Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
Microsoft Security IT

Microsoft Admits to Serious Problems with OneCare 151

ZDOne writes "A ZDNet reporter has gotten some truly amazing quotes out of a Microsoft product manager about the troubled OneCare product. Arno Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager, was flagged down at this week's CeBit event, and had this to say about the service: 'Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products. It's not a bad product, but bits and pieces are missing ... OneCare is a new product — they shouldn't have rolled it out when they did, but they're fixing the problems now.' The problem is apparently with the the GeCAD antivirus code, which has had problems harmonizing with the company's Exchange updates. While Exchange 2007 doesn't cause issues, users with older versions may see their email quarantined as a matter of course."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Admits to Serious Problems with OneCare

Comments Filter:
  • This seems to be a typical problem with a lot of technology: Companies roll it out before it's finished, or tested completely.
    • Free beta testers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HomelessInLaJolla ( 1026842 ) * <lajollahomeless@hotmail.com> on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:26PM (#18377403) Homepage Journal

      Companies roll it out before it's finished, or tested completely
      That's what consumers are for. :-()
      • People have claimed that Windows is usualy released in a beta form compared to product standard held by most software companies. And the time between the release and the first service pack is massive beta trial/test. It appears to have worked on almost everything except this time where the product is crucial to get it right the first time.

        If this has any truth to it at all, It could explain the problems with this.
        • There's no official policy to release beta software. Only coincidence is involved when deadlines are rushed in order to be first to market with a product. The second product might as well be the ninety-fifth product as far as most consumers are concerned. Many people have enough trouble learning one system and have no inclination to purchase a second box full of a different type of BSOD.
  • Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.

    I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less. After all the trouble that Microsoft has gone through to convince the US Feds and EU committees that they "innovate", I can't help but wonder if a flying chair isn't in this guy's future.
    • by Seumas ( 6865 )
      I still have no idea what OneCare is and I'm not going to bother finding out, but it sure sounds like some sort of outsourcing telephone support contractor company rather than an application or whatever.
    • Somebody get that quote onto a clever t-shirt on Cafepress or something, because I want to wear it NOW.
    • Actually this does show some maturity from M$ if this is a "approved" statement.

      Scary thing is that only a year ago, it almost looked like M$ would not allow other security vendors to release virus software for Vista and OneCare was going to be the only option. ... Now that was completely ignorant and short sighted.
      • by Khuffie ( 818093 )
        No, MS (note the lack of childish dollar sign in the abbreviation), did not want to allow security and virus software makers to hook directly into the kernel, which is a completely different thing.
        • And just why is the use of a dollar sign in M$ "childish"? Last I checked our language was evolving and we accept words like "ginormous" and "metrosexual" but heaven-for-fuqing-bid that someone use a dollar sign without permission, huh.
          • by Khuffie ( 818093 )
            Because it makes you sound like a 5 year old brat that's taking potshots outside the scope of the argument. Not to mention it immediately calls your bias and judgement into play. Oh, and the fact that I can't decide to suddenly call, say, Linux by Leeeenoooooox just because I feel like it. The company is called Microsoft. It's short form is MS.
            • Who cares what it calls into play? *YOU* are immediately calling your judgement into play by referring to it as childish instead of addressing a real point of arguement but you're not stopping are ya? It's much easier to attack the way someone speaks than to say something intelligent in response. Do you make fun of people with speech impediments as well?

              Just for your info, Linus originally intended Linux pronounced as Lee-noox so that wouldn't be a problem for those of us who are already in the know. Che
              • by Khuffie ( 818093 )
                Note that I actually did address the real point of the argument in my response. You never cared to retort, only mentioning me pointing out that M$ is childish.

                And no, I don't make fun of people with speech impediments. I do make fun of people who can speak perfectly normally, but choose to speak like someone who does.
                • Ok, so you addressed the point AND found a way to judge someone's maturity level from a single character. That's mature.
                  • Just to be clear, it took at least 50 characters for me to judge your level of maturity so you must be better than I. *cough*
        • did not want to allow security and virus software makers to hook directly into the kernel, which is a completely different thing.

          Isn't this a mute point with no actualy mean when Microsoft's once care does exaclty what they are forbiding others to do? Why should symantec or Mcafey(whoever) need to change the way their product works and possibly the effectivness of it when Microsoft can use the same process to it's advantage?

          Here is an article [betanews.com] describing the exact problem. Tell me were he is wrong? It wou

      • by sharkey ( 16670 )

        Scary thing is that only a year ago, it almost looked like M$ would not allow other security vendors to release virus software for Vista and OneCare was going to be the only option

        Umm, wasn't it just Symantec and McAfee claiming that because they didn't want to change the way their products worked?

    • buying does not indicate a lack of innovation.

      You can buy a product, and add new things to it to make it better than it was before, that is still innovated.

      Look at word is now from where it started, or Windows for that matter.

      MS /Bought/ DOS, and they innovated (or in some cases as another slasdotter mentioned, pilfered) quite a bit onto it to get another OS - the 9x branch of Windows.

      Structure and design for that still exists in modern Windows. Of course, the holdover stuff is stuff that most of us would r
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

        buying does not indicate a lack of innovation.

        Look at word is now from where it started, or Windows for that matter.

        Yes, let's. Word - POS that still cannot consistently print text from printer to printer. That may in part be because of...Windows a POS that still runs like shit, even after 15 years of "development".

        OK, two bad examples:

        MS /Bought/ DOS, and they innovated (or in some cases as another slasdotter mentioned, pilfered) quite a bit onto it to get another OS - the 9x branch of Windows.

        Actually, MS were fortunate to be able to buy DOS after they'd effectively already sold it. And windows certainly wasn't much of an innovation. It was so bad, people regularly dropped out of it to actually get some work done. The later 9x versions were a little slicker and certainly work

        • IE 5+ was faster and more stable than the alternatives (Netscape, Mozilla, and even [just barely] firefox) on windows, up to IE 6. I'm not sure about 7, speed isn't the only thing in the world, and I switched during 6's lifespan. Actually I find in any OS I've used Firefox 1.5 is less stable than IE under Windows. I can't use Firefox2 because it doesn't work with some webapps I have to work with.

          Just because you don't like it and it doesn't have flaws does not mean that ActiveX was not an innovation. Please
        • IE - manipulated into dominance by MS with what is undoubtedly the worst browser implementation out there with some of the worst features

          I think you're looking back with rose-tinted goggles there. When IE 4.0 came out it was far and away the best web browser available. It was faster, used screen real-estate more efficiently, had a better bookmarking system, and rendered both HTML *and* CSS better than the competition. Microsoft has released some crappy software in its time, no argument there, but IE 4.0 de
      • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:49PM (#18377799) Homepage Journal

        Case in point, iTunes started out life as SoundJam MP. I think it is safe to say that it, combined with the iPod that it enabled, has radically altered the landscape of music sales. Significant innovation, in large part stemming from an acquisition. Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro have radically altered the landscape of the field of video editing and DVD development. Final Cut Pro was originally a Macromedia product called Final Cut. DVD Studio Pro? Astarte DVDirector. Both products have substantially improved since the acquisition, of course, but they are still innovation through acquisition and improvement rather than through starting from scratch.

        Everybody innovates at least in part through acquisition. The difference is that Microsoft seems to innovate almost exclusively through acquisition. :-D

        • Very good example. I don't like either product in the least, but I nonetheless will agree that they were innovative.
        • No, it was just a decent implementation of a music player/manager not really a significant innovation.
          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            I'm pretty sure it was the first such player with an integrated music store.. It was definitely the first one that offered tight integration with a music store and a portable device. What you mean is that it wasn't particularly innovative on day one, thus proving the original point---that the innovation comes not from the purchase, but rather from what you do with it afterwards.

            • by renoX ( 11677 )
              Interesting. Not having an iPod and not using the integrated music store, of course I didn't feel that iTunes was innovative..

              For me those bundled features are just bloat as I don't use them, for those who use them, I guess that the bundling is innovative, but I still wouldn't call it 'significantly' innovative though, more like a minor innovation.
    • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      "Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products." - I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less.

      This is not bothering me, but this quote is:

      According to the security manager, security is only a small part of what Microsoft does, suggesting it does not have as much security expertise as established security vendors.

      I hope they really mean "security expertise" as in "antivirus detection and filtering software" and not as in *really* "security expertise"

    • Yeah, this guy definitely will be on the unemployment line tomorrow.

      The things he said will get him canned in a heartbeat.

      Not that they weren't all true, but Microsoft is into "truthiness", not "truth."

      This is also a clear demonstration that Bill's intention in getting into the antivirus business was simply another attempt to soak his customers for money after being the cause of the problem in the first place.

      This guy's statement that "security is only a little part of Microsoft" clearly shows the attitude
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:47PM (#18376845)
    If something goes wrong Microsoft takes the blame not you. You could run Linux for years and when one thing goes wrong you can get fired. But by choosing Microsoft you have many many major problems a month and still keep you job and even get a raise because you can blame MS on them. Even though MS will only say sorry and do little to fix the problem but still your job is safe.
    • by kebes ( 861706 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:07PM (#18377163) Journal
      You're absolutely right, and I hate it.

      I use Linux extensively (at home and at work), but I'm always afraid to suggest it as a solution for others. Because then somehow I become responsible when things don't go perfectly smoothly. If instead I just recommend a "status quo" solution, then any bugs encountered will just be treated as "business as usual." The reality is that any software deployment will have annoyances along the way (whether Linux-based or Windows-based). The difference is exactly what you describe: "No one is fired for choosing Microsoft" whereas if you recommend Linux, you become "the guy to blame."

      I'm not sure how to fix this state of affairs. It's a totally unreasonable double-standard, but it will exist whenever there is a defacto standard like MS has become (and IBM was, at one time). I think this is actually one of the major (and usually unmentioned) roadblocks to Linux adoption. Yes, you have some vocal Linux advocates... but the majority of us who really understand the advantages of Linux are scared into silence. (Or maybe I'm just a coward.)
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:02PM (#18377951)
        When I started at my current job, at a startup, they had WYSE terminals connected to a Windows Terminal Server. We were growing fast, and I was in a position to decide what technology we would deploy moving forward. I wasn't going to be personally responsible for Windows (they can't pay me enough) so I standardized on Ubuntu Linux on cheap desktop machines.

        We ran like that for a year. Many of the people (especially the sales folks) would constantly complain about problems. Problems that would mysteriously vanish when I was looking. Things like "I don't know where I put such-and-such a file."

        Then the real company leadership, who had all been busy with another project, came in. Literally overnight, they decided that we would replace all the linux desktops with Windows. Fortunately at this point we had several junior techs that could do the job. And did.

        I now have the only Linux desktop at the company. The windows machines have constant problems -- (I can't read my email! I can't log into the domain! etc...) BUT -- the important thing here is, no one complains. When there are constant problems now, it's not about how much the system sucks. It's just the way things are. Whereas on Linux, it was Linux's fault.

        I'm personally convinced that there are far more problems on the Windows installs than there ever were on the Linux installs. The other techs who have more involvement in the desktops these days agree. But it doesn't matter, because Windows is the standard, any problems are also the standard.

        Screw 'em. I'm just glad it's not MY responsibility. And no, I didn't get demoted or fired, I got promoted out of having to deal with office matters. Now I just work on the production systems, which are 100% open-source based.

        • by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @06:28PM (#18381361) Homepage

          I have to admit that while I believe Linux can be used to replaced Windows in a corporate environment, the REAL issue is precisely this sort of human relations problem.

          It could be that when you put the initial Linux solution in, there wasn't enough "prep" of the users. So ANY change would have been resisted, not just Linux.

          You get taught this in decent system analysis classes - the "user prep" is critical to making ANY IT change work.

          I changed the user accounts on the machines of one of my clients from administrator to limited as the start of a basic security hardening. I explained to the users that this was a basic necessity - never run as administrator. The users complained they have to switch to administrator too often to run like this. Even after I pointed out the "runas" command, they still had complaints. They viewed their machines as if they were home machines, not corporate machines attached to a network. They couldn't see that running as administrator, while easier from a production standpoint, was a threat to the entire network and that if a virus got in, it could drop the whole network - a serious production impediment.

          Finally, I had to switch them back to administrator mode. They were attaching customer hard drives to their machines (to convert customer video files) and the NTFS wouldn't allow anybody but administrator to access the drives. The files on the drives were owned by an SID which was not recognized by the host system. On XP Pro, you could change the permissions to give the Everyone account full control of those drives - but half their machines run XP Home (and the owner doesn't want to spend money upgrading them to Pro.) On Home you have to go into Safe Mode to access the system Administrator account (or use a command line tool) - which is way too much work. Even my admin-level account can't do it in XP Home. I considered having them take ownership - which could be done from my admin account - but the problem with that is that when the drives are returned to the customer, then the customer wouldn't be able to access them. Having the Everyone account have full control would have been an acceptable compromise, but isn't feasible under XP Home because of the need to do it from Safe Mode.

          You just can't win. There are just too many mistakes compounded on other mistakes in the typical business environment.

    • HAHA. No, that's not the way the world works. They will then ask why you chose the product because Microsoft is notorious for bugs. There's no winning. I've NEVER heard of someone blaming a vendor and their boss just going "ok, not your fault". It's "you get on the phone right now and tell them if they don't issue patch X this second we are going to sue" etc etc. This is really why administrators need to be programmers as well. I find real programmers less susceptible to be fooled by clever marketing materi
    • by kbahey ( 102895 )
      This is akin to the old saying : no one was ever fired for buying IBM [everything2.com].

      It appeals to the CYA mentality in large corporations, and playing it safe.

      If people continue to buy into this, then the status quo will not change.

      The vendor, be it IBM or Microsoft spread this FUD around to make buyers, recommenders and approvers more risk averse.

      The fact of the matter is : the field of technology is constantly changing, and nothing is a safe buy for ever.
    • Your job is safe in the short term. In the long term, competitors with a lower cost base will eat your lunch (because you know that 100% MS shops are more likely to be pissing away huge piles of money on expensive brochureware "Enterprise Solutions" and zillions of clueless, ill-educated "consultants".

      Of course IT spend is only a portion of your capex and opex, but when all other things are equal (which they will be when averaged over millions of businesses across the world) cheap/free software that works

      • You forget. Your competitors are most likely MS shops as well. Secondly The difference between Windows and Linux on company expenses are so miniscule on the grand scheme of things. You as a company and if you do save money using Linux. THe money saved will not normally make or break the company. It may mean the difference between new chairs or you sick with the current ones that are not as comfortable for an other year.
        Secondly as a consultant myself I work to offer the best solution that I think will
    • by Ash-Fox ( 726320 )

      You could run Linux for years and when one thing goes wrong you can get fired.
      I don't get it. Why wouldn't the commercial Linux we'd (the company) have with Novell/SuSE/Redhat or Canonical be to blame?

      Even though MS will only say sorry and do little to fix the problem but still your job is safe.
      My job is safe, even if there is a problem with Linux. Stop lying.
  • by qwijibo ( 101731 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:48PM (#18376863)
    How is this different from practically every other software company? Sure, it would be nice if users weren't the beta testers, but this isn't exactly a new tactic. This has been going on for at least 20 years. I just can't attest to having direct professional experience with the tactic prior to that.

    Hitting aggressive(unrealistic) deadlines has always taken priority over testing or finishing products prior to the release.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:59PM (#18377031) Journal
      I'm afraid you're right. In the olden days of software, money was made off of support contracts, and new version and new feature rollouts were relatively scarce. The whole purpose of software was so that some big guy in a suit could charge big dollars to maintain the system.

      When that business cycle was finally toppled in favor of the "new feature every year, new version every three or four", pulling more of a company's revenue into the software itself, the necessity came to pump out new stuff with as much frequency as possible, or at least to keep promising new features even when the product didn't actually exist. MS really started doing it with Chicago, putting out artists' renditions of screen layouts in friendly mags, still missing deadlines, and ultimately coming out with a terrible product (remember for the first 32-bit version of Office... which wasn't really 32-bit at all).

      Microsoft's AV software, which had the AV community flipping out thinking they were screwed, has turned into one of the company's biggest embarassments. But it's not the only one. Vista incompatibilities are a serious headache, and a lot of folks just aren't upgrading. With the US economy looking like it's going into downturn, they're not going to be making up for it in OEM boxes.

      I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks. I'll wager the other AV guys like Symantec are rolling around on the floor laughing at this, while MS's reputation at being able to manage the viruses that are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities largely of their its own creation is going down the tubes.
      • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:30PM (#18377473) Homepage Journal
        I'm afraid you're right. In the olden days of software, money was made off of support contracts

        That model really hasn't gone away with enterprise software, it's just morphed. You still need a support contract, and you still need to pay someone lots of money to maintain the system. The difference is that these days you need to pay a whole team of people to integrate and maintain the little pieces morphed together as a whole system -- this is usually called the 'IT Department' these days. :)

        I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks.

        Their business model has shown cracks for quite sometime -- the biggest of them being the wayyy late arrival of Vista, with most of its highly-toted promised features (i.e., WinFS, etc.) replaced with some shine and polish that's already been in its closest competitor, Mac OS X, for three years.

        • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:41PM (#18377675) Journal

          I'm afraid you're right. In the olden days of software, money was made off of support contracts
          That model really hasn't gone away with enterprise software, it's just morphed. You still need a support contract, and you still need to pay someone lots of money to maintain the system. The difference is that these days you need to pay a whole team of people to integrate and maintain the little pieces morphed together as a whole system -- this is usually called the 'IT Department' these days. :)
          Agreed. Now we've got the worst of both worlds. Big dollars for the product (particularly to keep up with the frequency of releases) and big dollars to keep said product functioning.

          I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks.
          Their business model has shown cracks for quite sometime -- the biggest of them being the wayyy late arrival of Vista, with most of its highly-toted promised features (i.e., WinFS, etc.) replaced with some shine and polish that's already been in its closest competitor, Mac OS X, for three years.
          It's a pretty severe problem. There simply isn't very much in Vista to make jump and go "I NEED THAT!" Windows 2000 had it, particularly for servers, XP had it for finally producing an NT-based general consumer OS, Server 2003 had it for cleaning up the issues in Win2k, but Vista doesn't have anything that demands a good chunk of the marketplace turn into early adopters. A good many people are faced with hardware upgrades or replacement. Then they're faced with potential incompatibilities. Whether it's business users, home users or heavy gamers, Vista simply isn't ready yet, but like Chicago/Win95 before it, MS has to get something to market. Even if it isn't ready. Even if it hasn't half of what was promised. It makes no difference, because the marketing machine that Microsoft really is requires the Windows/Office behemoth keep playing the version trick every few years or risk the whole thing coming down around their ears.
      • Microsoft's AV software, which had the AV community flipping out thinking they were screwed, has turned into one of the company's biggest embarassments. But it's not the only one. Vista incompatibilities are a serious headache, and a lot of folks just aren't upgrading. With the US economy looking like it's going into downturn, they're not going to be making up for it in OEM boxes.

        I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks. I'll wager the other AV guys

      • by dcam ( 615646 )
        I'm sure they'll survive this time, but the business model they're running with is showing cracks. I'll wager the other AV guys like Symantec are rolling around on the floor laughing at this, while MS's reputation at being able to manage the viruses that are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities largely of their its own creation is going down the tubes.

        I don't think you totally understand Microsoft's business model. Their first release of a product is often quite bad (particularly when compared to other p
  • by rainhill ( 86347 ) <2rainyhill&gmail,com> on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:48PM (#18376867)
    "Microsoft is not a security company. Security is important, but it's just a little part of Microsoft," Gee, that's new.
  • While Exchange 2007 doesn't cause issues, users with older versions may see their email quarantined as a matter of course.

    It wouldn't be a problem if you just upgraded...
  • He would be writing parking tickets in a rural, Siberian town real soon.
  • by benzapp ( 464105 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:52PM (#18376937)
    It's quite amusing when a person installs Vista 64-bit edition, and is prompted to install an antivirus product like OneCare. There is a link to the site right on startup where you can order. It actually lets you purchase it and everything, then you go to install it - and it tells you it's on an unsupported platform.

    Whoever runs the OneCare group should be fired!
    • Whoever runs the OneCare group should be fired!

      Not to worry

      He'll be writing parking tickets in a rural, Siberian town real soon now [slashdot.org].

      • by Deagol ( 323173 )
        "I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy."
        -- Tom Waits

        Wasn't that Frank Zappa?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sure it does. /IF/ you want to buy it after ignoring the system requirements right off the product homepage, why should they stop you?

      "Note that the x64-based versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista are not currently supported."

      Pretty damned clear to me. If you want to act like you've been lobotomised, see that, and say, what the hell, I'll order it anyway, ain't no website programming that's going to save you from yourself.

      Yay for FUD>

      • i think what he's saying is that the person installing 64-bit Vista shouldn't be prompted to buy OneCare, not that OneCare has to support every platform or that the OneCare website should detect that you're running an unsupported OS
        • It should (but then, when it is supported, what is to happen? a patch to allow it to prompt?) - the website should note 64 bit Windows (although I can't remember if it's flagged in the User Agent, though of course you have ActiveX), but the page you go to has a lovely clear list of "system requirements" clearly specifying "XP and Vista 32 bit. x64 editions of each are currently unsupported".

          • Why not a patch? This is a product that updates itself.

            I also see no comment about the retail boxes promoting it as supporting Windows Vista.

            I know you're trying to keep your job after having said that security is a "little thing" at Microsoft, but this won't help you...it's too lame.

            The bottom line: the product pushes someone to buy another product that is unsupported by the product.

