Though still in beta, Microsoft AntiSpyware does an amazing job at detecting spyware by finding twice as many infected files as Ad-Aware and nearly three times as SpyBot.
I'm pretty sure that people get tired of anti-Microsoft types bashing the beast, but I still believe that there's good reason to question this - given Microsoft's past actions.
One has to ask the question:
Is this performance because of knowledge Microsoft has, that other companies don't have access to?
Was the software just re-branded, and the software was this good before Microsoft got its claws on it; or did Microsoft tweak it in a way that only Microsoft would know how to?
We all know about APIs, and how in the past Microsoft products have outperformed those of the competition due to 'hidden information'.
Could Microsoft's understanding of the inner-workings of Windows give it an unfair advantage?
I don't think that the issue explained in the blog was anything worth bothering with anyway.
The BSOD is where the meat is at, and it would be far more interesting/informative to know why that occurred.
Actually, having said that it would be interesting/informative, if it was modded here at slashdot it would probably be Offtopic/Insightful. Honestly, slashdot mods, sheesh.
I does have RealTime protection. So they are making an effort to clean, and keep clean.
True. However...
Anybody would make an effort if they could make money out of it, you can't commend a company for trying to make money.
Is it going to be included as a free part of Windows indefinitely?
Why is there even any form of discussion about this becoming a chargeable subscription service?
Shouldn't people expect vulnerabilities in the software they buy to be fixed free of charge - at least while the software is still supported?
Everytime MS comes out with a product could benefit the very large user community, people have to rag on them.
Should Windows users be expected to pay for this after having paid so much for Windows in the first place?
Is the price of Windows going to come down to compensate for this?
Why should Microsoft be allowed to benefit from vulnerabilities within its own operating system and software?
What incentive does this give Microsoft to actually make its software secure?
One could suggest that Microsoft plans to use this to make back the millions that it spent on Trustworthy Computing.
Is the software going to be bundled with Windows? Or is Windows going to conveniently suggest that you use it? Bundling is one reason why people usually reveal anger at Microsoft's products.
Is it better for MS to not come out with this software at all, or is it better for them to at least try?
That depends on whether it gets bundled, giving an unfair advantage over competing products, or whether it becomes preferred due to leveraging of Microsoft's monopoly power. And as for Microsoft's software as a whole, is lock-in/out an issue?
The point is that this gives Microsoft less incentive to fix the problems in the operating system and its accompanying software.
Yes, some spyware is manually installed by the user, but much is also installed via Internet Explorer exploits.
Microsoft is saying that Linux doesn't present a threat on the desktop, and that Firefox isn't a threat.
If Microsoft believes that it has an unbreakable monopoly, surely it can feel safe enough to leave software vulnerable so that it can benefit from a subscription service that combats these problems?
But there's also a danger in letting people assume that they have no choice, and that all operating systems have the same level of security and stability.
Why don't other terrible crimes get such a high sentance?
I'm sure that many people can't believe the lenient sentences associated with some attrocious crimes, and here we see a 25-year sentence for shining a light.
I'm sure that if you have a list of crimes, ranging from bad to worst, that it would look like the sentences were picked at random.
Whoever modded my post as Flamebait should observe the FAQ here:
Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
My post was not flamebait. It certainly does appear that Microsoft has issued this 'discussion' right at a time where NT users are considering Windows or Linux, and it really doesn't take on any different stance than what Microsoft is promoting in its Get The Facts campaign.
From what I read, it's just purely Microsoft advertising.
It ends with a great piece from Martin Taylor on how fantastic Windows Server 2003 is. Then it points to www.getthefacts.com.
That's not really comparing Windows and Linux, it's issuing more FUD, and another attempt at pushing those NT users to 2003 rather than an alternative OS.
With all of these probes, and the possibility of life on other planets - and maybe life squashed over 'millions of years' - maybe this is just one great big hunt for intergalactic oil deposits?
I think it's a great idea, but there's just one issue that comes to my mind here:
All we seem to be doing these days is making things require electricity, when they never used to.
I'm not an environmental freak or anything, but it's shocking to see how much we're becoming dependent on electricity; even razors that don't currently require batteries will probably become battery operated, like this.
See how many wind-up watches there are these days; at the rate technology is progressing, your average picture frame could soon be battery powered.
Obviously, Microsoft bundling applications with their dominant operating system gives them a strong advantage over would-be competitors, but should we really prohibit them from shipping applications with it?
Perhaps this is the only thing to do when a company has been allowed to maintain an illegal monopoly (the court's words, not mine) for years? After having already established a dominant user-base, how can you ensure fair play?
It's not like people _have_ to use Microsoft's products. They choose to. The alternatives have been there.
Many people don't like to have to make any choices. If they find an app already there, they don't choose it over another app, they just use it.
