Microsoft To Offer Free Anti-Virus Software 448
Dynamoo writes "The good news is that Microsoft have announced free anti-virus software for consumers, dubbed Morro, available late next year. The bad news is ... well, exactly the same. Although Microsoft's anti-malware products are pretty good, this move could drive many competitors out of business and create a dangerous security monoculture; major rivals will be lawyering up already. On the other hand, many malware infections could be prevented even by basic software. So is this going to be a good or bad thing overall?"
About bloody time (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all I have to say.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a very difficult stretch for MS to sell an anti-virus program for Windows. That would be like selling defective car tires, and then charging extra for the patches.
I don't think that most AV vendors have to worry though; Microsoft's AV division is likely to be as good at plugging security holes and patching exploitable bugs as the rest of the company.
The tag says it: fuckno. (Score:3, Insightful)
(Which of course brings up: if they create rich fertile soil, what does that make them? But I digress...)
Then, as Microsoft so famously does, it reverses its strategy and promises to partners, when it becomes convenient for them.
The free products are probably better anyway. Sorry, Microsoft, but you are reduced to catering only to fools. Admittedly, that is a rather large market.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it comes free with the OS it will drive away competitors because Joe-sixpack is not going to spend any money to replace something he got for free, even if it sucks.
Agreed. If there were to be real competition for OS's then consumers could choose the OS with the best anti-virus and we'd still have competition. Right now, that is not the case though.
On the other hand, if any feature needs to be part of the OS is precisely a form of protection against malware.
Again, I agree that the technology needs to be there, but not necessarily the data. If the DOJ had a clue they'd see this as an antitrust issue and order Microsoft to implement the technology, but open up the whitelist, blacklist, and detection heuristics as an open spec and then require MS sell their service separate from the OS and on even ground with any other company that wanted to compete. Hell, require the data feed to be an open standard so Macs and Linux could implement it and plug in to the same anti-virus blacklist feeds and we'd have some real progress in the industry, for a change.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Antivirus guards against trojans, too. Not much Microsoft can do to patch if the user is insistent upon running that program (i.e. the security hole is in the meat), but a whole lot of them will sit up and take notice if their antivirus pops up and warns them away.
I hate to say it but: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know they are not making their O/S's more secure, but isn't anything they do to reduce malware a good thing. Aren't these other companies only existent because of Microsoft's poor quality in the fist place?
1) Find a company that make a product with a defect
2) Make a process for improving the flaw
3) Sue when they try to fix the flaw
4) Profit for life?
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Sandboxes for legacy apps will remind consumers that they didn't want to upgrade in the first place.
Of course, they can't help but upgrade since their new computer came with the new Windows and they're not going to go spend $100 on XP since they already have an OS.
It will fail.. like the Morro Castle (Score:3, Insightful)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
Built initially in 1589 in response to raids on Havana harbor, el Morro protected the mouth of the harbor with a chain being strung out across the to the fort at La Punta. It first saw action in the 1762 British expedition against Cuba when Lord Albemarle landed in Cojimar and attacked the fort defended by Luis Vicente de Velasco e Isla from its rear. It fell because the English could command the high ground
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah it would be like selling a car and including a jack and wheelbrace. Or providing a repair service for your phone in case you drop it.
Or wait... I know... Microsoft could just plug this hole by preventing users from getting admin privileges at all! Also from now on, all data should carry the NOEX bit - wherever it exists - which would be a trivial modification to IP/HDDs/etc. Sucks for anyone that wants to use a compiler - but you just can't be too safe.
Re:Oh Yeah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring the users who won't do shit like that, adn then we will all have software that doesn't need anti-virus.
Odds are... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. It will be a basic virus scanner and will probably not replace NOD32 or another fully featured scanner.
3. Webroot seems to be doing just fine even though Windows Defender has been around for a few years now. Same for Spybot, Ad-Aware, and any number of other apps.
4. Compounded with #3, Microsoft Antivirus will be entering a well established field with plenty of household name competitors. Norton and McAffee are well known names that most consumers know and will probably opt for (quality of software notwithstanding).
5. Many smaller firms (Kaspersky comes to mind) have consumers as their small-fry and make their big bucks off volume licenses. It appears that Morro isn't competing here.
6. Whether accurate or not, perception or reality, many people consider Microsoft Security Solutions to be an oxymoron. So long as it can be uninstalled, people will be free to add their own antivirus software (see point #4).
Joey
Only (Score:1, Insightful)
It's only a bad thing if the software does not work. I want MS to fail as to do most of us but they seeing as they contract out that anti malware software the anti virus software will probably be at least semi-decent.
Souldn't be needed, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-virus really shouldn't be needed (Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]), but if they are going to offer the updates for free as well, that could be a good thing.
It could also be a very bad thing, since it would lead to a near monoculture of OS+antivirus, so you only have to crack one platform and the associated antivirus to write a virus, and don't really have to worry about other antivirus software products.
Antivirus is "enumerate the bad" which generally doesn't work well, instead of having a whitelist of acceptable software.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I said a lot, not all. Remember, as a PC tech, you've got a locality bias. You're seeing a lot of people whose PCs were infected. The ones who practice safe computing probably don't come in as much.
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well a virus is an irritating program that eats up resources, making your computer unstable, interfering with hardware, replicates and repairs itself when you attempt to delete it, and drives you insane.
The sad thing is, a lot of system-tray startup software that insists on self-installing does the same things too. No acrobat, i don't need to be running all the time. You listening, Apple? Heck, a lot of AVG software bogs down the system so much I'm wondering if the cure is worse than the disease.
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
The NT kernel isn't the problem really. They don't need a new kernel, they just need far better auditing of the attendant software that surrounds it.
No need to call it an "AV program" (Score:2, Insightful)
Make it a feature of the OS that it will flag trojans and malware. Nothing to install or configure, it just does it. Virus signature updates just get installed transparently via Windows Updates. Savvy users can opt-out, just like they can with UAC and Windows Firewall. If anyone does need "extra-strength protection", they can go ahead and install whatever they like.
As to the wider issue of anti-trust; you can't complain that the OS is insecure, and then complain that steps MS takes to secure it are an abuse of their monopoly power.
This might even work well enough that botnets will dwindle as systems become more secure. The only people who might lose, are AV companies. Tough. You're not *entitled* to the AV market. And I've seen enough pushy sales tactics and ineffective programs *cough*Nortons*cough* to have little sympathy.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a trap! (Score:3, Insightful)
And what to you do when someone finds and exploits a security hole in what many users will use as their sole means of computer protection?
I've got a bad feeling about this...
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't from scratch, although it *was* useful. Legacy compatibility will always be a tough one-- but why should we constantly have to continue to buy upgrades anyway? Why is there a MacOS 10.5? The others were no good? Windows 7-- because the other six sucked?
We want life. We want to extend our investments for as long as its reasonable and especially beyond the tax depreciation life if we can. Free virus software is backhanded at best from Microsoft. Watch it become a target in and of itself.
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:2, Insightful)
The NT kernel isn't the problem really.
Exactly. The NT kernel is actually really, really good. I am sure that within Microsoft, the people who engineer the kernel probably despise the user interface people.
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this what OSX currently does - not for classic, but for windows via parallels, virtualbox, vmware, ... Windows apps are the "legacy".
For Microsoft to inflict so much native breakage on the app base would cut off their own air supply. A marketing decision by Apple to unbundle OSX, or a Linux distro would have the same footing as Windows. Microsoft would have to compete for the first time in 25 years. I really doubt they would take the risk.
To natively maintain the current APIs may not be possible without maintaining huge vulnerabilities. Maybe it is, but obviously it wasn't originally understood and I doubt it 13 years of security hacks have helped that understanding.
Anti-virus software may be the only marketable solution, but is always one step behind.
Re:Netscape Part Deux (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I can't really feel to sorry for the AV providers. For years, people have been clamoring for Microsoft to improve security. They tried some fundamental architecture changes with Vista, knowing it would break backwards compatibility. That's what everyone wanted, right? Well, turns out it was a huge PR shit-storm. Now they are creating some free AV software; as long as it's not included with the OS, I hope all lawsuits against it fail. If we are going to start suing companies for providing good, free software, then I personally am starting a lawsuit against the Mozilla corporation. If you build a business plan on repairing another company's inadequacies, you're going to have to deal with the reality that that company might fix those problems itself.
Re:Alternatively... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think AVG is bad install NortonAV. You I've never EVER seen a computer with worse virus problems then the resource hogging that AV does. I've cleaned 500+ infected machines and NOT a single one was as screwed up as just installing norton. If you use FF you don't get popups from the virus anyways. The only real problem is if the pc is added to a botnet. I'd only recomend norton to the worst 1 of 30 users. I mean they'd have to be dling kiddie porn labeled as pron.jpg.exe through IE 1.0 while uninstalling windows patches and opening every attatchment they find while shitting on hackers. (Having worked tech support yes i do believe 1 in 30 people are that stupid)
Re:Oh Yeah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I did OS/2 support back in the day, and there was quite a lot of concern that we'd never be able to convince the user to click "Shut down" prior to turning off his machine "Because you don't have to do that in Windows." Then Microsoft rolls it out and all of a sudden everyone is used to it, pretty much overnight.
They could have pushed separate administrative accounts early on. They could have chosen to break some ancient programs to fix architectural problems. They could have paused to consider the implications prior to developing Internet Explorer. The end user may not have liked it but what were they going to do? Run OS/2?
Sure, there are going to always be users who fall for the tricks, but Microsoft doesn't have to make it easy for the bad guys. They spawned an entire goddamn industry revolving around addressing their security problems, and that industry doesn't really do that good a job at it. I don't really expect Microsoft to, either.
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The cure, of course, would be to use an OS that was designed with security in mind, and patched as quickly as possible when a security vulnerability turned up. Anti-virus software isn't a cure, it's a band aid, and it's always going to be at least one step behind the black hats. There's no way it can work, let alone be effective, without using up system resources, and from what I gather, getting more bloated, more of a resource hog and less effective as time goes on. I say I hear, because I don't use anti-virus software, I use Linux and as long as The Year Of The Linux Desktop never comes, I'll never need to worry about getting infected.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does everyone seem to think Windows somehow allows malware due to 'holes' in the OS? Malware isn't any different to normal software from the OS' perspective. If you can write legitimate software than can send an email, or download an image and display it to the user, then you can write 'malware' that can send spam or display advertisements. Idiot.
Re:Security vs backwards compatibility (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to support quite a few common and popular programs, a Windows legacy sandbox would have to replicate a legacy windows environment, including provisions for installing kernel drivers and similar.
With the state of virtualization technology today, the only tricky part is figuring out the best way to allow the sandboxed app to communicate with other apps (either native or in their own sandboxes) in only completely safe ways.
In other words, if the sandboxed app tries to enumerate all running applications, it would see only itself (and maybe a virtualized Explorer), or if it tried to read the raw display to see if other windows were there, it would see itself and a virtual desktop. Then, only things like the clipboard would get shared with other apps.
In general, this is just fine. There are very few apps that require more communications with other apps, and most of them are system apps that will be re-written as native. For a "single" application that is really multiple running programs, you'd allow the user to build sandboxes that hold multiple apps of their choosing.
With all of these apps running on the desktop as if they were native, the user probably won't be able to tell the difference between a legacy sandboxed app and a native one.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the problem at all.
Most people don't understand security, period. The variants of Windows that most people use these days (XP and Vista) are just as secure as NT or 2000 was at the time... but running a securely locked down operating system requires a knowledgeable and motivated administrator.
There is nothing that is inherently insecure about Windows. UAC, for all that people criticize it, is a genuine security advantage... if you bother to use it, which few people do.
People don't wonder why their car stops working if they continuously drive it into walls- the answer is obvious. Stop driving your car into walls, numbnuts.
Just because the internals of a computer are more obscure does not excuse the user's stupidity, which is the primary cause of usability slowdowns and security exploits.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does everyone seem to think Windows somehow allows malware due to 'holes' in the OS?
Because, statistically speaking, malware running is the result of holes in the OS and most infections are worms that run with no user interaction at all. The malware you describe is called a trojan and, while a serious problem, is still not the most common type of malware infection (note there are more trojans than worms, but each trojan hits a much smaller number of systems).
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Why does everyone seem to think Windows somehow allows malware due to 'holes' in the OS? Malware isn't any different to normal software from the OS' perspective. If you can write legitimate software than can send an email, or download an image and display it to the user, then you can write 'malware' that can send spam or display advertisements.
Windows think. Installing software can indeed be made totally different to normal software from the OS perspective.
Windows will just blindly and happily execute anything it thinks it has been requested to execute.
On Linux or BSD, files aren't executable by default. The OS just won't run them. Any attempt to make a file executable requires a local user to manually enter a password. Hence, if a user is asked for a password ... especially the administrator password ... they are immediately alerted ... "hang on a minute, I wasn't trying to install anything just then, or make a change to the system". Having to enter a password is like waving a great big red warning flag. "Whoop, whoop, install happening!! Attention, attention ... did you mean this?"
Amongst Windows users (being used to the complete lack of concepts such as these), Windows' complete lack of adequate security is often confused for security being impossible to achieve.
Windows think. Its everywhere.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah it would be like selling a car and including a jack and wheelbrace. Or providing a repair service for your phone in case you drop it.
The problem with MS antitrust analogies, is people never use a monopoly in those analogies. So it would be like selling a car and a jack together, when you're the only company that sells cars and your tires are known to have huge defects and explode all the time to the point that an entire market has grown up allowing car buyers to work around your defective design and drive normally.
A more understandable analogy yet would be if the power company started shipping emergency generators to all their power customers and started ignoring customer complaints about frequent power outages and bribed the government to stop enforcing regulations about power reliability and raised their rates to all customers to cover the cost of the generators they shipped out. At this point all the current manufacturers of generators would go out of business regardless of how good their generators were, because everyone would already have one supplied by the monopolist power distributor. The power company would also have no real motivation to make their generators well, or improve them, or lower the cost of making them, because they don't have to compete... sort of like the way crappy rotary phones that were rented for tens of thousands of dollars over a person's lifetime dominated the entire time AT&T had a monopoly and then suddenly improved right afterwards.
It gives you a much better idea of what to expect as far as quality and innovation and cost you can expect to bear if MS is allowed by regulators to blithely undermine the free market and ignore antitrust law. Let's all hope Obama appoints some less bribable people and stands up for the people over big business.
Re:Yeah, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
On many fronts, the malware situation on Windows is the OS's fault.
First, OS files should not be writable by random executables on the system. Period. The idea that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe, installed on a user account, runs as a superuser and can modify important system files is completely idiotic. The inability of Microsoft to implement a basic separation between privilege levels is the root of the problem (pun intended)--and they don't get to weasel out of it by saying "you COULD run/install software as a local user" because their FUBAR'd implementation meant that wasn't a realistic option.
Secondly, a lot of malware installation has historically been the result of stupid things that Microsoft did to be "helpful"--like automatically executing scripts in Outlook's preview pane. Or the idea that installation of software should be "silent"--where a program can be downloaded and installed without any user interaction. Brilliant.
Microsoft has made (some small) improvements in these areas. But they're not off the hook by any means.
I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe in trusting the wolves to guard the sheep.
Why would anyone sane trust the company that either a) couldn't be bothered to fix exploits, or b) doesn't have the smarts to find the exploits, to protect them?
If Microsoft can afford to find these exploits and block them using their AV product, why can't they just patch the OS? It could be the deafening sound of greed... or some other, more mundane reason.
But my basic question stands: if they can do this in AV, why can't they do it in their OS?
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The idea that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe, installed on a user account, runs as a superuser and can modify important system files is completely idiotic."
It would be, if that was even close to how it worked. Instead the problem is that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe is installed and run by an administrator, and if you ban admin from modifying important system files you run into a host of other issues.
MS needs to start pushing (as in, default case) low privileges for default accounts and the ability to sudo an app up to administrator level. Don't blame them for your software (which you run as admin) running as administrator, blame them for making administrator default rather than rare.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What monopoly? Last time I checked Mac and Linux existed.
You obviously don't understand what MS's market for desktop OS's is. They sell very few of them as boxed copies to individuals. They have a small market selling site licenses to corporations, but by far their largest market is computer OEMs like Dell. So if you were running Dell, would you license OS X to run on the computers you sell? Nope, because Apple isn't selling them. Hence, OS X and Macs are not a valid competitor. Would you pre-install Linux? Well maybe, but it is not a valid competitor in most cases because of software lock-ins. It has basically no market share and certainly not enough to affect whether or not MS has enough market share to unduly influence other markets (70% is the amount regulators start looking hard at). Generally, if the closest thing you can find to a competitor is a product developed by hobbyists disgusted with having no choices and given away for free... well that's a bloody good sign there is a monopoly at work.
MS has a virtual monopoly by merit of being the most used but that's not the same as an actual monopoly. As long as other choices exist any monopoly argument falls apart.
Legally and economically, you don't have to be the only option to wield undue influence in markets and undermine the benefits of capitalism. You're not going to find any reputable economists not being paid by MS who claim MS does not wield monopoly influence in the desktop OS market and MS has, in fact, been found to have such influence by the US courts, the EU courts, and several other nations. Sorry, but at this point the argument that MS doesn't have a monopoly can only be the result of burying your head in the sand. What, do you think it's all some sort of global conspiracy of lawyers, judges, and economists?
More akin to there being 3 power companies and one following the practices you describe while the others don't, and people just being too lazy, stupid, or in the dark to switch to another company.
Not at all. The analogy holds up very well. MS is the power distribution monopoly in your geographic location. Apple is the guy who sells solar cells and windmills and fuel cell generators which cost a bundle but are economic for some uses in some locations over the very long term and prevent you from having to deal with the power distribution company (but do not distribute power themselves). Linux is the guy who drives a big truck full of car batteries to the nearest power plant, pays to charge them all up, then drives back home and hooks them up to run his house for another couple of days. They are alternatives that allow one to avoid MS, but not much in the way of actual competitors in the same market.
OK, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see if I get this correctly.
MS has supplied bad code for so long that an entire market has evolved around keeping that creaky wagon a bit safe. A bit like some dominant car manufacturer supplying cars without brakes, thus creating a whole aftersales market for brakes, parachutes, airbags and wall padding..
In other words, NO track record whatsoever (nil, nada, zilch) of writing anything that actually fixes the problem they have created themselves (which figures, if they ever fixed the OS properly they would no longer be selling hope - that's the whole Vista vs XP problem), and someone is supposed to trust THEM to get it right? I bet there are plans to charge for this "feature" as well at some stage.
(shakes head in disbelief that people continue to fall for this)
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That would mean that all legacy SW, including MS's own, would stop working. They all rely on being able to write all over the system. And without backwards compatibility, what's the impetus to stay with Windows?
Backwards compatibility is why they needed something as screwy as UAC.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Joe Sixpack DOES NOT pay for this anyway...AV software, malware scanners are all available free of charge anyway.
Even though MS provides free firewall software, many users still choose to use other (equally free) offerings. I think that the same will apply to AV products.
What will affect AV vendors is corporate acceptance of MS products...
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget the ones who click on misleading popups that say "You may have a virus", thereby installing malware.
Re:OK, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
3 of your links are 404. The rest are just anecdotal. Pointing out flaws in system A doesn't rule out the possibility that there are similar flaws in system B. Without a thorough comparison it doesn't support the hypothesis that system A is "the worst." Additionally, "putting on the net" is ill-defined. By "put on the net," do you mean, run a malicious executable? That could potentially reduce any system to a pile of slag, REGARDLESS of the OS installed, and many users practically do it willfully by running executables from unreliable sources. Of course, a comptent user can recover from any worst-case scenario (on any OS) simply by wiping the drive and re-installing the OS of their choosing.
I guess my point is ... yeah, I do need more proof, actually. You can't just show that someone exploited Windows. You have to show that Windows was categorically exploited more than other Operating Systems. To do that you'll need aggregate data. You also have to show that this is due to inherent flaws in the Windows system, and not merely due to the fact that malicious hackers (who like things like bank account passwords and credit card numbers) wanted to target the most widely distributed Operating System known to man in order to maximize their profit.
Good luck.
Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
Next OS release will finally be patched. There. Fixed that for ya.
Seriously though, how can the AV vendors have any leg to stand on? Whatever happened to that suit the makers of patches for inner tubes brought against the tire companies when tubeless tires were introduced?
As for this creating a security monoculture, and for that having an impact, then AV companies will just re-emerge.
Sorry. I have a hard time shedding any tears for AV companies. I don't run AV, it just slows down your machine. I'm vigilant, and have occasionally had to manually remove infections over the years. It's high time MS itself addressed the issue. If there's anything wrong it's the way they're doing it.
Instead of presenting their solution as AV software, they should present it as better control over the installation and running of executable code. That's all infection really is anyway--the undesired modification or introduction of executable code. If you can control that, you have solved the AV problem. The challenge is that there are so many legitimate executables, DLLs, processes, threads, etc. on a box that it's information overload even for technical users. Some of the solution's I've had in mind are a bit too much for a /. post.
DEP was a step in the right direction. I've seen it in action a couple times now.
Bottom line though, is that AV should have been nipped in the bud long before AV companies became so big. I mean, not just one, but a whole category of companies based on fixing a fundamental flaw in another company's software. I mean, just... wow.
Bad thing? (Score:1, Insightful)
How can a new antivirus software be a BAD NEWS in any way? I'm tired of this antimicrosoft-bullshit really, how many people there are out there using computers without even such basic knowledge as to install antivirus-program for themselves? Like my dad, for example. If this comes with windows and lowers the count of infected zombies in net then it's good news. We, who know better, can get ourselves better programs.
It's idiotic how bare ie windows xp is when you install it. This is something that's been waited for.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now I ask you, is any of the above something a normal user (without administrative rights) should be able to do?"
Emphatic NO!
I do not know anything about Vista first-hand. I have info from my co-worker(he said that it is 'different' from XP,sort of, but overall not bad-seems to like it a little better than XP, but dislikes some changes. I had previously set him up with Kubuntu 8.04, and he has become partial to that over Xp or Vista, but still dual boots with more time spent in Kubuntu than Vista.), and what I 'hear' here and elsewhere on the internet.
I understand(from above info) that Vista is a positive step forward for MS on the security front, and can only applaud that-diminishing malware is a GOOD thing no matter which OS someone is using.
Having said that, I do have to admit(from personal experience as a PC tech, and as a self-employed in spare time 'Window' cleaner and tuner-upper, that MS has inadvertently 'trained' users to click on the 'allow' button on pop-ups during upgrafes/installs/changes since at least the Win95 days to 'just get stuff done'.
"I wish this myth would die."
Good luck with that. /., but I don't hold my breath. I suggest you don't either.
I have been wishing the same for the '*nix is too hard to learn for a n00b'* meme that even pops up here on
Your list seems accurate to me, and I have to agree with you.
We should be more objective here, but it seems that religion/politics/OS discussions seem to bring out the trolls and flamers.
Loyalty for what you believe in(human nature-at the risk of an off-topic thread/flamefest) is deeply embedded here.
*disclaimer: I have been 'anti-MS since the whole WGA implementation' days when I switched to *nix, but I agree with everything you said.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, remember that to really "fix" Windows, an intense redesign of user permissions and system architecture would really be needed, something that MS has yet to suck up and do, for a variety of reasons (I'd posit that they misstepped by not doing it for Vista, but that's with hindsight).
If, however, MS wants to continue to capture the developing world market, this is something they simply had to do. The TCO of a MS deployment has a huge recurrent cost just for A-V licensing, especially when you get the low-entry-cost "Unlimited Potential" and "Starter Edition" licenses for XP.
Now, the real question is how will McAfee respond to this? I always harbored a conspiracy theory that MS was getting some form of kickbacks from the various A-V vendors in return for not doing this exact thing.
Re:re Hard to decide ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did you get the ICQ password? If it was used by the trojan to log into an ICQ account and send messages, then after you changed it no other clients would have been able to send messages.
It's a good story, but smells a little fishy right there...
Microsoft products are NOT "very good" (Score:3, Insightful)
They consistently test near the bottom third of all the malware test suites I've ever read about.
Windows Defender in particular irritates the crap out of me because it reports tons of "suspected software" in the Windows event logs without being able to do anything about it - either shutting off the spurious messages or specifying that the software is safe. It's pathetic. It also detects things like Adobe's crappy License Manager creating bogus "services" repeatedly.
Use Spyware Terminator or SuperAntispyware instead of Windows Defender and use a decent brand name AV instead of anything Microsoft might sell OR give away free.
The only advantage to a free Microsoft product is that the company idiots who don't run AV because they're too cheap might actually use it. I've got one small business client I had to put Comodo AV on their machines - even thought Comodo detection rates suck - because they're just too cheap to pay for Kaspersky or Avast.