Thanks for posting this tool. I've been experiencing unusually high packet loss for the last day and a half. This tool is really helpful for providing some detailed system information. I live in Oregon, in an area serviced by CenturyTel, not Comcast, and have wondered if their change could affect others network traffic in the region.
The question isn't whether it will run IE. The question is will it run any other browser (Firefox, Opera, Konq, or any XUL based browser) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps. The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser?
I think it's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome. I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience. Chrome doesn't offer that capability and Google doesn't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality, especially not like Mozilla has. If we can't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google's internet experience, surfing how they want us to, collecting the information they want from us, and controlling how and what applications can function.
Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their "desktop" apps as native Linux software. If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE. So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance. I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS. It just felt clunky to me. I haven't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed.
If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people. Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual. And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.
There is an important difference. You ISP can change your IP address anytime it wants to without warning, unless you have purchased an agreement for a static IP. Even when they do that it doesn't adversely affect other networks ability to contact you. You analogy breaks down because the address and location system for a network, including the internet is much more complicated than a single IP address. Routers, switches, and the MAC address for every device on the network are also part of that, not just IP address.
The problem is one of trust. These days, I don't trust my government (UK) enough to let them make decisions about what I don't get to see. If they wanted to keep this trust, all they had to do was not oppose the release of their expenses quite so vigorously.
You would trust wikileaks though? You would trust the judgment of a few individuals with their own agenda? If you don't trust your government and the individuals who run it with their own agenda why would you trust wikileaks any more? They aren't some super moral group of people. They are as human and corruptible as your government, or you or I am for that matter.
It's very popular to bash governments for their many mistakes and foibles, but the problem is none of us have come up with an better solution for managing our society. It is so easy to point a finger, but it is our responsibility, as much as those of our leaders, to ensure a sound government. Even when I don't like my currently elected officials, their policies, and their crap, at least I have a voice in it no matter how small that might be. With wikileaks I have no voice, no say, nothing. Wikileaks is going to be better than what we have now? In what way? If the FOIA or any other accountability measure isn't up to snuff fix it, but don't allow some third party app to hijack the OS. Get it?
Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions. Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well. Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.
The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all. The Windows Firewall is just as good, if not better than vendor solutions. Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention. The other tools such as disk defrag, registry defrag, and backup utilities aren't needed from security vendors. These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller. This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign. I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well.
If you add to that a majority of sites I visit have Google Analytics and many of those have Google Syndication. I know this because I have those scripts blocked. I know this has nothing necessarily to do with spiders finding and ranking sites, but it does tie into the Google machine. I have no doubt that Google analyzes and uses that data. Google is integral to sites getting noticed and getting hits.
I don't see sites having to integrated any other search engines scripts. I don't have to block Bing, Hotbot, Lycos, Alta Vista, or any of those other old search engines that virtually no one uses anymore.
Google is ubiquitous with the web the way Microsoft is with the desktop and IBM is with servers. Just because their numbers aren't as big as the other two, in their respective domains, doesn't mean they aren't top dog on the internet, miles above everyone else.
Knuth doesn't use personal email. His secretary prints out email addressed to taocp@[university address] so he can reply in writing. He doesn't communicate via email because he doesn't want to be so in touch with the world, not because he thinks email is a bad thing. Hell he barely communicates via post. His point in restricting communication is a personal one because he seems to value his time for research and his interests.
Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study.
I'm not sure why Stallman doesn't like to use the internet, but it seems like he is more interested in the moral use of software and doesn't use it because I think he personally sees server side code as muddled with regards to the GPL (just my conjecture there). Knuth just likes his privacy. The two are totally different even if they are both for personal reasons. Pretty much all of our reasons for doing things are personal.
I agree that most AV solutions detect a problem after the fact, but Microsoft including Security Essentials doesn't change that either way. According to the report they scored pretty good on real time heuristics. If anything providing an AV solution for free seems like a good move not a bad one.
I've worked with Deep Freeze before and it can be a great solution, but it's more complicated than you're making it. What is the licensing fee to include it? People already bitch about the cost of Windows. How easy is it going to be for a non-tech savvy user to operate? I don't think it will provide any more advantage to the end user or be any less complicated than the current functionality System Restore already provides. Every time a program is installed, or Windows Update is run a Restore Point is made.
UAC is a bit beyond the scope of Microsoft Security Essentials and should Microsoft be implementing a malware solution, but I would say that it is, again, a move in the right direction. It has advantages and disadvantages, just like sudo or su does. It's meant to give the user an opportunity to deny an action they may not want to happen. There is always room for improvement, but it isn't a black and white world. Just because UAC has room for growth doesn't mean it's a bad idea or useless.