Do you also prohibit Apple from shipping apps with Mac OS X? Or Mandrakesoft with Mandrake?
Apple doesn't yet face the issue Microsoft does, as it doesn't have a monopoly that locks out competitors.
No Linux distributions face this issue, as they don't make the OS itself, they bundle middleware that is not their own on top of the OS (imagine Microsoft doing that). Neither do they alter the OS itself so that their own apps integrate better than the compeition - besides, Linux is open, if they did make changes, it wouldn't produce a lock-out effect.
Or do you only prohibit Microsoft from doing so, because their OS is so ubiquitous?
The best way forward, that I can see, is for Microsoft to develop the operating system, but not directly sell the OS itself. It would be better if Microsoft was to get vendors to sell Windows Distro's (with some form of standardization). This way everybody could get all of the necessary and beneficial applications for a great computing experience, and they wouldn't have to be purely Microsoft apps.
When Microsoft does comment, I bet Steve Ballmer will say, "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience. We are committed to moving forward as a responsible leader in an industry that is constantly, constantly changing."
And I bet Bill Gates will say, "This settlement puts new responsibilities on Microsoft, and we accept them," and also that he is "personally committed to full compliance."
Well, that's what happened at the end of the Anti-Trust case.
It would have been nice if he'd have explained that this reason is due to Microsoft's lack of standards support in its products. But then again, do Microsoft developers/managers have any idea of Web standards (i.e. REAL standards)?
Slashdot Mirror
Though still in beta, Microsoft AntiSpyware does an amazing job at detecting spyware by finding twice as many infected files as Ad-Aware and nearly three times as SpyBot.
I'm pretty sure that people get tired of anti-Microsoft types bashing the beast, but I still believe that there's good reason to question this - given Microsoft's past actions.
One has to ask the question:
Is this performance because of knowledge Microsoft has, that other companies don't have access to?
Was the software just re-branded, and the software was this good before Microsoft got its claws on it; or did Microsoft tweak it in a way that only Microsoft would know how to?
We all know about APIs, and how in the past Microsoft products have outperformed those of the competition due to 'hidden information'.
Could Microsoft's understanding of the inner-workings of Windows give it an unfair advantage?
Excatly.
I don't think that the issue explained in the blog was anything worth bothering with anyway.
The BSOD is where the meat is at, and it would be far more interesting/informative to know why that occurred.
Actually, having said that it would be interesting/informative, if it was modded here at slashdot it would probably be Offtopic/Insightful. Honestly, slashdot mods, sheesh.
I does have RealTime protection. So they are making an effort to clean, and keep clean.
True. However...
Anybody would make an effort if they could make money out of it, you can't commend a company for trying to make money.
Is it going to be included as a free part of Windows indefinitely?
Why is there even any form of discussion about this becoming a chargeable subscription service?
Shouldn't people expect vulnerabilities in the software they buy to be fixed free of charge - at least while the software is still supported?
Everytime MS comes out with a product could benefit the very large user community, people have to rag on them.
Should Windows users be expected to pay for this after having paid so much for Windows in the first place?
Is the price of Windows going to come down to compensate for this?
Why should Microsoft be allowed to benefit from vulnerabilities within its own operating system and software?
What incentive does this give Microsoft to actually make its software secure?
One could suggest that Microsoft plans to use this to make back the millions that it spent on Trustworthy Computing.
Is the software going to be bundled with Windows? Or is Windows going to conveniently suggest that you use it? Bundling is one reason why people usually reveal anger at Microsoft's products.
Is it better for MS to not come out with this software at all, or is it better for them to at least try?
That depends on whether it gets bundled, giving an unfair advantage over competing products, or whether it becomes preferred due to leveraging of Microsoft's monopoly power. And as for Microsoft's software as a whole, is lock-in/out an issue?
The point is that this gives Microsoft less incentive to fix the problems in the operating system and its accompanying software.
Yes, some spyware is manually installed by the user, but much is also installed via Internet Explorer exploits.
Microsoft is saying that Linux doesn't present a threat on the desktop, and that Firefox isn't a threat.
If Microsoft believes that it has an unbreakable monopoly, surely it can feel safe enough to leave software vulnerable so that it can benefit from a subscription service that combats these problems?
This isn't the first time a BSOD has occurred during a live public demonstration held by Microsoft.
Even if the issue was hardware related, this still brings up the question:
Doesn't Microsoft thoroughly test these things before putting them out in front of people?
What is Microsoft's overall product testing like?
This is true.
But there's also a danger in letting people assume that they have no choice, and that all operating systems have the same level of security and stability.
Why don't other terrible crimes get such a high sentance?
I'm sure that many people can't believe the lenient sentences associated with some attrocious crimes, and here we see a 25-year sentence for shining a light.
I'm sure that if you have a list of crimes, ranging from bad to worst, that it would look like the sentences were picked at random.
