Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software IT

Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta 290

Posted by Zonk from the test-out-them-patches dept.
Chris Gondek writes "The Register has a story reporting that Microsoft has released a free beta of its upcoming anti-virus application. According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'. Microsoft announced in May that it would be releasing an anti-virus application based on software developed by GeCad, a Romanian anti-virus company that Microsoft purchased several years ago." More details from InformationWeek.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta More

Microsoft Launches Anti-Virus Public Beta

Comments Filter:

  • Ripping off Google again (Score:5, Funny)

    by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:28PM (#14158940)
    Sheesh, look at how many times the word 'beta' appears on that page. They're trying to out-beta Google...
    • I keep telling them they're in danger of giving rise to dom. [bell-labs.com]

    • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:4, Interesting)

      by moro_666 ( 414422 ) <kulminaator@ g m a i l.com> on Thursday December 01, 2005 @02:22PM (#14159572) Homepage
      Beta ?

      don't know about you but if it comes to windows machines, microsoft and antivirus, the word beta just scares the shit out of me.

      i will still suggest some other antiviruses to my friends at least until this stuff becomes stable ... stable like "bash" stable and not like IE stable ... which can pretty much be never/ever ...

      • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wellspring ( 111524 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @02:38PM (#14159757)
        I agree with you, but not without reservations.

        Norton AntiVirus used to rule the market by virtue of being the undisputed best. I haven't looked at MacAfee in a while, but it's tempting me, and I can see why MS would see an opportunity here.

        It's like when MS announces that they intend to compete in a market that the current ruler gets covered in Stupid Juice. NAV has really gone down in quality in the past few versions. Whereas before it only prompted me when there was, you know, an actual virus to stop, Norton Internet Security is constantly pinging me for love and attention with status alerts and 'features' that aren't fully baked. It's annoying and has more bugs than I'm used to in a Symmantec product (still less than MS of course).

        I saw the same thing happen to Netscape and RealAudio. Their marketing droids start demanding more "brand awareness" and more bullet points for the product slicks, and suddenly the product's main feature-- quiet competence -- is lost.
        • McAffee is worse than Norton. The only AV that I use is NOD32. I've never had a problem with it, it's tiny as far as resources taken, and it's price tag isn't really that high.
        • I'll never buy Norton again. Norton 2005 was like prison sex, but without the emotional fulfillment. McAfee was also annoying and stale. I just use AVG these days. May not have as many features, but I never want to take my own life after using it.

        • Re:Ripping off Google again (Score:4, Informative)

          by Cylix ( 55374 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @03:17PM (#14160165) Homepage Journal
          I've been looking the underdogs for a while.

          I was running with AVG for a bit, but it's ability to repair infected files fell considerably short when compared to Norton. AVG was pretty much like taking a step back technology wise, but at least it was light weight.

          I started picking through several freely available AV products not too long ago and came across aVast.

          It has an excellent feature set and definately is on par with the big hitters in the industry. HTTP, POP, Imap, NNTP, ICQ, Outlook and Yahoo support. I think I missed some. It also features advanced file recovery.

          Anyhow, that sounds like an ad, but I was trying to spit out the feature set as quickly as possible. I missed more then a few things, but I'm not trying to write a review.

          My problem lately with the norton products is bloat and simply running dog ass slow even on newer computers. So, try aVast for a day (free for personal use) and see how you like it. (Sorry AVG, I can no longer pimp you, except where resources are very limited)

  • Its a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PlayfullyClever ( 934896 ) <playfull@playfullyclever.com> on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:28PM (#14158943) Homepage Journal
    IMHO, it's only a "good thing" from a relative standpoint. Sure, it's "good" that MS realizes spyware is enough of a problem that they decide to buy out someone who has already been working hard to solve the problem. (From a few recent comments I read over on ArsTechnica after they posted a spyware-testing article, Giant's product is supposedly quite good. In fact, arguably the best available right now, of the non-freeware spyware removers.)

    As the parent poster pointed out though, this stuff isn't even an issue for non-Windows users. I'm using my PowerMac G5 tower right now, and it's rather nice not to have to wait while my anti-virus package loads up (further cluttering up a crowded system tray), and then having to wait while the thing does its automatic updates every day or two. No spyware/malware worries either. Just boot up and go....

    I do PC on-site service calls for a living (Mac too, on the odd occasion we get them), and I can honestly say that virus/spyware issues generate the vast majority of my income right now. From that angle, I guess I should be happy there's such a big problem. But somehow I'm not... I often tell my customers about the Macintosh alternative (both the good and the bad), and at least 40% of the time or so, they decide it really sounds like it's "right up their alley" and they consider one for their next system purchase.

    Call me crazy or whatever... but after 14 years of working with computers, I just feel like it should be as enjoyable an experience for people as possible. Using as much as 30% of your CPU time running background tasks like firewalls, virus scanners and anti-spyware packages seems so unnecessary....

    • True but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie ( 31020 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:36PM (#14159042) Journal
      Should they have to pay for it? I think the only fair way to do this make it free for users. There is something very wrong about paying MS "protection" fees monthly or whatever to keep your OS "safe".

      Microsoft may claim that the reason they need to charge for it is that if they bundled it they would run into anti-trust issues. But when has that ever stopped them before? Make is free, integrate it into the OS, and take some responsibility for your poorly thought out security framework.

      • Re:True but (Score:2, Insightful)

        by charleste ( 537078 )
        Nicely Put. I find it ironic that the consumer is supposed to pay for MS to block flaws inherent in it's security implementation overall. Will security updates eventually end up in this service?

      • Re:True but (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PlayfullyClever ( 934896 ) <playfull@playfullyclever.com> on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:45PM (#14159143) Homepage Journal
        some spyware installs with "legit" apps MOST seems to come in through the browser through one of the following:

        1: users clicking yes blindly
        2: users clicking yes becuase the system makes it extremely hard for them not to by overlapping windows or by reloading the page when they click cancel (yes i have seen this done)
        3: security holes

        while the spyware companies themselves may officially frown on the latter two there is no doubt that they are being used by less scrupulous sites on commission per install.

        another problem is that the antivirus companies won't treat spyware like trojans (possiblly because they are scared of legal issues). a good on access scanner should be able to prevent any known shitware (viruses trojans spyware etc) from being run in the first place.

      • Re:True but (Score:2, Insightful)

        by crashcodesdotcom ( 813209 )
        And home builders should be responsible for providing and maintaining a home security system for each home they build?

        If a home builder installs faulty locks, sure they should replace em'.

        Side Note: Crimes are the fault of the criminal, not those who failed to protect you from them.

        • Re:True but (Score:3, Informative)

          by Pantero Blanco ( 792776 )
          The contractor, in most places, is required by law to replace the locks. Same thing if they do something stupid like putting all residential hinges on a commercial door. If they don't, they have to do it again. If they don't and the place is broken into as a result, they are civilly liable for damage caused.
        • Interesting analogy.

          Home builders assemble a 'home' using ready off the shelf materials.
          Car makers assembles a vehicle using manufactured parts and they are responsible for engineering defects, not normal use.
          Software writers manufactures an operating system and provides updates. Their liability lies in the fact that data is accessed and stored correctly.

          If there is a problem with a home windows (as I have had) or lock, it becomes the manufacturers responsibility, not the assembler.
          If there is a problem wit
      • Security is a process. If you're able to lock down and maintain your own computer then you don't need to pay for services like these. There's also free alternatives [clamwin.com] if you need anti-virus protection.

        I don't see anything indicating that you have to purchase this add-on. If they offered it for free, it probably would put several companies out of business. Then you guys would bitch about MS crushing another company.

    • *shrug* (Score:3, Insightful)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Its good that they are helping out those who can't help themselves. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us who run windows, who DON'T run antivirus/antispyware, and do just fine. I am vehimently anti-anything on my gaming machine at home. If you are smart about your online habits you don't need antivirus/antispyware. If you aren't then you do. Platform doesn't matter.

      -everphilski-

      • Re:*shrug* (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CheeseTroll ( 696413 )
        A week ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. My win2k box is behind a NAT box, I use Firefox exclusively, I keep Windows up to date, and don't visit suspect sites. I rarely ran anti-spyware, because it simply didn't seem to be a problem. But then my wife mentioned that she got redirected to some oddball website when she reloaded an unrelated site, and the alarms went off in my head. A couple of spyware sweeps later, I cleaned up a dozen spyware/adware programs that had been lurking (for how
    • I'm not going to call you crazy, but perhaps short-sighted. We alternate OS users (I use Linux) often like to poke fun at MS users and say "Well, my OS doesn't get hit with virii, so you should switch". Why do you suppose we're not getting hit? It's not that we're impervious, as I remember getting hit with an Apache worm about three years back. It's the fact that we're not a big enough target. If Apple had 90% market share, then you would see a lot more malware being written to target Mac OS (or openssl, or

      • Re:Its a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Crayon Kid ( 700279 )
        Apple and Linux are merely doging the bullet (for the most part) because they currently don't enjoy the same desktop marketshare that Windows enjoys. The day that changes, I promise that you will see disagreeable persons targeting us with "keylogger.jpg.sh" and "lovebug.sh"

        Writing malware requires fairly deep knowledge of the internals. It's not a case of having a "virus builder", based on the ubiquity of VB and Outlook.

        As it happens, on Linux, deep knowledge takes hard work to gather, and I dare say it tak
    • ...as it is the user. I've run Windows for about 10 years and have never gotten a virus or had any spyware infections. Of course, I'm also very careful about where I go on the internet and what I download. The problem is that "Joe User" sees "get stuff for free" and "shoot the bunny" and goes looking for free porn and pirated software, and gets his ass bit.

      Granted, there's still a lot of nasty stuff that just spreads by looking for open TCP ports, but if you're behind a NAT router, this is not an issue.

    • Of course you must realize that the canned automatic responce is.. Macs are no more secure, just simply more obscure
      I have myself suggested buying a Mac for the same purpose. I only worry at what point will this backfire.
      If the non-clued start buying Macs for this very reason simply because they can't handle viruses themselves, they make a prime target for virus writers.
      I'm still wondering why you don't see more Mac viruses, most likly its a vector thing, i.e even if you do make a good Mac virus there simpl

  • Own third-party programs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jotii ( 932365 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:28PM (#14158944) Homepage
    So, now Microsoft are releasing third-party programs themselves for fixing their own bugs? If they're trying to make us trust their OS, I can't see the point.

    • From the MS site: http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=b 78afccd-47f0-460e-b09b-33c2d53ac53b [live.com]

      "The beta version of Windows OneCare Live is free, though the final service will be a paid subscription."

      So now they make money off their own bugs. Genius!

    • Well, they're going to charge for subscriptions when they release it. Will you be any more or less comfortable knowing that these people will be "paid to care" as opposed to "volunteers"?

      Also, a anti-virus isn't technically a "bug fixer", it's more of an "after-the-fact bug-exploiter defender".

    • A large number of problems with viruses/spyware/etc involve the fact that users click on the wrong things, not an unpatched or poorly designed OS.

      No matter how secure the OS is, virus protection is still required to protect users from themselves.

      Not only that, OneCare (I'm using it right now) has a VERY slick backup thing, and it's very easy to use--almost good enough for grandma. It recognizes quicken files as "financial records," for instance.
    • Logically one would be incredibly stupid to rely on an anti-virus product from the same vendor as the OS, particularly when that vendor has so frequently identified issues reported to them as not critical or not a bug and then they are shown months later to be critical. However I have no doubt that the average Joe Public will embrace this new product. Particularly when PC builders and suppliers have to pre-load it to maintain their discounts on Microsoft products.

  • Like taking your PC in for a tune up (Score:5, Funny)

    by Basehart ( 633304 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:29PM (#14158952)
    How would changing the oil and brake fluid on my PC make it more secure?
  • If I were Symantec, I'd be very very worried by this move. Syamantec should ask Netscape or Novell for the experience.

    By the way, what happened to the metro format that was supposed to rival Adobe's PDF?

    • Screw Symantec (Score:5, Insightful)

      by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:45PM (#14159144)
      Have you used their products in the last few years?

      Norton Anti-Virus: An incredibly bloated AV scanner that rarely can REMOVE any viruses, on the off-chance it actually detects them.

      Norton Internet Security: Includes the bloated AV scanner, and a Personal Firewall that regularly shits itself and screws up the whole TCP/IP stack. The only fix? Un-install Norton Internet Security.

      Ghost: A good program until Symantec bought it, now most of the features that made it useful are gone.

      Screw Symantec. They're actually WORSE than Microsoft when it comes to selling shitty software. Much worse.

      • Re:Screw Symantec (Score:5, Informative)

        by plover ( 150551 ) * on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:56PM (#14159258) Homepage Journal
        Agreed! Norton AV has been the single largest generator of BSODs I've encountered. While it's been mostly stable since XP, it's still a huge slow-ya-down pig.

        One thing I've done to improve performance is to restrict the files it looks at to executables (and some of the more annoying scripting languages.) I still let it perform a weekly full scan on everything, but I don't real-time examine every picture or MP3. Yes, I realize I might get bit by a JPEG-delivered-virus because I'm not scanning .JPGs. But using anti-virus software doesn't mean I immediately start downloading crap from every .ru address out there anyway. I'm still mostly careful, use Firefox, disable most plugins, and keep other stuff patched.

      • Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels that way about Symantec nowadays. I used to be a big Norton AV champion, and then one day they just kinda started to go downhill. I don't think I've seen a virus removed by Norton anytime in the past two years, just a warning that says it can't clean the file or quarantine it and a big "your system is infected" message. Now that you can't run AV scans with Norton in Safe Mode anymore, it's pretty much useless. It's always sad to see a good product turn to crap like
      • After getting fed up with boot times on my machine (approx 2 mins from login until disk activity fully stopped), I decided to finally get rid of Norton SystemWorks. After fully stripping it out and running CrapCleaner [ccleaner.com], the machine took about 30 seconds from login until disk activity stopped. I then installed AVG Free [grisoft.com]. That added next to nothing to the boot/init time and it uses far fewer resources than Norton ever did. I wish I'd made the change sooner. OT, but does anyone know of a way to remove the AVG sy
      • I'll second that, only I'd like to toss DriveImage into the mix. God, that program was awesome for creating disk images and backups. Now I use a Linux boot CD and dd instead when I have to create or restore a Windows image.
      • Agreed. I am a sysadmin ... had to come to a conclusion on the topic of which commercial-grade A/V to use (AVG isn't legal for our use, Clam/AV wasn't mature enough), ended up choosing Trend Micro's OfficeScan (the corporate face to PC-Cillin). Here's my conclusion as posted to our internal wiki last year:

        Trend Micro's non-corporate suite is widely reguarded as the best in the business; C|Net touts that it "is the best antivirus software package I've seen in a long while" (in Why you should ditch Norton [cnet.com]

    • MS has killed so many third party extensions (networking, browsers, compilers, data bases...) that it is hard to make a business case for extending MS any more. It isn't that the MS things are better or anything, they just come free/low cost/easily integrated with the bundle. This essentially killed off the better comptetitors.

      It's interesting how few add-on providers have been attracted into WinCE space. MS pleaded with compiler vendors etc to add value, no doubt to see what stuff worked then dup it. Nobod
    • If I were Symantec, I'd feel pretty stupid for being part of Microsoft's defense in their anti-trust trial.

  • So what happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:31PM (#14158974) Homepage
    What happens when one of the major Movie studios implement some bullshit DRM tech that smells, looks and sounds like a virus? Will they take steps to treat it as such, or will their obvious conflict of interests prevent them from acting on it?

    They have a lot to prove before I even think about using this application.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:4, Funny)

      by JimmehAH ( 817552 ) <slashdot@j-a-h.co.uk> on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:37PM (#14159057) Homepage
      Both Microsoft AntiSpyware and the Malicious Software Removal Tool remove the Sony rootkit.

      Doesn't mean they'll continue too, though.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plover ( 150551 ) * on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:48PM (#14159174) Homepage Journal
      That makes no sense. You're going to hold some vague high ground and not install this because it might allow Sony's DRM to be installed? Rather than protect yourself by eliminating 95% of the threats, you won't protect yourself at all? I don't get that attitude.

      All the anti-virus and anti-spyware makers have had to make some compromises. The most public recently was when Microsoft made some kind of an arrangement with Claria, and then with the next month's release of Microsoft's anti-spyware they had "downgraded" the default settings for Claria from "threat" to "ignore". But others, even the freeware ones like Spybot S&D, have been approached by spyware and adware vendors claiming "our product isn't spyware, we'll prove it however you want, just stop removing it." Some do get delisted, others make installer/uninstaller changes to get delisted, while others send threatening-looking legal letters (and some even launch DOS attacks.) It's not easy being in the anti-"anything" business.

      Besides, looking specifically to Sony and issues of DRM, keep in mind that Microsoft is firmly in bed with the [MP|RI]AA, and they're even bringing the vaseline. Vista is going to contain the concept of a "Protected Media Path" (PiMP) which means the PiMP won't play "protected" content if any non-blessed, non-DRM-enabled drivers are active on your computer. Sony won't have to install crapware DRM because Microsoft will have done it for them. And yes, that's just one reason I'm not going to switch to Vista.

      • That makes no sense. You're going to hold some vague high ground and not install this because it might allow Sony's DRM to be installed? Rather than protect yourself by eliminating 95% of the threats, you won't protect yourself at all? I don't get that attitude.

        It makes more sense when you know there are other products out there, as you yourself point out. And my confidence level in them is higher than MS.

        See? It really does make sense.

    • Re:So what happens when... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geoffspear ( 692508 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:50PM (#14159193) Homepage
      "Obvious conflict of interest"?

      Did Microsoft become a movie studio when I wasn't looking, or do you just assume that any member of the class of "evil corporations hated by the average Slashdotter" is automatically in collusion with all of the other members?

      • Did Microsoft become a movie studio when I wasn't looking, or do you just assume that any member of the class of "evil corporations hated by the average Slashdotter" is automatically in collusion with all of the other members?

        When you've read enough article about them colluding to push DRM into computer hardware and to call it "trusted computing", you do.

        Have you been living under a rock or something?

    • 9-1-1 (Score:3, Funny)

      by this great guy ( 922511 )
      --
      How do we sleep when our beds are burning?

      You don't sleep. You call 9-1-1.

    • >They have a lot to prove before I even think about using this application.

      Right on! And lets block google at the router because of the concessions they've made for various governments, the DMCA, etc. Wait, lets toss the router because Cicso has had a hand in the great Chinese firewall. Wait, lets toss Slashdot because of the bias of ownership and dupes.

      If you keep thinking like that, you'll end up naked in the forest. Good thing you have double standards, eh?

      Just about anything that helps Joe and Jan

  • How long ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crackerjack911 ( 49510 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:31PM (#14158979)
    until there is a vulnerability discovered to install a virus through the anti virus application?

  • sounds good... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HTL2001 ( 836298 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:32PM (#14158992)
    For most users, the only thing in the windows security alert that could not be fixed by simply turning something on was antivirus software. All the others (auto-update, firewall) were included and could just be activated. Now they have one for that last bit (not like I use thier versions of the stuff, and hate autoupdate, but its good for the _normal_ user).
    • Why do you hate auto-update? I love it. It means I don't have to sit on my ass while going to windowsupdate.. Gives me more time to work on the BSD servers. :)

  • How are you supposed to develop for Windows (Score:3, Interesting)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:36PM (#14159039) Homepage Journal
    It seems any profitable application that gets developed on the Windows platform gets noticed by Microsoft and they immediately start buying up companies, releasing a free version, or making their own. They are trying to take out Adobe (Photoshop, PDF), Antivirus (McAffee, Norton, etc), they already killed Netscape, Office Suites, E-mail clients, and they are working on killing SQL servers.

