Microsoft Anti-Virus Push: Good For Us, Bad For AV Vendors
Posted by WishX on 19 February 2005 - 11:16 · 117 comments & 8429 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: WishX
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: WishX
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(7 replies)
#1 Posted by Help on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:25
- Article above translated into plain english....
should the multi-billion dollar company (namely Microsoft) charge users for their "anti-virus" program?
Seems like a hard decision for Bill huh? (of course, he will win no matter what he chooses... either elimilating competitors or charging users for the software) -
#1.1 Posted by Knight' on 19 Feb 2005 - 17:11
- You didn't think that article was in plain english? I did.
-
#1.2 Posted by Frank on 19 Feb 2005 - 19:16
- So what do you think they should do?
If they charge for the product their consumers will blame Microsoft for making money.
If they give it out for free they will have anti-trust suits up the ying yang.
If they do nothing the consumers will blame Microsoft for doing nothing about the problem. -
#1.3 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:20
- That's typical for everything they do, I wish that on no man.
-
#1.4 Posted by Help on 20 Feb 2005 - 09:34
QUOTE So what do you think they should do?
If they charge for the product their consumers will blame Microsoft for making money.
If they give it out for free they will have anti-trust suits up the ying yang.
If they do nothing the consumers will blame Microsoft for doing nothing about the problem.
Do what they did for the defrag program intergrated into windows, make it real basic, no advanced stuff (real-time scanning, auto-update.. etc)-
#1.5 Posted by PseudoRandomDragon on 20 Feb 2005 - 14:56
- I think what the article was trying to point out is that MS is going to use artificial means (such as the use of secret DLLs) to make their AV seem faster.
-
#1.6 Posted by shao on 21 Feb 2005 - 09:28
- anyone can make secret dll's, that wasn't the point of this article.
basically, it's the likes of symantec and mcafee complaining that they aren't doing as well as they have been in recent times, and as always with these types of companies they want to blame someone else. Unfortunately their argument doesn't really stand up at the moment because it looks like they want to blame microsoft, when microsoft don't even have a product inplace that competes against them.
even if they did i don't see how they could complain anti competitiveness, which is what they were hinting at the with 'similarities' between the AV market and web browsers. the main difference being that microsoft's AV solution wont be free, and wont be bundled with the OS. If undercutting someone on price is anti competitive then so be it.. but it's not. so stop bitching about it. ;-) -
#1.7 Posted by sphbecker on 21 Feb 2005 - 14:37
- I think they will do okay if they use the same approach they are doing with their Anti-Spyware software. It will be included with Windows and free for home use; but they will change more for a more advanced network manageable version. The existing AV manufactures will be responsible for making sure their products provide enough added value to justify the cost.
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by glasscleaner on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:32
- free for home and license for corp?
-
#2.2 Posted by Ideas Man on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:42
- Symantec will cry that noone is purchasing their software (not that they deserve it IMO), and Microsoft will get sued, the EU will cry, even if it's not bundled because it's free and stifles competition *winge winge*. So given that, it's almost certain that Microsoft will have to charge because otherwise they will get sued. 'Tis a shame too, because this would really help people out, but Microsoft will eventually have their hands tied and will be forced to charge everyone for it.
They wouldn't be able to use their licenced Windows thingy that they use for their Anti-Spyware either, because one way or another, the EU will try and prove that it's indirect bundling i.e. you buy Windows, then included in your purchase is your free copy of their antivirus solution from their website. -
#2.3 Posted by MrCobra on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:54
QUOTE Symantec will cry that noone is purchasing their software (not that they deserve it IMO)
I agree with ya on that one. Thier crap (for home use IMO) has turned to sh!t more than it ever was. SAV 9 is good but it could be better.-
#2.4 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:20
- All software could be better, but I think SAV 9 is the best right now.
-
#3 Posted by tom5 on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:34
- The solution is simple - A/V vendors must lower the prices
-
#4 Posted by Mx² on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:39
- Mother****er, not the antitrust **** again.
-
#5 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 19 Feb 2005 - 11:50
QUOTE On the one side, Microsoft is perpetually under the gun to protect their operating systems and make computing in general safer for home user and more secure for everyone who uses their software. On the other side, in the process of taking steps to help users secure their systems, antitrust regulators could cry foul for attempting to undermine competitors' ability to maintain their share of the market.
That's so true...
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by MvT Cracker on 19 Feb 2005 - 12:17
- wow i thought they might have this problem months ago when they mentioned microsoft anti virus i remember the old dos microsoft antivirus lmao
hopefully it will allow me to run microsoft antivirus and norton corp just like i can use windows firewall and any other at the same time -
#6.1 Posted by Frank on 19 Feb 2005 - 19:19
- WHY would you want to run two antivirus or two firewall programs? That is just plain stupid. If you like the features of a certain firewall over Windows Firewall, then you disable Windows Firewall and use the other program.
-
#6.2 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 06:32
- You should NEVER run more than one firewall, antivirus, or anti-spyware application at once. The programs will fight for power, confuse each other, or other problems resulting in the usr usually blaming MS for their incorrect settings
-
#6.3 Posted by Radium on 20 Feb 2005 - 13:50
- A firewall will have to take care of all packages in both directions on the specific NIC.
Check each package, extract data from it and do some comparsions to see if it will dump it or let it go.
Having multiple firewalls just waste CPU cycles.
Use the one that you need. I believe that XP's firewall is the most effecient. I've never had a problem with it. But I don't know what kinds of features you need.
Firewalls is no problem... anti-virus however is, if you manage to get them running at the same time then they will have to scan each other as they scan.
Having two doesn't make you much safer, use a good one.
-
#7 Posted by MvT Cracker on 19 Feb 2005 - 12:20
- Maybe All The Anti Virus people should start moving from symantec and mcafee and nod 32 to microsoft Lmao
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by dismuter on 19 Feb 2005 - 12:24
- Well, is it bad that Antivirus vendors disappear because they're not needed anymore?
I mean, I wouldn't mind if doctors disappeared because illnesses didn't exist anymore.
If Microsoft gets into the antivirus business it's probably because they want to give Windows user a safer environment than now. How would it be safer if it was exactly like right now, the user has to buy the antivirus seperately? Making it free would make more sense, just like the Antispyware will be free, and the Firewall already is. -
#8.1 Posted by Frank on 19 Feb 2005 - 19:24
- You can guarantee if they make it free they will have problems with lawsuits.
They can get away with it with the Windows Firewall because it only has a limited feature set. It doesn't have all the features of other Firewall programs.
They are able to offer their spyware programs for free because the spyware protection industry is in it's infancy and most Anti-Spyware programs (the better ones anyway) are free. -
#8.2 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 06:36
- The same could go for their antivirus software... it could very easily have 'limited' functionality just like their firewall application. The hard part is the politics around the 'view' of the law makers and those that enforce them. The firewall could still turn into a problem later by somebody willing to sue MS for it... look how long Media Player was in the OS before the EU decided to sue them.
-
#9 Posted by jasondefaoite on 19 Feb 2005 - 12:25
- The only issue I see with this is the single vendor problem (particularly when it is microsoft). Imagine 3 years from now, you are all running Longhorn with MS AV (assuming free for home use, and its MS, so the majority of people will run it), this becomes the prime target for virus writers.
We can see this beginning with that spyware which specifically 'attacks' the ms antispyware program.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by raid517 on 19 Feb 2005 - 12:38
- I don't do it very often - but I would go with MS on this one. It seems logical that if you offer an OS, you should be able to offer everything that would make that OS secure too.
The only real shame is MS didn't cotton on to this years ago when viruses first became an issue - then maybe we wouldn't have an entire industry that grew up and exists solely to patch MS Windows inherent insecurity issues. They will bitch, that's for sure, but my guess is that this is a fight MS should be prepared to engage in. It's their OS, they should carry the first level of responsibility in ensuring that it's secure - meaning that they should provide a free AV solution too if necessary. No one complained very loudly when they bundled their firewall solution, so why should they complain if they gave away an AV solution too? Since when exactly did free software become anti-competative?
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 19 Feb 2005 - 18:27 -
#10.1 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 06:41
- Free software became anti-competative when the courts decided that Microsoft including free software in windows was anti-competative because their OS is used on 90+ % of consumer PCs.
-
#11 Posted by plan-9 on 19 Feb 2005 - 13:31
- Noone really complained about the firewall because its a very basic implementation. The competition have more robust solutions available..so they looked the other way. Now if MS AV is going to be a very basic av solution..say no realtime protection and only on demand scanning..then Im sure you wont hear anything about antitrust from the competition even if MS offers it for free.
Im guessing we'll probably see 2 versions of msav out..a home version and a "pro" version..just like many other vendors out there. Make the home version a stripped down version and probably make it available for free. Then have the more feature filled version available for a price.
-
(15 replies)
#12 Posted by BeyondGodlike on 19 Feb 2005 - 13:48
- you know these different companies are just using antitrust laws to shield hte fact that their products suck
if you make a good AV people will use it and pay for it
companies should be free to do what they want
M$ makes windows, its THEIR OS not nortons or any other company
and EU can kiss my behind, M$ should just stop selling windows there and let em see how fun it is to run linux and mac, and never play games again or use M$ software
im so sick of anti trust things against MS, competition is competition, and when it gets too hard they start sueing -
#12.1 Posted by saralk on 19 Feb 2005 - 14:05
- if Microsoft was to withdraw from Europe, that could potentially be the best thing ever, Apple would automatically pump loads of money into Europe and everyone would start buying Macs, and since the EU counts for 30% of world trade (double that of the US), very soon Apple would no longer suffer from economies of scale and Macs would be cheaper world wide, people would switch to Macs and Microsoft would die.
-
#12.2 Posted by BeyondGodlike on 19 Feb 2005 - 14:08
- sry but i luv my pc and macs just dont cut it for me(im a gamer)
but it would be a welcome change, and would push competition
game developers would be forced to make mac compatible games to, and then youd see some real innovation from microsoft to compete
but we know M$ wont retract from EU, instead the europeans will just have to enjoy gettin a cripped windows
i just htink its pompous to sue cause another company is better than you -
#12.3 Posted by Shining Arcanine on 19 Feb 2005 - 14:36
- I recall reading that Microsoft said that it would take Windows off the market in Europe if it was forced to make changes to windows that it didn't want to make.
-
#12.4 Posted by raid517 on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:02
- They may be big, but the aren't crazy. They simply can't afford to loose that kind of business. If the EU tells them to do something - ultimately they have no option to comply - and do it with their tails wagging behind them too.
But yes if MS did ever leave Europe, it would be the best damned thing ever. a) It would kill them and b) we might finally have some real choice.
GJ -
#12.5 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 06:52
- If you ever read the EULA completely you would notice that MS could pull the license. Therefor, if MS was to pull out of the EU they most likely would pull those licenses as well... that type of influance would hurt the EU far more than it would MS.
-
#12.6 Posted by raid517 on 20 Feb 2005 - 07:58
- Bullsh*t a vast proportion (if not by far the largest) of their income comes from Europe. If they wanted to pull a pin on their share price and watch a huge proportion of their value be wiped off their share price overnight, that is exactly what they should do. Unlike you though, they aren't stupid or crazy. You are dreaming mate anyway, because it just ain't going to happen. You know all this is is just an excuse for ignorant Yanks like you to spread your particular brand of sickening xenophobic hatred. Just because an American company has to abide by the law in other countries too you think we should all be made to pay. How is that for arrogance? No wonder so many people hate you back every bit as much as you hate us.
GJ
-
#12.7 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 08:31
- I don't ever recall saying that it would happen.... I was clearly pointing out what options MS has as a political tool. Also, Microsoft's EU devision is the only devision that would suffer the most, not the entire company. Sure their total shares would suffer, but they will not kill the entire company.
-
#12.8 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 20 Feb 2005 - 08:43
- Somebody like you has no right to call anyone xenophobic when you yourself bash another country. Hate the citizen, not the country.
-
#12.9 Posted by raid517 on 20 Feb 2005 - 10:29
- Not all Americans are xenophobic. But the above attitude is clearly anti-European. The only people I hate are those who hate. I particularly hate that certain brand of American 'citizen' who thinks anything outside of the US is somehow undeserving and inferior. Unfortunately that is an attitude I hear all too often coming from the 'citizens' of that country. I don't hate all Americans, I certainly don't dislike foreigners from other countries - after all as a European, I class myself as belonging to a large family of nations, I just hate a certain breed of people - who tend come from the US that - do.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 20 Feb 2005 - 10:40 -
#12.10 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 20 Feb 2005 - 10:35
- You openly believe a stereotype, maybe that's worse. Those idiots are just more outspoken given their oblivion to everything. Parithon had a legitimate argument, not even insulting Europe, and you spouted on about xenophobia. I don't agree with him, but he was not being uncivil.
-
#12.11 Posted by raid517 on 20 Feb 2005 - 10:39
QUOTE I don't ever recall saying that it would happen.... I was clearly pointing out what options MS has as a political tool. Also, Microsoft's EU devision is the only devision that would suffer the most, not the entire company. Sure their total shares would suffer, but they will not kill the entire company.
Which is still nonsense anyway. MS are as much a slave to their shareholders as is any company. What exactly do you think would happen when people started to sell their shares if/when MS announced they were pulling out of Europe? That's right you got it, the share price would plumet. Indeed it wouldn't take too long before the share price would begin to look like it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. It would be the biggest mistake MS ever made. Which is why, as I said, it just isn't going to happen.
You guys think you can survive on your own. But the bottom line is your economy wouldn't be worth squat if it wasn't for the trade you do with Europe (and the rest of the world for that matter). With the kind of deficit you guys are running, it seems pretty clear under any reasonable circumstances that you need us right now way more than we need you.
GJ-
#12.12 Posted by raid517 on 20 Feb 2005 - 10:47
QUOTE and EU can kiss my behind, M$ should just stop selling windows there and let em see how fun it is to run linux and mac, and never play games again or use M$ software
This is the comment I was responding to. Which your friend very clearly appears to be agreeing with.
It is a delusional attitude to say the least. Not very 'civil' either I would say.
GJ-
#12.13 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 20 Feb 2005 - 12:05
- You sounded like you were responding to parinthon, in which case my statement stands. As for Godlike, yes, screw him.
-
#12.14 Posted by parithon on 21 Feb 2005 - 02:41
- Again.. I never said they should, I said they could... major difference.
-
#12.15 Posted by MrCobra on 21 Feb 2005 - 12:00
QUOTE The only people I hate are those who hate.
Then you continue to help feed that hatred. There's always going to be a$$holes no matter what part of the world they're from. It's up to the rest of us not to help keep that sh!t going.
QUOTE I particularly hate that certain brand of American 'citizen' who thinks anything outside of the US is somehow undeserving and inferior.
Pay no attention to them dumbf*cks and quit sterotyping people because of where they're from. I for one don't think that someone from IRAQ is a terrorist just because they're IRAQI. Or, that a black person is up to no good because they're black. That kind of attitude is why this world is in the shape it's in.
As far as your argument about people saying 'my country is better than your country', please grow up and quit acting like you're in 2nd grade.
-
#13 Posted by eilegz on 19 Feb 2005 - 14:22
- its easy microsoft release their antivirus for free but dont bundle or integrated it to windows thats saves them of this kind of problem just like the antispyware let people dl it if they want to in that case they give us choice and also companies and competitors cant whine about it
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by cardboardbox on 19 Feb 2005 - 14:52
- People started complaining that Microsoft was not secure, etc etc, so Microsoft IS trying hard to make they're products more secure, now the industry is complaining they are giving they're secure (security) products away for free... well if they want to give it away for free, then thats their decision. After all, they are only "giving" people what they want... and for free for that matter.
You can't please everyone. I for one think Micorsoft has made dramatic improvement to their security initiative.
When MS releases their antivirus software, I'll definitely be loading it on my system, I am so far very impressed with their Antispyware tool they acquired from Giant. Its extremely fast. It has just enough eyecandy that doesn't hinder system performance.
Maybe Symantec and Mcrappy should take a lesson in other AV vendors books like Eset (NOD32) and Kaspersky AV, and drop they stupid eye candy from their products so they are not so bloody bloaty and crappy.
Anyway... thats my 2 cents.
Last edited by 19170 on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:28 -
#14.1 Posted by eilegz on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:45
- i agree with you somehow it depends in what side u r . Somehow we see that symantec its the only one afraid anyways every year releasing a crappy poor and more bloated product.
i was reading some zdnet comments about this topic and here are some opinions that i found interesting somehow its not false statements but not totally true anyways:
QUOTE MICROSUCKS' only interest is in making lots more money and eliminating ALL competition in every market segment they can. When you have a monopoly - even one derived thru violation of law - you get to do whatever you choose, including selling defective goods and bilking consumers out of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars each and every year. Ask Dollar Bill...
SOS, DD.
Well as here it seems we all know that microsoft its a unfair and a bad corporation but somehow NO company will release a perfect bug free software anyways.
QUOTE NOONE, even MS, will be able to force private customers to switch to XP. It is not normal that somebody is forced, after 5 or 7 years, to buy another OS only because MS is not offering IE 7.0 for their older OS. Consider the younger people who want to play a game on Win98 or older people who want to read their EMails and do not want to upgrade. Should they never surf?
MS is trying to get rid of their existing customers, I believe.
yeah i agree with him but as everyone see microsoft or even another company cant give unlimited support for their older and legacy software but again its microsoft dirty tactics really to make people to upgrade, sorta unfair that i invest in xp this year and in 3 years more microsoft its not willing to make updates if im dun upgrade to longhorn.
[QUOTE]
company who has leveraged the crippling deficiencies in their products so effectively to its financial advantage.
It appears that this is their strategy. They release s/w so defective that even people who don't feel that the next release is a product with much higher functionality, are forced to 'upgrade' in order to avoid the 'stench' from the rotting previous version.
The question is NOT whether MS is a monopolist, unethical firm, but WHY so many people are willing to WASTE billions of $$$ to keep feeding the uncorrigible beast
This must be the era of massive confussion and masochism.[/QUOTE]
Well we do live in a era with no choice and massive confussion and masochism or maybe we depended a lot on microsoft that we cant try anything else too bad is this world isint it. -
#14.2 Posted by cheesegoduk on 19 Feb 2005 - 21:25
QUOTE NOONE, even MS, will be able to force private customers to switch to XP. It is not normal that somebody is forced, after 5 or 7 years, to buy another OS only because MS is not offering IE 7.0 for their older OS. Consider the younger people who want to play a game on Win98 or older people who want to read their EMails and do not want to upgrade. Should they never surf?
erm, bitching that the company no longer supports old OS's after ten years of supporting it is like bitching that you can't buy new parts for your 10/20 year old car anymore because the manufacture stopped making it, or bitching that you can't buy new films on VHS anymore and that your forced to buy a DVD player to watch them. No one is forcing you to do anything, you don't HAVE to buy XP.
And anyway, 10 years of support(in the case of NT4 anyway) is very good in my eyes, hell most linux distro makers only give a years of primary support to paying customers and then it goes into extended support for another year and then thats it. The excuse that you can make your own updates after that is moot, since most companies wouldn't think of applying updates from anyone other than the manufacture.
Porting IE7 back all the way to windows 95/98 would no doubt take a lot of time away from the programmers, and then your'd no doubt moan that longhorn was delayed again or whatever.
-
#15 Posted by ObCeeDee on 19 Feb 2005 - 15:11
- I don't understand how people could react furious on Microsoft's free antivirus product. It's a good, stable and reliable program, and FREE. I think people can only benefit from this, as we all have the right to protect ourselves against malicious programs on the net for free. And if Microsoft AntiSpyware becomes more popular than Norton and other competitors, I can only say they should improve their product and lower their prices.
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by SVT on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:11
QUOTE Microsoft Anti-Virus Push: Good For Virus Writers, Bad For AV Vendors
Fixed that for ya!-
#16.1 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:27
- You're so witty and smart. In fact, you're so damn intelligent that you should stop posting at Neowin and spread your message to other venues. Just remember to stop posting and it's all ok.
-
#17 Posted by mastermik on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:40
- if microsoftt wants a more secure OS, can't they just build it in deep in the core of windows? I mean, look at SP2, it sort of enhances security, in a way... but my point is, if the OS itself appeared to be secure b/c they built some nifty security features into it, whats wrong with that? its not like people are gonna go trough the source code for windows to point out that MS bundled a security software for free.OR, another alternative would be to offer it as a service pack. easy way out. it would be a service pack that would enhance your security, just like SP2, excpet this would include a full fledged antivirus program.
-
#18 Posted by slimy on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:47
- if their av is good (the companies) then it will sell, if it's not (cough norton, mcafee, etc.) then they can go to hell
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Quick Reply on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:56
- Bundle Windows with the Anti-Virus, not Anti-Virus with Windows. AV Vendors should have the option to bundle their product with Windows instead of Windows (without bundles) coming with an antivirus out of the box, That would give all anti-virus vendors an equal playing field.
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by BTallack on 19 Feb 2005 - 16:58
- I don't feel that it should matter if it's free or not if it isn't bundled with Windows. There's already several free Anti-virus programs out there. Microsoft would still be allowing customers to choose what anti-virus they want to use. The price isn't relevant if people don't want to use it.
-
#20.1 Posted by eilegz on 19 Feb 2005 - 17:49
- price does matter so the performance and how god its the product in fact if microsoft its giving a good antivirus for free who its gonna pay for a crappy norton 2004 or 2005 i wouldnt lol.
Anyways trendmicro for me now 2005 version its great affordable price comes with a very good simple firewall.
-
#21 Posted by nic on 19 Feb 2005 - 17:56
- seems like the entire anti-virus market is dependent on the fact that Microsoft can't keep windows secure for the average user. I think microsoft should just make windows "mose secure" and not call it anti-virus. Call it user protection program or something. Just continue to aggressivly patch our computers when exploits and viruses come out, and essentially you have an anti-virus program that appears as just a bunch of windows patches that keep the virii out.
As soon as microsoft starts calling this anti-virus, they will get in trouble. Which is really needless if you think about it.
-
#22 Posted by Wolfsglen on 19 Feb 2005 - 18:17
- Pfft, people are worrying about an MS AV getting lawsuits from other AV manufacturers and asking why MS doesnt make windows more secure instead...i have a feeling that if MS instead of making AV suddenly tightened up Windows to the standard of a decent Linux distro or OSX (yea i know its not going to happen, just a theoretical "what if" they would STILL be sued as it would put a lot of AV makers out of business far quicker than a competing AV software ever would!