I made a banner for my site back in 1999, mocking the imminent demise of Y2K specialists (who were thriving from the fear):
I still have it at the bottom of the page here
Since people started playing with DNA, it's obvious that people could start cloning things that belong to somebody else.
Can you claim copyright on your pet?
We've heard plenty about Intellectual Property (IP), but what about Physical Property (PP)?
What if somebody cloned you? What legal issues could arise from this?
Whoever modded my post as Flamebait should observe the FAQ here :
Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
My post was not flamebait. It certainly does appear that Microsoft has issued this 'discussion' right at a time where NT users are considering Windows or Linux , and it really doesn't take on any different stance than what Microsoft is promoting in its Get The Facts campaign.
From what I read, it's just purely Microsoft advertising.
It ends with a great piece from Martin Taylor on how fantastic Windows Server 2003 is. Then it points to www.getthefacts.com .
That's not really comparing Windows and Linux, it's issuing more FUD, and another attempt at pushing those NT users to 2003 rather than an alternative OS.
Its okay we discard the opinion of anyone with a userid over 5 digits ;)
Yeah, those lusers.
Wait up... HEY!
Shhhhh!
You're not supposed to admit to being an AOL user!
Actually, we respond with a slightly miffed, "I'm sorry, we don't take unsolicited calls."
You could also end the call with a "Good-day", and then abruptly hang up.
The P.C. is becoming more personal, yet that data on the PC is becoming less personal (e.g. trojans, spyware).
With all of these probes, and the possibility of life on other planets - and maybe life squashed over 'millions of years' - maybe this is just one great big hunt for intergalactic oil deposits?
I think it's a great idea, but there's just one issue that comes to my mind here:
.
All we seem to be doing these days is making things require electricity, when they never used to.
I'm not an environmental freak or anything, but it's shocking to see how much we're becoming dependent on electricity; even razors that don't currently require batteries will probably become battery operated, like this
See how many wind-up watches there are these days; at the rate technology is progressing, your average picture frame could soon be battery powered.
Whatever the process, it has taken place while Opportunity was parked during the Martian night.
Upon closer inspection, scrawled in the dust on the solar panels, one can make out the words "CLEAN ME".
Possibly charred beyond recognition.
Obviously, Microsoft bundling applications with their dominant operating system gives them a strong advantage over would-be competitors, but should we really prohibit them from shipping applications with it?
Perhaps this is the only thing to do when a company has been allowed to maintain an illegal monopoly (the court's words, not mine) for years? After having already established a dominant user-base, how can you ensure fair play?
It's not like people _have_ to use Microsoft's products. They choose to. The alternatives have been there.
Many people don't like to have to make any choices. If they find an app already there, they don't choose it over another app, they just use it.
Do you also prohibit Apple from shipping apps with Mac OS X? Or Mandrakesoft with Mandrake?
Apple doesn't yet face the issue Microsoft does, as it doesn't have a monopoly that locks out competitors.
No Linux distributions face this issue, as they don't make the OS itself, they bundle middleware that is not their own on top of the OS (imagine Microsoft doing that). Neither do they alter the OS itself so that their own apps integrate better than the compeition - besides, Linux is open, if they did make changes, it wouldn't produce a lock-out effect.
Or do you only prohibit Microsoft from doing so, because their OS is so ubiquitous?
The best way forward, that I can see, is for Microsoft to develop the operating system, but not directly sell the OS itself. It would be better if Microsoft was to get vendors to sell Windows Distro's (with some form of standardization). This way everybody could get all of the necessary and beneficial applications for a great computing experience, and they wouldn't have to be purely Microsoft apps.
When Microsoft does comment, I bet Steve Ballmer will say, "Microsoft has learned and grown through the experience. We are committed to moving forward as a responsible leader in an industry that is constantly, constantly changing."
And I bet Bill Gates will say, "This settlement puts new responsibilities on Microsoft, and we accept them," and also that he is "personally committed to full compliance."
Well, that's what happened at the end of the Anti-Trust case.
He posts:
Why don't you just use Firefox?
Because my blog doesn't display properly...
It would have been nice if he'd have explained that this reason is due to Microsoft's lack of standards support in its products. But then again, do Microsoft developers/managers have any idea of Web standards (i.e. REAL standards)?
Certainly I've never seen a blank dialog like this guy claims to have.
Maybe his box is infected, or it's a flaw in Windows? : )
(Smiley face added in hope that this comment doesn't get modded down)
I'm bound to get modded down for this, but I'll say it anyway, as it's nearly Christmas.
If I'd posted that, I'd be modded down as offtopic.
Perhaps it's because you have numbers in your name?
For somebody who doesn't care, why would he say something like...
...I wonder?
Hopefully, the average person will decide that they do not trust this web site, and they will click Cancel. No Firefox for you!