Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Security Worms IT

Microsoft Officially Announces Anti-Virus Product 399

Posted by Zonk from the another-product-all-grown-up dept.
Harry Maugans writes "Microsoft has officially announced their entrance into the anti-virus market. By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh. So fresh they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year." From the article: "Microsoft's Windows OneCare Live program will be launched in June and made available online and via retailers for an annual fee of $49.95 on up to three machines. Customers who beta test Windows OneCare Live between April 1 and April 30 get to take advantage of a special $19.95 promotional price. Microsoft's pricing means Windows OneCare subscribers are likely to pay less up front than if they bought traditional anti-virus software like Symantec, for example, whose Norton AntiVirus 2006 protection pack for three PCs lists at $89.99."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Officially Announces Anti-Virus Product More

Microsoft Officially Announces Anti-Virus Product

Comments Filter:

  • Cool (Score:5, Funny)

    by dfiguero ( 324827 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:25AM (#14677294)
    So now they sell you the problem and the fix!

    • To be fair to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:46AM (#14677557)
      There's plenty of customers who are furious Microsoft isn't providing antivirus software. For them this is the fix. They think mechanically, and don't understand that computers shouldn't need fixing unless the hardware takes a dive. To them, this is maintence that ought to be provided by the manufacture. And besides, there's plenty of viruses that can't be stoped by good security (iloveyou.jpg.exe).

      That said, Norton, McCafee, AVG, et. al. can kiss their collective butts good by. It's one thing if they had products Microsoft couldnt' compete with (ala Quicken), but last I check Microsoft Antispyware was one of the beter ones out there.
      • It's one thing if they had products Microsoft couldnt' compete with (ala Quicken), but last I check Microsoft Antispyware was one of the beter ones out there.

        The difference is that Money was developed in-house by Microsoft, and it sucked. MS Antispyware came about because they bought one of the best antispyware programs around (Giant) and rebranded it.

        • Sorry, Quicken is the product that sucks. I've been a Money user for about 7 years, and been quite happy with it. Now, the product has declined over the last 2 years due to MS's desire to move it toward a service type product. But I tried to switch to Quicken as recently as a year or 2 ago, and I couldn't use it. The interface is abysmal, and you have to pay them a monthly fee to connect to online bill pay features as I understand it. Not to mention that Intuit is every bit as despicable a company as M
          • I don't have any horror stories about Quicken, but a friend used Money until one month it decided to automatically pay all of his bills several times each. Needless to say, it took several months and several hundred dollars in late fees, overdraft fees, etc. to get everything back in order.

            I'll stick with Excel and write out checks every month.

        • Sorry, did you say 'ín-house'? I thought Bill canceled all in-house development after 'Microsoft Bob'. "Buy and Brand" became the un-official motto.
      • Anything can be stopped by good security. Especially in the case of iloveyou.jpg.exe. Here's how it goes. First, show the extensions, it is a security hazard not to when the extension controls whether or not the file is executed. Second, Give big warnings the first time you run a new executable, and each time the executable has changed, and even more warnings if the executable has 2 extensions such as .jpg.exe. Each executable should need specific permissions for reading and writing files, including the
        • Even better - do what my girlfriend's company does, and put "I love you" in the "bad words" filter for your mail server, rejecting every single email containing the phrase "I love you" (except if the "I love you" is in the subject, those can go through. Even though the iloveyou virus specifically put "I love you" in the subject). Took us a while to figure out why my messages kept bouncing, it's not like I was calling her a filthy c-word. Best. Security. Evar.

        • Re:To be fair to Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jonfelder ( 669529 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @01:15PM (#14679572)
          Right, because the user is going to make informed decisions and choose not to run the thing after clicking through a million of these popups everytime they've installed something in the past.

          I agree extensions should be shown, and I agree users should by default have non privileged accounts.

          However, forcing the user to click through popups and having them add specific permissions to each executable is not the solution. I don't claim to know what the solution is, but I do know that popups and security warnings simply do not work. Only people who know what they are doing know what they mean. Unfortunately this is the same group of people who do not need them.

          Maybe we could start with hardware/software that doesn't permit exploitable buffer overflows (we've got that now, we should be using it). In addition Microsoft should not allow untrusted data to be available to the inner workings of the OS via Internet Explorer.

          Nothing is going to keep people from running stuff they shouldn't run. However, we can at least attempt to cut down on the things that run as a result of crappy code. Stupid things like the WMF vulnerability and buffer overflows should not even be problems anymore.

    • Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JonTurner ( 178845 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:58AM (#14677735) Journal
      >>So now they sell you the problem and the fix!

      It's a "fix" in the sense of a drug addict getting a dose. Doesn't solve the underlying problems, but makes the pain go away for a short while.

  • Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duerra ( 684053 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:26AM (#14677298) Homepage
    Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service? I have seen arguments both ways, but I can't help but feel that charging for such a service amounts to little more than extortion. I mean, it's their operating system, and problems with their code that *often* (but not always) allows for these problems in the first place, so why should I have to pay extra for protection from malware that should have been stopped to begin with?

    Now, I know that often times it is the fault of stupid users when spyware, viruses, etc. get loaded onto a system, but for any reasonably computer savvy individual, these things blindside you when you least expect them.

    I'm sorry, but anti-trust issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than a mask to use as an excuse for what this really is - extortion intended to nickle and dime consumers that rely on Windows because they can't/won't/don't know how to use anything else. Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them.

    • Re:Extortion (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Namronorman ( 901664 )
      No I don't think it's wrong for you to feel this way and I think more people would understand if you explained it in more simpler terms. You buy a piece of software, it's buggy, they'll fix their mistakes... but you have to pay for it. The idea of paying for other people's mistakes when they're aware of it and fully capable of fixing it for free just really steams me.

      • Re:Extortion (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 )
        Well, you have to pay for it before hand or afterwards. Businesses don't do anything unless there's a revenue stream for it. If you want better software, you have to pay for it one way or another.

        I don't see extortion as the issue; it's not like they have to work to put security holes into their software. All they have to do is follow normal business practices.

        The reason Windows is so insecure is that there is no complete competing Win32 implementation. Customers perceive the cost of not using Windows
      • Please... this is not a case of Windows having a security hole and Microsoft knows about it and charges money for the fix. Not at all. Windows security fixes are issued for free and delivered via Windows Update or Microsoft Update. Neither of these has ever and will ever require a paid subscription. Microsoft has been much more up front and quick to address bugs and security problems in their software than most application vendors. Of course, none of this will be "good enough" for the anti-Microsoft crowd.
        • this is not a case of Windows having a security hole and Microsoft knows about it and charges money for the fix

          Maybe not right now, but the very first time I see an AV signature to stop a virus that is exploiting a hole before I see the patch to fix that hole itself (which I guarantee is going to happen - just wait), I better see you and everyone else in the Slashdot world that is ok with this go up in arms.
      • I think you're right, but here's what I think the problem is from MS perspective. There's an entire industry built around antivirus/protection rackets. Billions of dollars. If they start to include this product for free (never mind fix the root cause of the issue, that ain't gonna happen) as they really SHOULD do, even though most consumers would not cry "monopoly", the competitors would. And loudly.

        They've stuck themselves between a rock and a hard place.

    • Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tsa ( 15680 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:46AM (#14677563) Homepage
      You know what's the worst part? People will go and think: Hey, this is a Microsoft anti virus program. They know their software best, so it must be the best anti virus program out there. Let's buy it!

      • Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rocketship Underpant ( 804162 )
        Heh, I think it's more like a restaurant offering to sell you their own brand of anti-acid pills or Pepto Bismol with your meal. :)

        "Only $4.99, sir, and you'll probably need it considering the ingredients we use."

    • Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by earlshaw03 ( 854992 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:54AM (#14677672)
      Why is Microsoft considered evil when they introduce an anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall for a fee. This is purely a business decision to protect Microsoft from lawsuits. Lets see her if Microsoft was to include this service for free or intergrate it into Windows Vista, then companies like Symantec, Mcafee, etc would sue the shit out of Microsoft, just like other companies sued Microsoft over intergrating a office suite in Windows. If you want to talk about something evil why don't we talk about the people who write these viruses, spyware, malware, etc. They are the reason we have to have so many security solutions in the first place. Its amazing how much hate there is for Microsoft on /. If you don't like it then quit using it. There are other solutions out there, so if you feel that Microsoft is so evil then quit supporting there products.

      • Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

        by duerra ( 684053 ) * on Thursday February 09, 2006 @11:04AM (#14677825) Homepage
        Damn right it is purely business - and that's the problem. Suing for bundling everything under the sun with the intention of abusing monopolies is one thing, but bundling (for free), security software to protect the operating system that should be secured in the first place, does not strike me as monopolistic abuse. Using that excuse sure is convenient though, isn't it?

        Being afraid of getting sued hasn't really slowed Microsoft down in the past, so why should they start when it comes to the security of their OS? Oh, right - because they can make money on it this time around. What makes you think that Microsoft isn't using tricks and internal-only API's to make their AV product that much better than the competition? Isn't that abusing their monopoly just as well as if they were to provide it for free? What happens when a security hole goes unfixed for a month because Microsoft has gotten lazy, and it's in their best interest not to fix it to begin with anyway, because they stand to profit from OneCare sales if they "test" a patch just a bit longer? Sure, for high-profile exploits they'll fix them right away to save the PR backlash, but they still are ahead in the end.

        I don't hate Microsoft. I really don't. I think they have contributed a fuckton to the industry. But this is just plain wrong, and does nothing more than cast doubt into their userbase regarding their credibility.
      • I think if Microsoft included it for free they could make the argument that "these are essential features of an operating system and we would be doing a disservice to our customers if we did not include them." Essentially, Microsoft would be saying that there is no separate anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall because those products really are just features of an operating system. Result: no anti-trust liability.

        By charging for anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall, Microsoft runs the risk of using its monopoly pos
      • I will give you that including it might be illegal. But the you only rent the software part is pure money making.
        Microsoft could have included free updates for the life of the product.
        This pay by the year is bogus.
        PS. I will not by buying this program. Besides I doubt it will run on my Linux box anyway.
      • There is a nugget of truth in what you say, about stop supporting their products. I am doing this route. First step was to get Ubuntu Linux on my spare system, and use it fore regular tasks. Next was to buy my parents a Mac Mini when their windows system died for the umpteenth time. As my own desktop nears its end, I am eyeing a Mac. Basically, I do not plan to go from XP to Vista.

        The problem I have with Microsoft selling anti-virus and anti-spyware software is the conflict of interest. I seriously be

      • Re:Extortion (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pllewis ( 634741 )

        Why is Microsoft considered evil when they introduce an anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall for a fee. This is purely a business decision to protect Microsoft from lawsuits.

        A similar reason you don't let baseball players bet on baseball. They can minipulate the outcome. You have to trust them not to taint the product to sell additional services. The only thing you can trust in business, is that business will do whatever they can to satisfy their shareholders(make money). If this goes through anti-t

    • Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:54AM (#14677677)
      "Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service?"

      Not really - after all, if you just install Microsoft's free updates and secure your computer using methods available online for free, you shouldn't need Microsoft's antivirus services to begin with.

      The big purchasers of this product will be corporate and government IT departments looking to save money by buying bulk quantities of Microsoft antivirus as opposed to other products that cost more. It's unlikely that the sleazy side of Microsoft selling antivirus software for its own OS will defer customers, as sleazy business practices have already tainted Symantec and McAffee. Microsoft can afford to undercut every other vendor's pricing and watch them all go under, and as long as the new software isn't bundled with the OS, the DOJ and EU will probably let it be.
    • "Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them."

      Why would they do this? Let's cludge up an already cludged up system even more so we can make a few extra pennies on this security suite.

      They are doing this because they would look silly if they did nothing. I don't see how this can be extortion. If they were to jack up the price of Windows or send

    • Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Deathlizard ( 115856 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @11:49AM (#14678483) Homepage Journal
      I'm sorry, but anti-trust issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than a mask to use as an excuse for what this really is - extortion intended to nickle and dime consumers that rely on Windows because they can't/won't/don't know how to use anything else. Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them.

      Do you really believe that Symantec/Mcafee/ETC would just sit back and watch their Primary Cash Cow dissolve if Microsoft decided to incorporate Anti virus natively in Vista? Microsoft would be sued for antitrust before Vista was even released.

      Microsoft has only three options here:
      - Let the third party handle it (Sarcasm)Since that's worked so well(/Sarcasm)
      - bundle it into Vista, which would be the final solution to the problem for good, and then say hello to the judge.
      - Sell it as a product, which avoids the Courtroom tour and may or may not be better than the third party and can at least possibly advertise it in vista. But get accused to intentionally allowing holes in your product to sell it in the process.