Last edited by 40932 on 19 Feb 2005 - 20:36
-
#23 Posted by georgi55 on 19 Feb 2005 - 18:19
- I'm sick of paying greedy AV companies $30 every year for subscription, that's why I use AVG free,
MS should include it into OS for free and McAfee and Norton can go *(#*#(!@ themselves.
-
#24 Posted by Samoa on 19 Feb 2005 - 18:54
- MS AV should be free.
-
#25 Posted by nw_raptor on 19 Feb 2005 - 19:44
- MS should do what they did with the firewall case. Have a basic antivirus program for free. If the user believes he needs more than that, he can go buy a commercial AV.
-
(4 replies)
#26 Posted by Tommy2k4 on 19 Feb 2005 - 20:21
- If it's free they get sued
If it's cheap they get sued
If it's expensive customers will complain
Can microsoft ever win
Stupid antitrust -
#26.1 Posted by nekrosoft13 on 19 Feb 2005 - 23:02
- they should just leave MS alone
if AV companys want our business, they should go make better programs -
#26.2 Posted by EduardValencia on 20 Feb 2005 - 00:41
- Agree tommy,evryone here bashing microsoft,i don't pay attention to those empty complains
-
#26.4 Posted by ichi on 21 Feb 2005 - 11:17
- We would all be far better if MS's marketshare was smaller (eg. a close-to-even balance between Windows, Apple, *BSD and Linu
:
-MS would be able to release everything they wanted bundled with their OS.
-Virus coders wouldn't aim just one single platform.
-We would see a lot more innovation as developers struggle to get more users to adquire their product.
-There would be no need to enforce interoperability as any OS using closed protocols would get isolated and eventually die.
A win/win situation (no pun intended)
Last edited by 86755 on 21 Feb 2005 - 13:26
-
#27 Posted by nhut on 19 Feb 2005 - 21:22
- As much as I hate many of MS' business practices, I'm with them on this one. Symantec and others have been running a FUD campaign for too long, and I would love them to be cut down to size. I remember they were selling SystemWorks as being as "essential as buying oil for your car". Many people were sucked into their devious marketing. Myself included.
I'm of the opinion you shouldn't have to pay to get basic protection for your computer, and I really hope MS releases the antivirus software for free for home users at least. It's like being sold a house with no burglar alarm, and told you'll have to pay for it yourself on top of what you've already spent.
I hope the EU doesn't make a fuss about this. Antivirus software is much more fundamental and essential than Windows Media Player.
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by ComPro on 19 Feb 2005 - 21:46
- The only way I'll use a Microsoft Anti-Virus is if MS buys out Grisoft.
-
#28.1 Posted by VikingStorm on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:28
- You do understand GeCAD, the company MS bought has better overall detection than AVG don't you? Of any "free" AV, they would benefit the most from Alwil.
-
#29 Posted by Nelsinho on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:02
- damn antitrust, I'm with Microsoft always with your a/v and antispyware also, except Avg a/v <free> I don't care about another a/v vendors principally Symantec always complaining amd always with a lot of bugs into your software; I hope what laws change rapidly pro Microsoft because them really need one a/v and antispyware into your o.s. for obvious reasons, US goverment and EU goverment need understand this definitely
-
(1 reply)
#30 Posted by Korben_Dallas on 19 Feb 2005 - 22:42
- Microsoft could give it away free if they included it with a piece of hardware.
Logitec doesn't cry foul when MS includes Intellipoint software with the Wireless Optical Mouse...
So here's the product they should sell and include a free copy of software:
Cue Cat from DigitalConvergence
What the hell does it have to do with AntiVirus? Who cares? Let those monkeys in marketing come up with that... -
#30.1 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 19 Feb 2005 - 23:23
- Maybe something cheaper, say a replacement "P" key for an outdated MS keyboard?
-
(21 replies)
#31 Posted by Izolate on 20 Feb 2005 - 02:16
- What the hell?
Now microsoft can't even add features to its OWN freaking OS without dumbass 3rd party people crying?
It's their OS. I want security built in. I dont want to use Norton. F'ing ugly yellow beast. I shouldnt NEED to have 3rd party applications. -
#31.1 Posted by werejag on 20 Feb 2005 - 03:39
- thats there problem for having a monopoly. guess microsoft will have to deal with the lawsuits.
-
#31.2 Posted by davemania24 on 20 Feb 2005 - 06:55
- I want a secure OS, not a itermediary solution
-
#31.3 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 20 Feb 2005 - 07:26
- Ya dave, I demand that Microsoft start predicting the future of malicious coders! Why can't they predict every virus for every component of Windows throughout the entire future?
-
#31.4 Posted by parithon on 20 Feb 2005 - 07:27
- davemainia,
The problem with the OS is that its so large and complex that it has become impossible to make it completely secure. As long as there are hackers out there no OS will be "secure". The only way to help with this problem is to make an anti-hacker solution such as antivirus, antispyware, etc.
If you think otherwise, than you should look at yourself. Are you involnurable to viruses, bacteria, etc., etc., etc. Are you going to say that whomever created life is responsible to make you better and not our responsibility to make medicine to help fight off these vulnurabilities? We'd surely die off.
With that said. I think MS could easily bundle their anti-virus solution into their OS as long as they do not entegrate it into the OS. During the install process you would get a choice to install the antivirus solution or install another option later just like you would accessories and such.
Last edited by 95405 on 20 Feb 2005 - 07:34 -
#31.5 Posted by CheeseCow on 20 Feb 2005 - 13:17
QUOTE The problem with the OS is that its so large and complex that it has become impossible to make it completely secure. As long as there are hackers out there no OS will be "secure". The only way to help with this problem is to make an anti-hacker solution such as antivirus, antispyware, etc.
The problem is that Microsoft started with offering a lot of features. Windows 9.x versions were known to crash if the user sneezed at the wrong moment. Windows 2003 server is much more secure.
They didn't dare to "lock down" Windows XP like 2003 server, because that would have meant removing/restricting a lot of features. So instead of removing the holes, they were covered up or patched. The problem is just like you said, Windows is now very complex, and securing it without sacrificing usability is diffecult. But upgrading your computer so you can run all the anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall and updating services is not as far-fetched as it may sound.
And you do understand that the problem with bundling? Because that is that the customer doesn't need to look further, because he allready has what he wants. And as long as Microsoft manages to deliver an average solution, 90% of users won't bother looking for alternatives.-
#31.6 Posted by skinnyjm on 20 Feb 2005 - 14:40
QUOTE thats there problem for having a monopoly. guess microsoft will have to deal with the lawsuits.
MS Windows is NOT a monopoly, there are plenty of other operating systems out there, many of them available at NO charge. If Windows was a monopoly, then it would be the only OS available.-
#31.7 Posted by davemania24 on 20 Feb 2005 - 15:07
QUOTE Ya dave, I demand that Microsoft start predicting the future of malicious coders! Why can't they predict every virus for every component of Windows throughout the entire future?
Having a architect desig
"Aggressive entry into the established anti-virus market, especially to the extent Microsoft bundles its solution into the operating system, is almost certain to draw regulatory scrutiny, especially in the EU (European Union)," Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Charles Di Bona said in a recent note to clients.
It almost seems like a Catch 22. On the one side, Microsoft is perpetually under the gun to protect their operating systems and make computing in general safer for home user and more secure for everyone who uses their software. On the other side, in the process of taking steps to help users secure their systems, antitrust regulators could cry foul for attempting to undermine competitors' ability to maintain their share of the market.
Bill Gates remained upbeat speaking at the RSA computer security conference in San Francisco this week. "It's a challenging area, and new threats seem to emerge all the time, but I'm optimistic that ... we will be able to mitigate the security problems."
Changelog:
build 2: