Neowin.net

I've seen none sueing Microsoft for the built in firewall. Anyway, I doubt Anti Spyware and Anti Virus are going to be free anyway.

Why can't the Anti-virus Anti-Adware Anti-spyware Anti-Anything, that conflicts with normal Windows operation be a part of the base windows code to begin with as well as update itself. You get the OS to run on your computer, the code itself should protect against these types of intrusions.
Would you buy a car without a windshield? Would you buy a car that could travel @ 70 mph but after a few weeks could only run 50 mph and you would need add-ons to get it back to speed?
How many things do you decide you need that do not work correctly, and in this case need, because without an OS your cpu is kind of pointless. Why do we go on accepting this because it's software?

Beacuse USA and Europe govemrnt dont allow microsoft todo this.
And have being sueing MS left right and center. (even the firewall!)

Europe's argument was
- "Linux doesnt come with it so you cant"
Which is why MS threatened to not sell in europe, but then eu dropped it the lawsuit

USA arguement was about protection for smaller companies creating the 3rd party software.

and, even if they did, it would simply be beaten again and again by newer viruses hackers etc.

I find the argument about protecting smaller companies almost humorous in nature. True, very few other companies have the resources of Microsoft, but if no other comany can make a product as good as (or better than, or more appealing than, or more innovate than) Microsoft's... is that a bad thing for the end-user? If another company manages to make a better product than Microsoft's... guess what? People will use it! In any case, the user benefits... while preventing improvement and easier integration for the name of the OTHER big corporations makes one want to go communist. Microsoft should be able to do whatever they want to their OS, just like Apple can...

Many companies *do* make better software than MS, but usually MS finds a way to shut them down (bully them out of business or buy them) so it can control the "status quo". Yes, MS has been attempting great strides in the security area of the OS and browser, but guess what? That has been driven by the popularity of Linux and Firefox (neither of which MS can buy, and they're not bending to the bullying). It is not *innovation* on their part, it is a reaction to competition and nothing else. Open your eyes to what real competition in the marketplace can do. Yes boys and girls, having competition is actually a *good thing*, contrary to what MS would say (they would just as soon stay in the stagnated state they've been in for 10ish years).

MS can indeed do whatever they want to their OS, but fact of the matter is, antivirus and spyware detectors are NOT a part of the OS (neither is a browser, or a media player, or etc..etc..). I have no problem with applications included for convienience sake with the OS, just as long as there's an option to not install them.

Compare the argument of 'Microsoft shutting down companies making competing products' (URL, btw?) to Apple preventing Real from making music for their iPod. In the latter, Apple supporters argued that since Apple made the iPod, they should have the right to do whatever they want, and after all Real used their Fairplay code. By that logic, you could argue that Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want to competitor software because they're making it for THIER operating system and using THEIR installer protocols.

Also, you point out that you're fine with what MS is doing, "just as long as there's an option to not install" their products. I assume you're referring in part to the WMP fiasco. In that case, there is an easy way to work without the program, even if it comes with the OS... UNINSTALL IT. Microsoft allows competitors to make whatever products they want, but to most (probably above 80%?) of users, having MS's version bundled is preferable to having to either search for it on their site or download/buy a competitor's software. While the slightly smaller major corporations might feel angry because people aren't forced to search for their software, the end-user benefits with convinience. If MS lets the quality slip too much, the 3rd party could easily dominate the market by stepping in.

which ones do you know about?

that would be correct. Mainly because viruses come out faster then definitions are usually updated. So you could be infencted and not know it until they add that virus to the definition list, which is only after they know of the viruses existance.

RAV was a pretty good AV. A whole lot better at detection than Symantec IMO.
(http://www.av-comparatives.org -on demand section)

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they do, they're a big bad monopoly going after the little guy.
If they don't, they're some big bad monopoly who doesn't care about its users' security.

QUOTE

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

More or less, but a better quote might be "Let them lie in the bed they made for themselves.". Basically they got themselves into the mess, and pissed off alot of people doing it. Let them figure out how to get out of it theirselves. I got no sympathy, nor do they deserve any.

How did they create the problem? The only way to "fix the mess" is to prevent write access to the registry and system files. Sure they could do that... of course, you wouldn't be able to make any changes to your system. Have fun creating a new user or installing software or doing anything that changes how your computer works in anyway.

That's why an AV is the solution, you can't deny access to the system, so you need to watch for malicious programs trying to make changes.

Ya, but you don't matter.

So Microsoft isn't allowed to produce good software for their OS because they sell a lot of the stated OS?

Do you *know* what "unfair trade practices are" or how M$ is... practicing them? *Without* doing a Google search?

Honestly, Microsoft is on a roll with XP... and as they contuniue to work to fix what exploits and problems they have in their OS (as they DO exist), Windows will remain at it's top market share. I trust software designed by the makers of my OS a lot more than I do a third-party... I know that it'll work how it's meant to work, and not detect/autodelete an updated DLL as spyware, thus rendering the AGP gfx card useless and forcing the computer through a reboot cycle.

There reaches a multi-billion-dollar-net-worth point where a comany isn't soley driven by profit. Bill Gates and everyone who works for him wants to make money, sure... but remember, they're all nerds. Well-paid, top-notch, elite nerds. Finding a new exploit is as agrivating (if not more so) to the programers as it is to the average grandma who uses Word and IE or the overclocker with liquid cooling and a case mod. I believe that Microsoft cares SOLEY about making ALL THE MONEY as much as I do that Apple is hip, trendy, and uncrashable.

@9.1 Ditto; Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they do, they're a big bad monopoly going after the little guy.
If they don't, they're some big bad monopoly who doesn't care about its users' security.


At OP, there's nothing really that more secure about OS X then XP. They both have 0 open ports to the internet by default, XP has DEP, the security center, user warnings, and WFP. There's nothing really preventing a widespread OS X virus more then XP. (External factors aside, such as user base, and socially engineered viruses.)

QUOTE

Too bad OSX is so secure that they will starve to death if they attempted to sell this **** to Mac consumers.

So it may not succeed on OS X, but what makes it ****ty?

Edit: Last note: figures within 10 posts of an article on MS making an AV, some <insert degrading remark> relates it to OS X, even though that's not what the topic is about.

Look at his other posts, and you guys will realize he's not worth spending time over.

QUOTE

Do you *know* what "unfair trade practices are" or how M$ is... practicing them? *Without* doing a Google search?

I don't really understand this sentance. What is google spewing false link and information now ?

QUOTE

If they do, they're a big bad monopoly going after the little guy. If they don't, they're some big bad monopoly who doesn't care about its users' security.

Total BS. Nobody says that. The correct way should be for M$ to fix the holes that were a result of its ****ty prouct, not to buy some AV company and proceed to further sell subscription to others just to make XP safe. Stop putting words into others' mouth for the sake of defending your corrupted master.

Do not feed the trolls. Shichi isn't worth anybody's time though he is delightfully entertaining to bait.

@Deepthought, Nice comic, I'll make a bigger link because I doubt somebody of Shichi's... capabilities would understand to click it.
Click Me

Dark: I have a strong feeling this chum only knows as much about "Microsoft's evil monopolies over all things computer" as the phrases his Apple fansites yell at him... and questioning him on further information beyond the "talking points" would reveal his ignorance. Unfortunately, he decided not to respond to my post.

shic: Microsoft can't stop EVERY form of virus. Lots of them spread by noobies running EXE files out of their email... how do you propose Microsoft stop this? Adjust the OS so program installers can't access the registry, Windows software, or any hard drive? Many forms of virus require a user response to work.

I use AND work on Windows, OSX, and Linux. All three are powerful in their own rights. I can also tell how narrow a person's usabilities are when they spout out comments like "Too bad OSX is so secure that they will starve to death if they attempted to sell this **** to Mac consumers". OSX is NOT perfect. Given the smaller user base, you'll see less malicious attacks on OSX than on Windows. That's the fact.

The topic of this discussion is M$ and the addition of their anti-spyware/anti-virus add-ins. And my comment to this is: it's great that M$ is taking a moral responsibility to make their software more bullet proof. Depending on how well it integrates is yet to be found, but the mere fact that they are providing another way to secure their product, is a very positive thing for consumers. Will it solve all problems? No. But, coming from one who is in daily contact with consumers who are plagued by spyware/viri, it is nice to see that M$ is moving pro-actively in this direction. They can now write it in their code to immunize what is out there already, and then add updates as needed. That's one benefit I see already for loading a new system for users. Saves time and money.

Will M$ make money from it? Maybe. But so what? Those who complain are just jealous. Write your own code if you don't like it.





Last edited by 89759 on 08 Jan 2005 - 20:31

QUOTE

Total BS. Nobody says that. The correct way should be for M$ to fix the holes that were a result of its ****ty prouct, not to buy some AV company and proceed to further sell subscription to others just to make XP safe. Stop putting words into others' mouth for the sake of defending your corrupted master.

Now you're just being an idiot.

QUOTE

Total BS. Nobody says that.

Oh really? You know what everyone has ever said? Talk about an unfounded generalization.

QUOTE

The correct way should be for M$ to fix the holes that were a result of its ****ty prouct, not to buy some AV company and proceed to further sell subscription to others just to make XP safe.

And you obviously don't know anything about Windows. The only way to "fix the holes" is to prevent write access to the registry and system files. Sure they could do that... of course, you wouldn't be able to make any changes to your system. Have fun creating a new user or installing software or doing anything that changes how your computer works in anyway.

That's why an AV is the solution, you can't deny access to the system, so you need to watch for malicious programs trying to make changes.

QUOTE

Stop putting words into others' mouth for the sake of defending your corrupted master.

Yes! Bill Gates is my love! I love everything Microsoft! Oh wait, then why am I wanting to buy a G4 PowerMac?

QUOTE

Total BS. Nobody says that. The correct way should be for M$ to fix the holes that were a result of its ****ty prouct, not to buy some AV company and proceed to further sell subscription to others just to make XP safe. Stop putting words into others' mouth for the sake of defending your corrupted master.

My corrupted master can beat your trend setter masters ass anyday fanboy

hacker and virus writer apparently

lol well said

is expected to be made available next week as part of the Windows update cycle.

QUOTE

Whereas, us advanced users we can install another firewall (while still using Windows Firewall) and be protected even further.

Actually using two firewalls at one time can be less secure then using just one. Conflicting information on which ports should be open and which should be closed is something you really don't want to have to worry about.

Seconded. Redundancy is one thing, but besides the ADDED security issues either Windows Firewall or your trusted alternative should be enough. If it's not, than you should just yank out your ethernet card between page loads.

Every OS can be malicious... well any OS that lets you do anything at all...

You do realize that it only takes a few minutes to secure a Windows 2000 or XP machine right? Here is a really quick guide...

1. Create a user level account for day to day use.
2. Either activate the Windows XP firewall (Windows XP only obviously) or install a good thrid party firewall.
3. Install a different browser (although if you are smart you can lock down Internet Explorer fairly well).
4. Install a good anti-virus program (this step is actually optional if you lock down your user level account properly, since viruses really can't cause a whole lot of damage if they can't write or delete anything on the system).
5. If it makes you feel better install some anti-spyware tools (but once again if you did the above options you don't really need to worry about this).
6. Enable automatic updates or manually make sure your system is up to date patchwise.

There you go no worries what so ever. Granted it appears to be more work then Linux but also realize that most Linux distros come locked down pretty well by default. Windows 2000 and XP are actually quite secure its just that their default setup isn't setup with security in mind by any means.

and if you could sudo over to your admin account to do things this would be something to like about, but since it's not too setup to be used like this I myself hate this idea eventhough it makes sense for most regular users. I feel there biggest mistake was to have the new user accounts on your new machine be Admin instead of creating one that is inbetween user and admin.

I like having totally control but I find that locking down the browser is a good step but I also think using IE at this point it something I refuse to do. So use a third party browser locking down IE just incase and as backup. Loading something as nice as MKS_Vir 2005 that has registry protection along with the regular MKS antivirus on. Then load MS Antispyware if you feel better but I feel doing the above you'll see very little action in your spyware app. I barely see anything getting found in any of them but nice to have as a backup.

MS or Giant did it right like Spybot adding in features that allow you to see processes running and BHO's and so on. I find that a strong add-on to any system

Which distro of linux? Like Mandrax or Red Hat which have many more exploits then XP? Most OSes are only as secure as the user makes them (till now)

Up to this point, it was up to the user of Linux and XP to prevent problems, now XP is taking that step for the user.

you realise that taking the step you described are not going to secure your version of windows do you ? at most it will protect your from the most commun exploit. Regardeless te user account of winxp are so limited that it become frustration really fast.

QUOTE

Like Mandrax or Red Hat which have many more exploits then XP?

I like that comment. It shows how you are comparing apples and oranges. Or, rather, a small tart Crab-Apple to a large sweet Red Delicious.

Do you even realize how much comes with a Mandrake or Red Hat? How many different browsers can you choose from? How many media players? How many Web servers (ok, that one is just two)? And FTP servers? And graphics apps & converters? PDF viewers? messengers? Office suites/apps? Mail clients? Mail servers?

Get the point? It would be like including vunerabilities of Real Player, WinAmp, Adobe Photoshop and so forth into your Windows flaws.

You are comparing a single offering that doesn't come very complete at all, to one that has redundant choices. With several times the utilities and apps included, you will expect to see a larger number on paper. In a practical installation, however, the exploits turn around.

I find that most people that put down Linux really have no clue about it so let them post cluelessly

@15.6 You actually tried to make a founded, sensible argument! Too bad I've been told not to feed the trolls!

QUOTE

Too bad I've been told not to feed the trolls!

The fact that you cannot do a 1-to-1 comparison does not make me a troll.

QUOTE

You actually tried to make a founded, sensible argument! Too bad I've been told not to feed the trolls!

Obviously your definition of troll is in error. The studies made that show Linux having more exploits included everything in the distro. If you want a fair comparison, add all the exploits found in about 5000 other windows apps to the basic OS exploits.

QUOTE

add all the exploits found in about 5000 other windows apps to the basic OS exploits.

I don't think that method would be as precice as setting up a Red Hat or Mandrake (since those two were used as the example, earlier) up on a box in the same equivalent apps as XP Home (or Pro) are shipped. In other words, don't to an "Install Everything" and get 5 different browsers, etc. Just need to find someone (or some organization) to do it - or google for a comparison that this was done on.

k

Because as we all know, Windows is the ONLY OS that will EVER need AV. Plus they should also be able to predict the future of malicious coders.
I'll take your trolling post and raise you one "Stop using it if you don't like it" card.

ugggggggghhhh i hate this

Which is why they bought out a company to do it for them

See post #17.2

Linux is most preferred over Windows here, I run Suse Linux 9.2 without a need for antivirus or spyware protection. I grant you, there are Linux viruses out in the wild, but with all the unfortunate users of Windows, why bother writing one for Linux?

You absolutely failed to rebute anything I said, thanks for proving my point.
(And explain to me what you mean by "here," because there are far more Windows users visiting this site.)

I think he means from his home.