      And No. Fixing the OS is not the final solution (or the problem for that matter). I can guarantee that Vista even with all of it's user restrictions, protections and the like will still have a virus problem, because you can patch the OS until the cows come home, but you can never patch the idiot in front of the keyboard. That idiot will run something bad, which will infect his user account (Which doesn't need Admin/Root/Privs to access and infect BTW. Same goes for you linux and OSX people who think your so safe.), and proceed to DOS everything it sees online and off with SPAM and their's nothing that the idiot is going to do about it until he can't use the computer anymore because it's spamming and DOSsing all day instead of looking at the pretty girls on the interweb.

      As for Microsoft adding intentional backdoors to sell Onecare, it's highly unlikely, especially when you could easily go to Mcafee or Symantec for all of your security needs let alone the free apps out there.
  • I predict a lot of comments along the lines of

    1. Produce crap OS
    2. Wait for exploits
    3. Make people pay for fixes to the exploits
    4. There is no step 4
    5. Profit!!!!

    But at the end of the day, the exploits are real, regardless of what may cause them and what you're paying for really, is the comfort of hassle-free self-updating protection. Sure, you could get it all for cheaper (as TFA notes, Norton may be more expensive in initial acquisition, but subscription renewals are cheaper - $49.95 for Microsof
    • The only thing people are paying for is Microsoft's laziness to do a proper code audit to clean up their crap OS. That's the lazy component to this whole thing. I find it irritating that they would sell an OS that's insecure, and then charge even more to properly secure it. What a racket!!
    • I hate MS as much as the lext geek, but I believe that if MS didn't charge for their AV services, people would accuse them of price gauging Norton and McAfee. As it stands, their pricing makes them competitive with at least Norton.

      Even if MS were completely committed to securing the Windows codebase, there would still be plenty of security problems to deal with. I don't blame them for charging for this at all.

      • Re:Solution for lazy people (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Malor ( 3658 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:44AM (#14677537) Journal
        The biggest thing I see is that there is now a fundamental disincentive to ever really 'fix' Windows.

        When the AV products aren't from your own company, there's pressure to remove them as competitors. When the AV division is part of your own company, there's not much incentive to put your coworkers out of jobs. And management is unlikely to want to squash an ongoing revenue stream.

        Microsoft has desperately wanted the subscription model for many years. This, essentially, is it. They get to charge you fifty bucks a year. If they get a significant chunk of the userbase signed up, that is a HUGE amount of money. They're NOT going to jeopardize this new revenue stream by making the platform fundamentally virus-resistant in any meaningful way.

        In fact, they now have a big incentive to make the OS less secure.
      • if MS didn't charge for their AV services, people would accuse them of price gauging Norton and McAfee.
        Price gouging is setting a price so high that people find it offensive. I think you mean dumping, which is an anti-competitive behaviour.

      • Why don't they just charge for a functional operating system instead of a broken one, plus a service to keep it working?

        Believe it or not, there are companies that do this.

        Besides games and legacy MSC applications, Windows is dying. Actually, once Intel Macs take off and games are available via OpenGL for both OSes, and with a good emulator for legacy MFC apps, I don't see these things being an issue anymore either in the near future.

        So, how much is this AV subscription again?

    • Yes, the exploits are real. They could be fictitious if Microsoft opted to put the time they've spent on prettying-up Giant's anti-virus on fixing the code. But, of course, there's not as much money in solving their problems than there is in selling a safety net to sit on top of them.

    • There is a step 4:

      4. Produce new version of software with the same faults in it.
      4.5 Say it's better and overhype
      5. Profit!!
      6. More profit!
    • In typical microsoft fashion however, windows will be setup to nag people into installing the microsoft antivirus, and once all the other AV vendors have been driven out of business, virus writers will have a single target to disable and find bugs in, and microsoft will most likely let their product stagnate at this point anyway.
  • I know there is a lot of concern in the security circles about MS' entry into A/V. First, there are some many ways to get Norton or Mcafee for free or next to it, I don't see that as a big threat. I see the much bigger threat being the potential for MS' A/V program to not be such a freaking enormous, bloated pig, like Norton and Mcafee.

    Jerry
    http://www.networkstrike.com/ [networkstrike.com]

  • Big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tbone1 ( 309237 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:27AM (#14677322) Homepage
    Call me cynical, but when their anti-virus software is based on DirectX, ...

  • Sell a shoddy, insecure operating system prone to virus infection and security compromise, then make your customers pay even more monoey properly secure it.

    "Hey Vinnie... put a cap in his guy to shut him up... He knows too much."

  • MSAV? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Epaminondas Pantulis ( 926394 )
    So MSAV didn't qualify as antivirus?
  • You want me to PAY YOU for protection against the very problems your bad design made possible?
  • Would be a shame if something happens to it...

  • Fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)

    by spge ( 783687 )
    This is probably the best thing that could happen. The alternative is that Microsoft includes competent anti-virus software for free, which will damage other anti-virus companies, or at least create potential conflicts between the anti-virus software included in Windows and the stuff you will prefer to install.
    Of course, the other alternative where Microsoft creates an operating system resistant to the vulnerabilities used by virus writers, belongs to an alternate reality.

    • I agree. Its probably the only thing that could happen. If they bundled it or gave it away for free then the other AV companies would run screaming to the courts. Never mind that in an ideal world the likes of McAfee wouldn't (and shouldn't) even exist!

      Having said that, I think this is going to cause huge waves in the AV world anyway. Despite all the screams of "extortion" etc from the slavering slashdot masses, combining all three functions into one package and making it available for up to 3 PC's for
  • an annual fee of $49.99 per year.

    Oh, an annual fee per year, as opposed to all the other kinds of annual fee.

    It always annoys me when people use duplicate unnecessary redundant superfluous words in their sentences.

  • Not a bargain (Score:2, Insightful)

    by richwiss ( 876232 )
    Symantec rebates make the annual upgrade cost of these products almost (if not exactly) $0.

    $49.95 per year for this product doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

    • Re:Not a bargain (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Prairiewest ( 719875 )

      Symantec rebates make the annual upgrade cost of these products almost (if not exactly) $0.

      Really? Then you had better inform most of the non-techie users that I have met, because they seem to keep paying $49/yr for the latest version of Norton Antivirus or $79/yr for Norton Internet Security (something like that, anyway). Each of them have had at least one virus in the past, before they had Norton, so they are now all happy to pay their "virus tax" each year.

      Yes, I have seen some rebate offers for

  • Old Auto Industry quote (Score:2, Interesting)

    by db32 ( 862117 )
    I seem to remember that story (dunno if its simply urban legend or not) about Gates chastising the auto industry about how much farther computers have come in the previous years.

    Imagine if the auto industry followed the same logic here...Are you willing to pay an extra $50/year to make sure your cars manufacturer fixes any safety issues? I imagine there are some auto industry leaders kicking themselves for not making safety recalls a subscription based service.
  • I guess the rest of us don't need Windows Update anymore, right?
  • I think this is funny.
    Like a Mafia hitman offering "Protection Insurance".
    Or a car-salesman offering a car dirt-cheap, but if you want a seat-belt and bumpers, well those are "Extras".
  • I wonder what competition authorities will say. Yet another antitrust suit?
  • Does the OneCare system automatically turn off/on features that make Windows safer?

    Does it automatically patch holes that you have, or do you do that manually?

    Why did it take Microsoft this long to release such a badly needed product?
  • they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year

    And in other news from the department of redundancy department... ...actually, I'm surprised it's not an annual fee of $49.99 TWICE a year.
  • With this annoucement of yet another pricey yet (appearingly) feature lacking Anti-Virus product hitting the market I have to ask whether there are any Open-Source Anti-Virus Products?
  • By combining anti-virus scans, anti-spyware scans, and firewall protection into a single package, Microsoft thinks they've created something fresh. So fresh they're charging an annual fee of $49.99 per year.

    Sounds like Symantec's 'Norton Internet Security' [symantec.com] package except cheaper. I bet this will come pre-installed on Vista with a nag screen asking you to "Activate this essential service for only....". It will of course kill off a lot of security firms that have hitherto made a living off keeping vermin out
  • I see a conflict of interest here. The incentive to actually plug security holes isn't there is you charge people to protect them from your shitty products. This is like slashing someone's tires, then making them pay you to patch it.
  • Hey, nice operating system you have there. Wouldn't want an accident. You know, me and my friend could look after it for you. You know, stop nasty things happening. Wouldn't want your hard disk to catch fire would you. What's fifty bucks when you'll have piece of mind? By the way, my friend Bill might want to store some stuff for a while. You've some space on that hard disk? As favour? I though so. See you next week.

  • Here's the thing (Score:2, Informative)

    by casualsax3 ( 875131 )
    Microsoft can't win in this situation. If they bundle it with the OS they're going to get hammered with Anti-Trust stuff, and now that they're releasing it separately everyone's claiming extortion.

    It's not like Microsoft's OS division is writing this software. While you can make the argument that it's the same company that's selling you the insecure OS, and the software you need to secure it, I don't really think it's an argument that needs to be made.

    So Microsoft is coming out with an Anti-Virus prod

  • The next best thing to "CareFree".

    But it still won't detect a rootkit, I'll wager.

    Or DRM.

  • Best. Anti-virus. EVAR. (Score:3, Funny)

    by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <tukaro@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:48AM (#14677602) Homepage Journal
    This has the opportunity to really sweep up the anit-virus market.

    Using holes first introduced by them, they can identify a virus, protect a user against that virus using OneCare Live, and then dive into their code to see how the virus slipped through, and, two or three weeks later, release a patch to completely stop that virus and any other like it. Since the patch would be available to all users, many would update their system and stop spreading virii, which would cut down on the number of wild virii, which would decrease the work load for the AV service, meaning they can make more profit without changing rates!

    They could do more than just make a reactive anti-virus program, they could make a proactive anti-virus program. Within a year or two, they could close up most common security holes in Windows, making their system more lucrative to those trying to decide on an OS.

    And, then, they can take what they learn from this, and apply it to Vista, making it a robust and secure OS, rivaling any open source OS! BEST. ANTI-VIRUS. EVAR.

    ...Whoa, wait... Microsoft is the one making this?

    Nevermind. [sigh]
    • It's a different department sir. You'll have to call our OS department between the hours of 11a and 2p PST (their working day) for any issues with the operating system.

      Please- you really think the left hand knows what the right is doing at Microsoft? You really think they're going to make a good feedback loop in this process?

      -M
  • Why don't you fix your fucking software in the first place?
  • I've been involved with computers since the 80's when I got my first TRS-80 model I, and I currently work in the software industry, though I'm not writing code. For a lot of that time, I've used Windows. When it first came out, I thought it was interesting to fiddle around with, and later when it became that "standard" OS, I pretty much just went along, since I was most interested in using the computer for programming, graphic design, etc. I knew there were some flaws, but inertia is a powerful force. Even
  • This is a nice little machine you have here. You wouldn't want it to burn down, now, would you. For only a small fee of 49.95 a year we'll make sure nothing like that happens. You wouldn't want that to happen now, would you.

    Yup, rent a crappy OS that is so bad, that an industry was created to sell patches to duct-tape over these major vulnerabilities. Now the original manufacturer admits that you need these patches to keep it running, and is now renting their version of these patches on an annual basis.

    Now,
  • Especially when you can get Grisoft's AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition, which uses little system resources and does a very good job stamping out viruses. :)

    Combine AVG with the current free versions of ZoneAlarm and either Ad-Aware SE or Spybot Search & Destroy and you have a very nice security suite for your Windows 2000 or later-based PC. (thumbs up)
  • Besides the obvious extortion theme, the one thought that comes to mind is trust: Why would I trust Microsoft to make their AV software any better than their OS software?

    Indeed, Microsoft's history suggests that this product won't be worth more than a tinker's damn until it's been on the market for five years, has been patched several hundred times and is on it's third or fourth major release.

    History suggests that only fools trust Microsoft to do anything but put more money into the pockets of Microsoft. Pe
  • Finally, the missing piece of the long-known but much-debated 'South Park' economic model has been revealed!

    (1) Create operating system with many obvious security vulnerabilities.
    (2) ??? [Create for-pay security hole patching subscription service.]
    (3) Profit!!!

  • Isn't anybody the least bit outraged? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @05:24PM (#14682247)
    This is reminiscient of the Bell Co's who sold their telephone listings to telemarketers and then offered their customers options to keep the telemarketers out and charged by the month for those services. They made $$$ on both ends.

    M$ has "bundled" IE deep into the OS. IE is the primary channel that viruses and spyware exploit. Why can't they "bundle" the fix in the OS?

    What a scam!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close