    Why does anyone think it is a good idea to partner with Microsoft again?

  • Press Release: (Score:5, Funny)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:36PM (#14159048)
    "The company that invented software vulnerability has launched a new AntiVirus application. Microsoft executives say the new initiative, when combined with the relaxed security in such products as Office, Internet Explorer, IIS, and Outlook Express, allows the company's revenue streams to come full circle; making them both the cause-of and solution-to most of your computer's security problems."

  • Gave it a go. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Conor Turton ( 639827 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:36PM (#14159050)
    Put it on, gave it a try, took it off. Brought the system to a crawl and Firefox mysteriously stopped being able to get any data from the net even though the firewall showed it as allowed.

    It's OK for newbies as it also reminds them to backup and defrag too. Also it turns the Windows Firewall into a proper one.

    Think I'll stick with NOD32 though.

  • woohoo!
    i'll be beta testing 'carry my butt around in a brown paper bag 0.9' earlier in the week - maybe I can work this in before my appointment to beta test 'light my head on fire 0.2'.

  • Yeah. Great analogy there. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sammy baby ( 14909 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:40PM (#14159088) Journal
    From the writeup:
    According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'.

    Yeah. Now there's a trip to the service station I'd like to see.

    "So, what kind of car is it?"

    "It's an '03 Nissan Maxima."

    "And... you say there's some kind of problem with the steering?"

    "Well, yeah. Actually, it ran great for about twelve minutes [sophos.com], then it seemed to just take on a life of its own and started trying to run other cars off the road."

    (pause)

    "I don't think it'll pass inspection like this."

  • Racketeering? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by javakah ( 932230 )
    So not only do people now have to pay a huge amount for Windows, but people will have to essentially pay for 'protection' from vulnerabilities built into their own product? Sounds like a regular racket to me. "Pay us or your OS gets it in the knees"

    • Re:Racketeering? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by EllynGeek ( 824747 )
      And the user will take it in the shorts anyway. You know that M$ partners in DRM will be excluded from detection. And you know that actually fixing their buggy, porous, malware-friendly OS will never ever happen. Why do people continue to buy this garbage?
  • Maybe I could make a deal with Linus to toss some bugs into the kernel so that I can sell antivirus software. He'd get appropriate kickbacks of course.

  • Does it remove the detected virus? If so is it just a "format c:" command?
  • I have had this for the past few months, beta testing it. I finally took it off after I received a known virus (the FBI one) saved the attachment, scanned it and it found nothing. I updated the program just to be sure and then scanned it again, still nothing. Oh well, so much for that idea. I went back to AVG Free. It wasnt a terrible product, but missing known viruses that have been around for a few days is really really bad...

  • Make everything free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday December 01, 2005 @01:45PM (#14159148)
    When your greatest competition is making effective and useful products for free, you will have to follow that same route. So when does google come out with its own free operating system?
    • When your greatest competition is making effective and useful products for free, you will have to follow that same route.

      Only if the products are perfect replacements for each other. There's really nothing out there that directly competes with Windows. I will, like most of the rest of the modern world, probably continue buying Microsoft products for years because at least OS-wise, there are no real alternatives for us that wouldn't cost us an absolute fortune.
  • and the anti-Microsoft meme has penetrated to the core of my being to such an extent that I read that headline as "Microsoft Launches Anti-Public Virus Beta".

  • They've got Xbox Live, now OneCare Live, and there was something else too. Is that becoming their new thing? Sticking Live on something to brand it? Is it sort of like the Apple 'i' or the Google 'g'?
    • I think you're thinking of the Windows Live portal, and yes, they're tacking it onto damn near everything of theirs that uses TCP/IP. It's supposed to serve the same function as adding "online", but that was already taken. Frankly, I find it less annoying than people including a TLD as part of their product name (ie, .NET, X.org, Openoffice.org).
    • Ooh, you just gave me a good idea. I think when I'm around our Microsoft consultants I'll start mis-pronouncing these beta programs as "live", as in "live long and prosper". I'll do it just to get their goats, because they are under standing orders to never tell a customer he's wrong.

      :-) Can't wait!

  • 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'

    Yeah, folks break into my car all the time because only the glove box is secure. Exploits to defeat my door locks with a bic pen and rabid goat are all over the Internet. Then the bad guys store porno in my trunk to sell later and rent out time on my engine. I regularly take my car to the service station to have it tuned up because of this.
  • this public beta will be as successful as the public beta of the Sony DRM software?
  • Why is spyware taken for granted as something that exists? That there is a whole industry segment devoted solely to the removal of viruses, spyware, and the like is a tribute to Microsoft's incompetence. Now they release their own product into that segment.

    It would be a triumph of marketing audacity if it weren't so despicable.
    • What, are you expressing disappointment that there aren't Mac adware and spyware programs? What piece of magic software is there in a Mac that prevents a person from installing an adware client right along with their latest version of iKazaa?

      I think it's purely market share right now that's keeping your box as safe as it is. That, and the impression that average Mac users are ever-so-slightly more savvy than average PC users. I'll grant you that removing a piece of spyware MIGHT be easier on a Mac, ('c

  • Wonder if Norton and McAffee like the idea of a monopolist using their abusive monopoly powers to destroy their core business.
    • No, Microsoft has been the #1 supporter of anti-virus companies. Shipping operating systems with security holes has made Norton and McAffee what they are today. If Microsoft shipped a solid OS that wasn't easily compromised, the anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-trojan, anti-worm industry woudldn't be where it is today.

      My question is, with Microsoft now looking to profit from the holes that let trojans and worms run riot on your PC, what's their incentive to patch these issues? It seems they patch at a glacial
    • Norton and McAfee have been so bad for so long that it's about time that Microsoft stepped up and offered something. The version of McAfee that comes bundled with MSN9 was constantly causing applications to hang and generally slowing my wife's laptop to a crawl. Norton has to be the most useless product of all. I'm convinced its only purpose is to serve as a vehicle for Symantec's own spyware.

      There are so many companies offering crap antivirus right now that, for users' own protection, it's probably best

  • sign me up (Score:2, Funny)

    by wardk ( 3037 )
    yes, I want to expose my windows box* to beta virus blockers. I live dangerously. I don't care about my personal data.

    I am an idiot



    * don't actually have one of these. sorry.

  • Granted, I'm testing with IE 64-bit edition, but sheesh. Microsoft could at least pretend to support their own OS.
  • the page reads "Wow, we must have really messed up and are currently down. Please come back later."

  • a tune up --- from HELL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @02:52PM (#14159894)
    yeah, right. it's nothing like when I take my car in for servicing:
    • I take my car in when I want, not every time I start it up, nor when a nagging yellow balloon suggest I do so.
    • My service guy fixes what I suggest they fix, not 2322 other things that were not really broken.
    • When I get the car back, there's always MORE things working better, not fewer thing working, and the rest working more slowly.
    • When I add the Barbie mudflaps, it doesnt break the neon underlighting.
    • On a car you unscrew a plug to drain the oil. On Windows, it screws you and their product plugs are definitely draining.
    • When I take my car in for repair, the guy never says "oh, you need to upgrade to the latest version first".
    • Servicing a car doesnt require you to install an installer to install the service.
    • When the guy is repairing my car, he doesnt constantly mumble "90 seconds more" when it's actually going to take another hour.
    • The car guy has never said he can't install a new muffler as my glove box is too small to hold the muffler.

  • Should be included with windows (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Thursday December 01, 2005 @03:43PM (#14160405) Homepage
    If Microsoft can make anti-virus and anti-spyware software to cover shortcomings in its own OS, shouldn't this be included as PART of the OS? They can make a great argument why file compression, web browsing, disk defragging and other utilities should be part of the OS. Why not this as well?

    (Before I get flamed because Microsoft is currently giving its BETA away for free, check the facts. They will most-likely charge a subscription fee for them later.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close