Slashdot Mirror
MS Adds Security Suite To Update Service, Antivirus Rival Objects
CWmike writes "Microsoft has started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by US Windows users when they fire up the operating system's update service, and antivirus rivals are crying foul. 'Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition,' Carol Carpenter, a GM at Trend Micro, said on Thursday. 'Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned,' she added. 'Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way.' If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update. Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering the software via Windows Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player. But most users won't understand the distinction."
As much as I can't stand a lot of what Microsoft does, Security Essentials is not a bad program all in all. It's certainly more lightweight that than travesty from Norton and more reliable than the other "free" or "semi-free" AV programs. I still prefer F-Prot because it's the king of small footprint AV, but I have no problem with Security Essentials, and if it's part of Windows Update, I'm assuming that soon enough we'll be seeing in WSUS, which, when combined with the GPO software installation facilities in AD, will replicate the high-end corporate AV.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Windows Firewall and MSE is better than most other solutions for home users.
The whole anti-virus industry seems like an artificial market. I wonder if they privately throw fits every time Microsoft releases patches to close potential security holes too. I mean, extending the argument, doesn't a more secure base system minimize the need for the full time, bloated nanny programs most of these companies provide; thus eroding their market share similarly? Those dirty bastards!
After calming me down with some orange slices and some fetal spooning, E.T. revealed to me his singular purpose.
While I'm no MS fan, this is a good thing. Note: they only add MSE if no other virus checker is present. MSE actually does a pretty decent job, and it is a lot less intrusive than version McAfee, Norton, etc. available to private users.
Microsoft has a vested interest in improving the security of Windows without disturbing the rest of the user experience. Their motivation for MSE is roughly the same as the users'.
It has always bothered me that the interests of Norton, McAfee and the rest are not aligned with the user. You want a clean, fast machine. They want to sell you AV subscriptions. Which means they want to convince you how necessary those are. False alarms are fine, as are in-the-face dialogs and interruptions to remind you what a wonderful piece of crapware you have on your machine.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Because anti-virus companies make software so bad, even Microsoft doesn't want the association.
I think SE got there because MS learned something from the Browser anti-competitive issues.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why doesn't Microsoft just put a container in Windows Update for security companies to rent space to present download links?
How about an App Store?
/cue delusional whining about App Stores being the start of a slippery slope to concentration camps and lockdown.
Putting moderation advice in your
Most of the well branded av's are just packed full of bloatware and getting worse. It's even got to the point now that alot of free software which i have installed also installs mcafee smartscan or a similar product to my desktop without allowing me to not install them. Isn't there something foul about this? Personally i use the lesser known eset's nod32 and i think it does a good job.
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
i guess i have no sympathy for them. and as much as i normally don't like MS i guess i am on MS's side for once.
They don't have a monopoly and aren't a convicted monopolist. Until then they won't be forced to unbundle anything.
Shouldn't security be the purpose of the OS itself? Trend micro and other Antivirus software doesn't have a right to exist. the OS itself should theoretically already protect itself.
Correct, but Microsoft waited until a market had built up around the insecurity of Windows before they introduced a product of their own. Since they did not proactively address security, they are legally obligated to compete in the market they created on a level playing field with other companies already in that market. That means if they use Windows or products bundled with Windows to provide an advantage for their security suite, they are legally obligated to provide the same to competitors. Where do the other AV vendors sign up to be included in Windows update?
For the Friends and Family crowd, I now always uninstall what they have and replace it with MSE. Not only is it free, but it's been rated as the best and the updates happen automatically. It's so much lighter weight than Symantec and Norton that people tell me it's like a brand new computer.
I have not had a single callback about any problems.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Same here. It's better, faster, and less ad free than AVG, Avast, etc.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure