to date.

In fact Trend and several other companies have commented on the ease of use of Microsoft's new API for antivirus, and especially the close integration with Sercurity Center.

like Chevy running safety controls thru radios?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the analogy of Chevy controlling safety-critical functions through the radios (http://www.blitzsafe.com/blitz_news/news122002a/b ody_news122002a.html) so that nobody else can make replacement radios without endangering the driver's life?

And if you want a not-yet-happened example of how Ford could make it so that only Ford can make brake replacements ... The US has legislation that will soon require cars/trucks to incorporate tire pressure monitoring. When implementing this government-mandated change Ford could choose a method that integrates the pressure monitoring into the brake assembly and a "secure" communication protocol back to the car computer that third party's would have to reverse-engineer if they want to sell brake replacements for Fords.

The point is whether you choose a method that makes it harder than necessary for third parties to provide replacement products or choose a method that supports the desires of some of your customers to replace (either as an upgrade or as a wear-and-tear replacement since anti-virus software does "wear out") that portion of your product. Microsoft is doing the former and because, unlike Ford, they've been convicted as a monopoly it's not legal for them.

Redmond = Mircosoft now?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the company has no plans to make antitrust allegations against Redmond."

It's funny how Redmond is used here instead of MS. It's like using the capitals of countries when referring to the government. ie Berlin today announced ...

AVG, Avast

[remmelt]

I've only used AVG and Avast, which both have free versions for home use. Avast is nicer looking but AVG seems quicker and more responsive. This is totally subjective non-tested grain-of-salt.

Is it now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it now? I think not. Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft has been guilty of anticompetitive behavior in the past. Are they using the same play book again. Examples:

• Dr Dos. - Dr Dos. can not run windows because of specific checks put into windows to cripple it when not running on MS-DOS. Result, this gave them an unfair advantage and killed Dr Dos.
• Widget set - Ever notice their products used to come out with a nice new widget set that no had access to initially. Again, this gave them an unfair advantage.
• MS SQL Server - initially made changes to the NT kernel specifically for sql server that gave MS an unfair advantage against other database products
• Internet Explorer - Built internet explorer into the operating system - killed netscape
• Windows Genuine Advantage - as this migrates to other software products it will kill wine usage.

There are other examples. They have shown time and time again that they play unfair.

Re:Is it now?

[X-treme-LLama]

Ok:

0. Why post as an AC? :P
1. We're going to argue about DOS? Is anyone actually using DOS as a full time operating system? Have they in the last 10 years? No. Get over it. Windows doesn't even use DOS any more :)
2. People cared about Widgets sets? I choose a program to run on it's features, usability and style. Most MS products lack all three. I'm not defending their software or saying I use it, just their right to make it as they see fit. Besides since they make both the software AND OS, yeah I would pretty much expect they would throw in a few nifties for themselves. I never really understood why that was such a big deal.
3. Eh? Not much experience with that, but see the tail end of #2.
4. Yeah, that was pretty crappy. But NS also shot themselves in the foot there too. NS 4 was ugly, and persisted waaay too long until NS 6 (what happened to 5?!?).. NS 6 sucked down resources and was (for me) slower than IE, not to mention by then most major web designers stop building pages/fixes for it and just used IE's nasty hacks, which meant they looked like crap/didn't function in N.S. -- That last one wasn't really NS's fault, but they were nearly dead at that point anyway.
5. WGA, sucks that they don't want people stealing their software, oh wait, no it doesn't. It DOES suck that it kills wine, but then again if you need that proggie run/dual boot Windows. If possible, pick up a freeware/OOS alternative.

OS community to Google

[MrCopilot]

Give users choice over Vista.

We Need an XP compatible Wine funded. Need it quick (Depending on how many more times Vista is delayed). We will of course default all searches to google and give clear choices for search MSN, Yahoo etc.. and try really hard not to do any Evil.

Don't delay the inevitable. Now would be your best time. MS cares not for corporate users choice let alone OEM users choice. Maybe this is the first step. Google can now claim "We tried to have discussions with MS and got nowhere, they left us no choice."

That extra word... why is it there?

[Miseph]

"Microsoft's potentially anticompetitive plans."

I don't see what "potentially" has to do with anything. Or is there actually some question that Microsoft's plans are, in fact, anticompetitive?

I thought this had been pretty well established, what, with the antitrust conviction, that whole Netscape vs. IE thing, backing that unfounded SCO lawsuit in a blatant attempt to undermine Linux, refusing to play nice with file formats in their office suite, writing and maintaining for many years boot loader sthat indiscriminately trashed all others and made multi-OS systems a hassle to put together (credit where credit is due, I've heard some good things about the new one for Vista), making up video and audio codecs that others' software can't read and making them the default formats on the default multimedia software on the vast majority of the world's computers, forcing the internet to comply with their shoddy web browser code and forcing two full generations (and counting) of web designers to do everything twice if they want it to work with browsers other than IE, etc., etc., etc.

That said, their attempts to compete with Google on search have been best described as... cute. It's so adorable watching one of the world's largest corporations practically throw a temper tantrum (with chairs) over their apparent inability to beat a bunch of hippies who make all of their money from what amounts to little more than selling text-only newspaper style ads at writing a search engine people like to use. Heck, they've even done away with the blinged out Yahoo style search page and done the minimalist style Google page for Windows Live, and it still isn't popular.

Microsoft to Google:

[sethstorm]

One chair, thrown.

IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safari?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I don't know what happens when upgrading to Vista, but upgrading to IE7 does preserve the search settings. When I upgraded to IE7, Yahoo was set as the default search engine (because I had installed Yahoo toolbar in the past), not Live.

Secondly, Google has some nerve demanding that Microsoft give users a choice regarding search engines when they have a deal with Apple that makes Google not only the default, but the exclusive search engine for Safari, which is Mac OSX's default browser, and one that holds a monopoly-like share wrt browser usage in Mac OS X. Not only can the user not change the default search engine in Safari, but the user can't even add any secondary search engines.

FUD / NOTFUD

[Lactoso]

Yup, this tagging system is working out quite nicely...

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[tiocsti]

Every mac user I know, including myself, either uses camino or firefox. What's your source for safari having 'monopoly-like share' of the os x market?

Re:Google's Strategy - EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so much.

The timing of this request by google is what makes it evil: IE7 has shipped. Making any changes now is virtually impossible before Vista SP1. Vista and IE7 have been in public beta for more than a year. What's not obvious to the typical judge or layperson is that the request could and should have come a year earlier if it were meant to incite change, but anyone working at both google or Microsoft is very well aware of that. The idea here is to cause legal trouble, nothing else.

Evil. Evil and backhanded.

Forget about Search

[NatteringNabob]

How about giving us in the US and EU the choice of buying 'Vista Starter' edition so we are out less money when we throw it away and install linux (or BSD, or OpenSolaris) instead? OR better yet, the choice of buying a desktop PC from a major Microsoft OEM with no operating system at all and the price of Windows deducted? That would be real choice. If Google is really concerned that Microsoft is going to play dirty tricks with search in order to steer users away from Google properties to Microsoft properties (and they will), the only real solution is for Google to do their own desktop Linux distro, give it away for free, and make it so good that MS OEM's will willingly put it on desktop machines that they can sell for less money that the Windows equivalent. They have plenty of money, they can't afford not to. And then Google can play their own dirty tricks.

It worked for Sun and Real

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. Sun, Real etc were able to lobby the EU pretty well. Sun got the EU to investigate MS when in fact, Sun servers had a higher market share than MS's. That's impressive lobbying in my book!

Users to Google-Give us wildcard searches in gmail

[Anonymous Coward]

and Google desktop as well. A search company that can't provide a decent search in it's products is quite ridiculous.

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[ClosedSource]

It's exactly the same kind of monopoly-like share that MS had over the PC market. There were always non-MS choices of OS's for the PC. What the courts effectively said in finding against MS is that having other choices won't stop you from being found a monopoly.

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[tiocsti]

Because you state it, does not make it so. I know very few mac users using safari. I don't think safari has anywhere close to 90% of the browser marketshare on macs, if you do, cite source.

How would you determine?

[DavidD_CA]

If Microsoft were to allow third-party search engines to be chosen upon installation, how would you determine *fairly* which engines got to show up?

If they just picked the big ones, then couldn't the little ones sue for discrimation or something?

If they charged a fee, like they have done in the past for ISPs, then that might ruffle some feathers.

And if they just allowed every "search engine" to sign up then we'd have complete chaos.

I don't see any problem with letting the user choose once they get connected. It's even easier to do now with Vista.

Why should they?

[kbox]

Google don't.

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Try "AcidSearch". While I'm happy with Google in my search box for most default searches, Acid allows for the customizability that you desire.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 24092

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[ClosedSource]

I was talking about the "type" not the actual percentage. Perhaps I missunderstood your point.

I have no idea what percentage of mac users use safari for browsing but given the stats on IE on the PC, it's reasonable to guess that the default is used more than alternatives. A guess, however, is not evidence.

Microsoft response

[Keyframe2]

Talk to the hand!

OT - gringo

[Gogo0]

When did 'gringo' become offensive? I'm white (from Alaska, so whiter than most) and I lived in Arizona for four years. I had mexican-american/mexican friends call me gringo all the time, it just means 'white guy' or more accurately 'foreigner'. it was even kind of funny considering the illegal alien (isnt that supposed to be offensive now?) situation in southern AZ. In Japan I got called 'gaijin' by tons of people. I didnt care, it means 'foreigner' which is what i was.

If there is malice, then that is different, but otherwise what is there to be offended by? A few people being offended by a foreign word shouldnt blacklist it. It's another example of the progressing pussification of America.

Re:OT - gringo

[WhiplashII]

Well, as I said, it varies from place to place as to its offensiveness. I personally was not offended, but felt that I should at least mention it to raise awareness. As for proof of the word "gringo"'s sinister side, I can offer up the ultimate repositry of human knowlege! (OK, so they reference a dictionary that "classifies the term as offensive slang")

Gaijin is different - so were you a gunjin gaijin geijin? The word just doesn't have any derogatory conotations, similar to hauli (literaly "white guy") in Somoan. It's not the meaning that makesit derogatory, it is the usage. And the usage changes a lot depending on your location. And, on the internet, it pays to be aware of such things, since you don't know the locale of the reader.

Lies

[h2g2bob]

For the record, Google did not create Firefox.

Re:Lies

[Orange Crush]

Sorry about that, I left off my tags.

ps3 with xbox360 compatibilities?

[CaptainNerdCave]

can you say "best move sony could make?" i'm probably not going to buy a ps3 or an xbox360, but if the ps3 could play games from both platforms, i would snatch that up right away.

i haven't read anything about this, so i have to assume it's just random hopes that people type, but i can see where both parties would love this idea.

sony is doomed; the ps3 is probably sony's last desperate attempt at survival. microsoft loses money on xbox360 sales; games are their moneymaker (correct me if i'm wrong). microsoft can see that if end users are going to buy a ps3 (because it will arbuably be the most powerful of the next-gen consoles), then adding the value of xbox360 games would increase ps3 sales... thus increasing microsoft's revenues and sony's. voila, three (four if 360 playability includes regular xbox, five/six if ps/2 are included) birds with one stone, everyone benefits.

a system that can play blu-ray, dvd, ps/2/3 AND xbox/360? that would be worth my $500-600, no doubt about it.

Re:IE7 preserves search settings; what about Safar

[beer_maker]

The majority of Mac users that I know are using Safari ... 'cuz that's what comes up on their toolbar on a default installation of OS X. We added FireFox to our organizational-install image, so our customers get a choice ... and we actually use both, since some in-house apps break when viewed with FireFox (I'm lookin' at you, stupid HR-created web apps!)

As they say, the plural of anecdote != data.

Why is Google doing MS any favors?

[Statecraftsman]

I find it funny that Google is telling Microsoft what it should be doing. Is this some kind of reverse psychology? Is Google trying to get MS to make Vista's search and browser required thereby making Google's yet-to-be-released gorgeous, better, and free(beer and freedom) OS even more attractive? You decide.

Why?

[jotaeleemeese]

It does it regularly with European companies as well.

This may be a surprise to USians, but is by no means an isolated incident.

Not necessarily. I would say not at all.

[jotaeleemeese]

Most USian friends I have introuced or refered to themselves as gringos (I am Mexican) which I found extremely funny.

Yes, gringo used to be derogatory (insults are the weapon of last resource of the defeated in unjust battles, but I digress) but as with many of these terms, it became the common term.

You will be hard pressed to find anybody in Mexico refering to any USians other than as gringos, and this will in most cases not be derogatory.

Completely idiotic analogy.

[jotaeleemeese]

Ford does not have a monopolic position on the market where they compete.

MS does, that puts a lot of legal tabs on what they can do.