            No amount of weaseling changes that. It's just stupid - not to mention probably deliberately fraudulent. It's on a par with A
            • That's stupid. It's not on par with any such thing. It's saying "We have a service. Due to other issues, this currently is unavailable to you. We're not going to stop you purchasing it."


              It's definitely not fraudulent.


              Is it fraudulent, too, if it was decided to pop up an ad for a game that says on its page, that it's an XBox 360 game? "OMG, fraud, they let me buy an XBox game even though I didn't have an XBox?" Yeesh.

      • by benzapp ( 464105 )
        Ok, I haven't checked in a couple of weeks - but this was newly added. Check out the support.microsoft.com forums yourself. There are many posts there. There are also all of the retail boxes out there which proudly proclaim support for Windows Vista, without regard to the version.

    • by VEGETA_GT ( 255721 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:28PM (#18377437)

      Whoever runs the OneCare group should be fired!
      fired out of a cannon into the sun.
  • Glad when they do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:52PM (#18376941) Homepage

    Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.

    And most times I'm glad for that. Because most of the time the products they buy at least start out good before they trash it with their corporate branding.

    SQL Server was one of their better products for a long time. Not so much now but it used to be a reasonably-priced and functional piece of software, at least at the low end of the load scale. Now it's like most of their products: Easy to manage but bloated beyond all recognition.

    • that should be Easy to manage until you get a problem (usually caused by buggy software) and then it's impossible to do anything because your hands are tied.

      I've never had a problem on Linux that I couldn't get to the bottom of, even if it meant I had to fix bugs in the kernel source, at least I had the source to find and fix the bugs.
    • by dcam ( 615646 )
      Yeah it's interesting. We have a customer who rolled out 2k5. Same hardware. One long running report took double the time it took on 2000.

      Microsoft adds features, not performance. The one exception was Win2K3.
  • GeCAD's RAV use to be decent back in the day. The problem seemed to be that they did pretty much nothing but sit around (or transferred to different projects) after they were bought by Microsoft. By the time Microsoft planned on having OneCare, RAV had pretty deteriorated in technology with an only half-heartedly updated detection database (no product to support after all).
    • This is the most common story in technology buyouts. Here's another example: TGV's Multinet was the fastest TCP/IP stack for Windows 3.x. They were working on a product for Windows 95, another lightning-fast stack (windows 95's stack was a bit of a pile of shit, as I'm sure we all know) and Cisco terminated the project after letting them noodle around on it for months, and put the engineers on a team developing software for cable modems.
  • by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @12:55PM (#18376987)
    Too funny: "Microsoft is not a security company. Security is important, but it's just a little part of Microsoft,"

    Nonetheless, GeCAD had good software products in RAV Antivirus (the romanian antivirus) but it was never as consumer-friendly or effective as it needs to be. SHould have left it as RAV- those of us using it as a linux mail server would have been happier.

    -M
  • Here's what happens when you give those guys "freedom to innovate"
  • It isn't Exchange it is having an issue with. Anyone putting Onecare on their Exchange server should be shot. It is the older versions of Outlook that are crapping out. Anything before Outlook 2003 can have 'issues'.
  • by Stumbles ( 602007 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @01:16PM (#18377253)
    To quote " Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products... "

    So much for Microsoft's mantra of innovation. How can you possibly be innovative when all you do is buy up existing technologies and try to bolt them onto a POS of an operating system? Don't answer because that is a rhetorical question.

  • They develop "undocumented features" :)

    • Microsoft's new slogans:

      Microsoft - we innovate bugs faster than anyone.

      Microsoft - we innovate bloat.

      Microsoft - we innovate computer insecurity. Beat that, Linux!

  • I think scores of us pointed out the fact that since MS can't be trusted to write a secure operating system, that we couldn't trust them to write software to secure and protect said defective product.
  • by Keeloid ( 116585 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:00PM (#18377935)
    If you thought the original story was embarrassing, check out the editorial on OneCare http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/leader/0,1000002208,392 86364,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
  • by cmacb ( 547347 ) on Friday March 16, 2007 @02:33PM (#18378343) Homepage Journal

    Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products.


    And all this time I thought Bill and Steve chanted "innovate" a few dozen times and new products just sprang into existence!
  • and at MS, we know, we KNOW, who that is.

    it ain't the folks waving checks at the register....
  • 'Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products."

    Or steal, whatever. Nice breath of fresh air, though.

The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem. -- Peer

Working...