Going back to your original argument that Microsoft shouldn't be including anti-malware utilities; I just don't see a good reason why not. Pointing out various other weaknesses or problems you see with Windows has really nothing to do with why they shouldn't include Security Essentials, especially for free.
Running in Win 7 RC this is what the resource monitor says for MsMpEng.exe:
Threads: 23
Commit (KB): 95, 488
Working Set (KB): 48, 364
Shareable (KB): 5,708
Private (KB): 42, 656
I haven't noticed a performance increase or hit using this compare to Symantec, Panda, Kaspersky, or AVG. Obvious anecdote I know, but that has been my experience so far.
Microsoft can fix vulnerabilities, bugs, and provide security tools. They aren't mutually exclusive. Why shouldn't they be providing security/malware tools? There are known malware problems and since they can't fix the "stupid user" problem, as you call it, then providing anti-malware tools makes sense doesn't it?
Microsoft has implemented an elevated privilege system in UAC. You can require permision, passwords, or allow automated elevation depending on settings. It sounds like Microsoft is making improvements. This is a case of Microsoft actually doing the right thing and people just don't like that. It's harder to bash someone when they do the right thing.
This has been my experience as well. The firewall rules come with a fairly secure set of default settings while still allowing applications to work. The built-in firewall is easier to configure than some third party firewalls (both Kaspersky and F-Secure have given me more troubles in my experience) and automatically configures some complex rules for games.
This is a really interesting question. I've been wondering this myself.
I've been testing the Win 7 beta and RC. Along with that I've been testing several security solutions. Of all the major vendors promoting full security suites Symantec seems to have the least intrusive low overhead solution in NIS2009 or N360. Of the AV only solutions I like Panda AV the best. It was similarly hassle free and easy to use. Microsoft Security Essentials, along with Windows Defender, firewall, backup, and defrag supply all the same functionality and are easy to use.
Several vendors are trying to sell not just security but centralized system management in the form of firewall, anti-malware, performance tools (disk defrag and registry defrag), and an automated backup solution (some offering online storage on their site). The problem I see here is that the Windows now provides a firewall, Windows Defender, and now MS Security Essentials for free. Windows 7 has a backup utility that, while fairly rudimentary, is good enough. The complete solutions I tried used the Windows 7 disk defrag tool and just scheduled it for you. In the end the only people are just paying for a fancy registry defragger and possibly some online storage. The third party vendors do provide all this in a centralized management console, but that's about all they have to offer. The new Windows Action Center provides easy access to all those tools as well just packaged in a more spartan interface.
I think it will be interesting to see how security vendors and software evolve from this.
Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate? As far as I can tell its nothing but a rip-off, there were none of the promised features, and you would think that MS would give them a free upgrade to 7 but I guess not.
I'm A, B, C, D. If I want free I'll install my favorite Linux distro. If I want to install Windows I'll pony up the price or buy a box, board, and drive from a local vendor with an OEM install. If I want to install OSX on that box I'll just buy.... oh wait I can't. I'd have to dump out a couple grand for a comparable system just to get that $30 upgrade.
Nothing is ever non-biased. It would be a bland world if it was all non-biased. There isn't anything wrong with bias at all when you know where someone or some group stands. It's when a person or group hides its bias and tries to present their end as neutral that problems arise.
No thanks. I mostly use Firefox and I certainly don't mind downloading it on install. I do not want Dell, Lenovo, Asus, HP, or whoever to make my browser decision for me. I don't want their "customized" branded browser.
I already have sufficient choice now. I install Windows, use IE to download FF and I'm good to go. I like having a known vanilla browser installed by the OS manufacturer.
A better game is very subjective. Better != fun. People want fun quality games (ie: bug free).
More polygons, higher rez textures, and a more complicated AI all pushing hardware to its limits don't make a better game; it just makes a potentially prettier game. Maybe game publishers and developers should take a second look at what has made some classic hits so popular.
Why is that modded interesting? It's pure troll. I know I'll get modded troll or flamebait again because I'm not hopping on the anti Microsoft FUD train, but your post is ridiculous.
Microsoft isn't going to anything of the sort. Beyond the fact they don't want or need another anti-competitive court case no manufacturer is going to listen to them where they see a good opportunity to make money.
It's possible that if Microsoft already had a decent hold in this market they would try to pull some of the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of thing. The fact is they don't and don't have reasonable leverage to sway this market.
The average US citizen weights 450kg, this is why they drive around in Hammers. Besides they have absolutely no concept of beauty and design.
*runs away before the flame war*
I personally prefer to drive in the entire toolbox as a hammer is just too small.
If I'm a programmer, why would I use someone elses programming. Of course, I won't reinvent the wheel....
Because using someone elses code doesn't make you a bad programmer just like not using their code makes you a good programmer. I guess you could use it as an example of your ability, but I think that is stretching it. I've always tried to live by the thumb rule that "he who writes the least code wins."
Agreed. Not only is it impractical but I don't want to have to remove other browsers having them leave behind their registry entries and any other crap they don't want to clean up upon removal.
I like the current model in Windows 7 where I can install any browser I want to, and do, after initial installation. I have the option to disable IE8 in the Windows Features menu, but it still leaves the base engine available for.NET apps and other Windows apps that call and rely on that engine for functionality.
Finally, I don't have a huge level of confidence in OEMs or their partners not configure Windows in a way that makes installing and using another browser a real pain in the ass.
Maybe this is all irrelevant to me because I live in the United States. In any event I'm not very excited about what kind of precedent this could set or direction it could take us.
This should be posted in the "Need More Spin" category. I don't see how Microsoft funding a marketing campaign targeted at a threatening competitor (Linux) is really news. In fact, it's not so different from techgeist.com creating an inflamatory article with some spin on it to generate clicks. I guess everyone has to make money.
If you're working and serious about it there is only one solution for programming on, and for, a Windows system and that is Visual Studio Professional. Let's go back to the car analogy world. If you're a mechanic, and you make your living from that trade, you don't buy tools at the dollar store. You buy them from the Snap-On or other professional tool guy. The same goes for development. Don't be cheap. Buy Visual Studio Pro. VS2010 is coming out soon. I would recommend using VS2008 express until VS2010 is released.
If you really want to use free, then use a VS Express Edition or Code::Blocks.
Slashdot Mirror
-- Warning Slightly Off Topic --
Thanks for posting this tool. I've been experiencing unusually high packet loss for the last day and a half. This tool is really helpful for providing some detailed system information. I live in Oregon, in an area serviced by CenturyTel, not Comcast, and have wondered if their change could affect others network traffic in the region.
The question isn't whether it will run IE. The question is will it run any other browser (Firefox, Opera, Konq, or any XUL based browser) but Chrome without those browser projects having to completely rewrite their apps. The question is how easy will it be to install a third party browser?
I think it's important to point out the difference in browsing capabilities between Firefox and Chrome. I use Firefox specifically because ABP and NoScript allow me to easily control the browsing experience. Chrome doesn't offer that capability and Google doesn't seem interested in making it easy for third party developers to implement that functionality, especially not like Mozilla has. If we can't install our browsers of choice then we are locked into Google's internet experience, surfing how they want us to, collecting the information they want from us, and controlling how and what applications can function.
Unless something has changed recently Google has yet to release any of their "desktop" apps as native Linux software. If I understand it right they all run under a specially compiled WINE. So when you run Picasa or Google Earth they sit on top of that WINE instance. I always hated how they integrated with the file system and the rest of the OS. It just felt clunky to me. I haven't used Linux as my primary OS in a couple years now so maybe that has all changed.
If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people. Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual. And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.
There is an important difference. You ISP can change your IP address anytime it wants to without warning, unless you have purchased an agreement for a static IP. Even when they do that it doesn't adversely affect other networks ability to contact you. You analogy breaks down because the address and location system for a network, including the internet is much more complicated than a single IP address. Routers, switches, and the MAC address for every device on the network are also part of that, not just IP address.
The problem is one of trust. These days, I don't trust my government (UK) enough to let them make decisions about what I don't get to see. If they wanted to keep this trust, all they had to do was not oppose the release of their expenses quite so vigorously.
You would trust wikileaks though? You would trust the judgment of a few individuals with their own agenda? If you don't trust your government and the individuals who run it with their own agenda why would you trust wikileaks any more? They aren't some super moral group of people. They are as human and corruptible as your government, or you or I am for that matter.
It's very popular to bash governments for their many mistakes and foibles, but the problem is none of us have come up with an better solution for managing our society. It is so easy to point a finger, but it is our responsibility, as much as those of our leaders, to ensure a sound government. Even when I don't like my currently elected officials, their policies, and their crap, at least I have a voice in it no matter how small that might be. With wikileaks I have no voice, no say, nothing. Wikileaks is going to be better than what we have now? In what way? If the FOIA or any other accountability measure isn't up to snuff fix it, but don't allow some third party app to hijack the OS. Get it?
Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions. Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well. Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.
The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all. The Windows Firewall is just as good, if not better than vendor solutions. Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention. The other tools such as disk defrag, registry defrag, and backup utilities aren't needed from security vendors. These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller. This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign. I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well.
I absolutely agree.
Warning: Obvious Anecdote Ahead:
If you add to that a majority of sites I visit have Google Analytics and many of those have Google Syndication. I know this because I have those scripts blocked. I know this has nothing necessarily to do with spiders finding and ranking sites, but it does tie into the Google machine. I have no doubt that Google analyzes and uses that data. Google is integral to sites getting noticed and getting hits.
I don't see sites having to integrated any other search engines scripts. I don't have to block Bing, Hotbot, Lycos, Alta Vista, or any of those other old search engines that virtually no one uses anymore.
Google is ubiquitous with the web the way Microsoft is with the desktop and IBM is with servers. Just because their numbers aren't as big as the other two, in their respective domains, doesn't mean they aren't top dog on the internet, miles above everyone else.
Knuth doesn't use personal email. His secretary prints out email addressed to taocp@[university address] so he can reply in writing. He doesn't communicate via email because he doesn't want to be so in touch with the world, not because he thinks email is a bad thing. Hell he barely communicates via post. His point in restricting communication is a personal one because he seems to value his time for research and his interests.
Knuth versus Email [stanford.edu]
Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study.
I'm not sure why Stallman doesn't like to use the internet, but it seems like he is more interested in the moral use of software and doesn't use it because I think he personally sees server side code as muddled with regards to the GPL (just my conjecture there). Knuth just likes his privacy. The two are totally different even if they are both for personal reasons. Pretty much all of our reasons for doing things are personal.
I agree that most AV solutions detect a problem after the fact, but Microsoft including Security Essentials doesn't change that either way. According to the report they scored pretty good on real time heuristics. If anything providing an AV solution for free seems like a good move not a bad one.
I've worked with Deep Freeze before and it can be a great solution, but it's more complicated than you're making it. What is the licensing fee to include it? People already bitch about the cost of Windows. How easy is it going to be for a non-tech savvy user to operate? I don't think it will provide any more advantage to the end user or be any less complicated than the current functionality System Restore already provides. Every time a program is installed, or Windows Update is run a Restore Point is made.
UAC is a bit beyond the scope of Microsoft Security Essentials and should Microsoft be implementing a malware solution, but I would say that it is, again, a move in the right direction. It has advantages and disadvantages, just like sudo or su does. It's meant to give the user an opportunity to deny an action they may not want to happen. There is always room for improvement, but it isn't a black and white world. Just because UAC has room for growth doesn't mean it's a bad idea or useless.
Going back to your original argument that Microsoft shouldn't be including anti-malware utilities; I just don't see a good reason why not. Pointing out various other weaknesses or problems you see with Windows has really nothing to do with why they shouldn't include Security Essentials, especially for free.
Running in Win 7 RC this is what the resource monitor says for MsMpEng.exe:
I haven't noticed a performance increase or hit using this compare to Symantec, Panda, Kaspersky, or AVG. Obvious anecdote I know, but that has been my experience so far.
Microsoft can fix vulnerabilities, bugs, and provide security tools. They aren't mutually exclusive. Why shouldn't they be providing security/malware tools? There are known malware problems and since they can't fix the "stupid user" problem, as you call it, then providing anti-malware tools makes sense doesn't it?
Microsoft has implemented an elevated privilege system in UAC. You can require permision, passwords, or allow automated elevation depending on settings. It sounds like Microsoft is making improvements. This is a case of Microsoft actually doing the right thing and people just don't like that. It's harder to bash someone when they do the right thing.
This has been my experience as well. The firewall rules come with a fairly secure set of default settings while still allowing applications to work. The built-in firewall is easier to configure than some third party firewalls (both Kaspersky and F-Secure have given me more troubles in my experience) and automatically configures some complex rules for games.
Please don't complain about people complaining about how posts were modded. Eventually they will get marked redundant or ignored.
I keed. I keed.
This is a really interesting question. I've been wondering this myself.
I've been testing the Win 7 beta and RC. Along with that I've been testing several security solutions. Of all the major vendors promoting full security suites Symantec seems to have the least intrusive low overhead solution in NIS2009 or N360. Of the AV only solutions I like Panda AV the best. It was similarly hassle free and easy to use. Microsoft Security Essentials, along with Windows Defender, firewall, backup, and defrag supply all the same functionality and are easy to use.
Several vendors are trying to sell not just security but centralized system management in the form of firewall, anti-malware, performance tools (disk defrag and registry defrag), and an automated backup solution (some offering online storage on their site). The problem I see here is that the Windows now provides a firewall, Windows Defender, and now MS Security Essentials for free. Windows 7 has a backup utility that, while fairly rudimentary, is good enough. The complete solutions I tried used the Windows 7 disk defrag tool and just scheduled it for you. In the end the only people are just paying for a fancy registry defragger and possibly some online storage. The third party vendors do provide all this in a centralized management console, but that's about all they have to offer. The new Windows Action Center provides easy access to all those tools as well just packaged in a more spartan interface.
I think it will be interesting to see how security vendors and software evolve from this.
Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate? As far as I can tell its nothing but a rip-off, there were none of the promised features, and you would think that MS would give them a free upgrade to 7 but I guess not.
I'm A, B, C, D. If I want free I'll install my favorite Linux distro. If I want to install Windows I'll pony up the price or buy a box, board, and drive from a local vendor with an OEM install. If I want to install OSX on that box I'll just buy.... oh wait I can't. I'd have to dump out a couple grand for a comparable system just to get that $30 upgrade.
Nothing is ever non-biased. It would be a bland world if it was all non-biased. There isn't anything wrong with bias at all when you know where someone or some group stands. It's when a person or group hides its bias and tries to present their end as neutral that problems arise.
No thanks. I mostly use Firefox and I certainly don't mind downloading it on install. I do not want Dell, Lenovo, Asus, HP, or whoever to make my browser decision for me. I don't want their "customized" branded browser.
I already have sufficient choice now. I install Windows, use IE to download FF and I'm good to go. I like having a known vanilla browser installed by the OS manufacturer.
A better game is very subjective. Better != fun. People want fun quality games (ie: bug free).
More polygons, higher rez textures, and a more complicated AI all pushing hardware to its limits don't make a better game; it just makes a potentially prettier game. Maybe game publishers and developers should take a second look at what has made some classic hits so popular.
Why is that modded interesting? It's pure troll. I know I'll get modded troll or flamebait again because I'm not hopping on the anti Microsoft FUD train, but your post is ridiculous.
Microsoft isn't going to anything of the sort. Beyond the fact they don't want or need another anti-competitive court case no manufacturer is going to listen to them where they see a good opportunity to make money.
It's possible that if Microsoft already had a decent hold in this market they would try to pull some of the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of thing. The fact is they don't and don't have reasonable leverage to sway this market.
The average US citizen weights 450kg, this is why they drive around in Hammers. Besides they have absolutely no concept of beauty and design. *runs away before the flame war*
I personally prefer to drive in the entire toolbox as a hammer is just too small.
"Hi!, I'm an ATM."
If I'm a programmer, why would I use someone elses programming. Of course, I won't reinvent the wheel....
Because using someone elses code doesn't make you a bad programmer just like not using their code makes you a good programmer. I guess you could use it as an example of your ability, but I think that is stretching it. I've always tried to live by the thumb rule that "he who writes the least code wins."
Agreed. Not only is it impractical but I don't want to have to remove other browsers having them leave behind their registry entries and any other crap they don't want to clean up upon removal.
I like the current model in Windows 7 where I can install any browser I want to, and do, after initial installation. I have the option to disable IE8 in the Windows Features menu, but it still leaves the base engine available for.NET apps and other Windows apps that call and rely on that engine for functionality.
Finally, I don't have a huge level of confidence in OEMs or their partners not configure Windows in a way that makes installing and using another browser a real pain in the ass.
Maybe this is all irrelevant to me because I live in the United States. In any event I'm not very excited about what kind of precedent this could set or direction it could take us.
This should be posted in the "Need More Spin" category. I don't see how Microsoft funding a marketing campaign targeted at a threatening competitor (Linux) is really news. In fact, it's not so different from techgeist.com creating an inflamatory article with some spin on it to generate clicks. I guess everyone has to make money.
If you're working and serious about it there is only one solution for programming on, and for, a Windows system and that is Visual Studio Professional. Let's go back to the car analogy world. If you're a mechanic, and you make your living from that trade, you don't buy tools at the dollar store. You buy them from the Snap-On or other professional tool guy. The same goes for development. Don't be cheap. Buy Visual Studio Pro. VS2010 is coming out soon. I would recommend using VS2008 express until VS2010 is released.
If you really want to use free, then use a VS Express Edition or Code::Blocks.