Microsoft Beta Includes Built-in Virus Scanner 867
Ethereal writes "InternetNews.com reports that Microsoft has begun beta-testing a built-in virus scanner for its Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) that will be included in the final product in mid-2004. The tool is among the operating system enhancements the Redmond, Wash., company is developing as part of its Security Center initiative to rebuff viruses, worms, trojans and crackers. Microsoft will also provide free online training to help developers make the most of SP2's security features, Chairman Bill Gates said at today's RSA Security conference. It's the first time the company has offered training with a Windows service pack release."
serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc.. (Score:4, Insightful)
it's good that MS is being proactive (and i don't think they're doing this on purpose -- there is of course legitimate demand for these features), but it's chilling to see how they're capable of slaying entire software industries with the press of a button. this is going to RAPE antivirus/firewall/popup killing companies/industries, even if they have better products -- most consumers, and even a good chunk of small to mid-size businesses, only need a basic virus scanner, for example. and it's pretty fucking hard to compete with OS-preinstalled AND free.
sigh. grab your ankles [yahoo.com].
of course this doesn't apply to all software products, but, what's the incentive to create a clever software product anymore, especially a small but ingenious shareware-type app, if all it takes is for MS to assign a couple of lackeys in MS Research to duplicate your product and then preinstall it with the next version of the OS for free? obligatory examples are netscape and winzip but really they're innumerable.
next on death row: spam stoppers, anti-spyware utils...
they really ought to have split MS up.
-fren
McAffee, Norton? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting!
Not much of a fix... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too far? Or not far enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the morn (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet the anti-virus software companies are really going to like this one.
How long do you think it will take for Symantic, etc to file antitrust against microsoft. 6 months? 12 Months?
How about not making it so easily vulnerable to viruses in the first place. This is like putting a band-aid on a arterial wound. Microsoft needs to get a clue.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see the hand writing on the wall now.
Re:Oh boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bundled with the OS, for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh boy (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like a bad bet to me. If I want good anti-virus software I'm getting it elsewhere.
Public Relations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ms did this before (Score:2, Insightful)
For some silly reason I don't think this would be the reason....
Oh, give me a fucking break... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft didn't include these items, you'd be the same one fucking bitching that they weren't securing their software good enough.
The Sharecropper Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially, the idea is that if you're not developing for an open platform, you're a sharecropper. Your entire existance as a developer is predicated on the fact that you're working for someone else's platform that they own and control. If they decide that they like your product's functionality, they can either buy you out, or simply integrate it into the platform, most likely putting you out of business.
Apple has does this in the past, with Watson & Sherlock, and Microsoft has done this many, many times. Netscape, Winamp, and now Norton & McAfee. Microsoft has a pattern of simply offering a product as an additional download, then tying it into the next version of the OS with no real way to remove it.
What this means for Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, and the dozens of other AV people is not exactly clear yet. But it's a good possibility that many of their employees will be touching up their resumes once this Service Pack gets released. Unless, of course, they sue MS. Either way, I see this as a major strain on their business relationships with Microsoft.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
How about not making it so easily vulnerable to viruses in the first place. This is like putting a band-aid on a arterial wound.
To make a silly point, that would also put the AV people out of business, except they wouldn't get one last blaze of lawsuit before they went away.
Of course there will still be the hacks that rely on social engineering...
Why is this considered a Troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who can't see past the words anti and trust are missing the point completely. For too long, McAfee and Symantec have produced inferior, bloated, virus scanners. Combine their personal firewall and anti-spam software, along with one of their anti-virus packages, and you've just blown nearly 32 megabytes of RAM on UI enhancements.
NOD32 works so much better, and in a smaller, less bloated interface. Yes, you also have to pay for it, and it's not a well-known big name company. However, you won't find a better anti-virus package on the planet. Check out their awards here [nod32.com].
If Microsoft wants to bundle this stuff with SP2, then I'm all for it. Free, and forced down your throat so the majority of moronic users stop getting their boxes infected by the latest worm-du-jour.
Stop bandying the word "Free" about (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's the only thing Microsoft can do to "make it right". After all, why should third parties be responsible for tracking viruses and such when it's Microsoft's fault for allowing them to exist in the first place?
I am forever telling my customers to buy antivirus software and making sure that their definitions are up to date, this is an added tax that corporations should never have had to pay. It's rediculous that in order to run a Microsoft product less adept users are forced to pay $40 for antivirus software and then $20 a year to keep getting definition updates. It often seems like an added tax that you're forced to pay even after you've already paid Microsoft for the privilege of using Windows.
So good for Microsoft. They've saved the bulk of their customers that much more money per annum and I think it is well past time they did this.
John the Kiwi
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Antivirus software is better served at the rout (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tidiest technical solution?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there really AV included? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too far? Or not far enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
And then again, it might not. One would have to assume that they would do a better job writting anti-virus software than they do writting virus proof software in order believe that this is a good move. Otherwise, everyone will run the bundled AV telling themselves their safe, while hackers (the blackhats) can focus on a single AV program to fool. It just means that the RPC virus needs to disable MSAV before uploading it's payload.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, it'd be much easier if we just had one program-scanner that'd alert on both viruses and trojan horses, and the better spam products are coming from suppliers who don't have AV products, and firewalls are best built into routers anyway. So... uhm, we don't need the rest of the suite.
Take the core product from the AV companies, and their other products won't have a leg to stand on anymore...
Re:Monopoly considerations aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it a really bad idea to have the primary defense mechanism INTEGRATED WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM? What the hell?
You mean like how Linux and the BSDs have firewalling built into their kernels?
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Antivirus software is better served at the rout (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is why you are not a Network Engineer.
But.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it just be easier to write more secure software in the first place?
And at the end of the day who in their right mind would trust a microsoft virus killer? If they can't secure their own software what chance do they have of writing a virus killer that stops vulnerabilities in their own software?
Re:Anti-Trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, when Linus Torvalds offers a free Linux kernel to the world, SCO tells the U.S. Congress (your "Government Gangsters") that Linux is a threat to the security and economy of the U.S. Ironic, huh?
Not the first time... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they were stripped down versions of Central Point Antivirus (which later got bought out by Symantec) in much the same way that the later DOS's SCANDISK and DEFRAG utilities were stripped down versions of the Norton's Utilites that performed the same functions...
I don't see why MS would bother to write their own virus scanner this time around, either... I'd think either of the big 2 companies would jump at the chance to license MS a stripped down version of their product, with a convenient "Upgrade now!" button prominently displayed, of course. Or maybe even the full product, but you'd still need a definition subscription from them. Basically, whichever company did it, would put the other one out of the desktop market.
I don't think either big player will go under, though, both McAfee and Symantec have well entrenched server markets... At one previous employer (Gov agency), the inter-departmental flame wars over what (if any) virus scanner to standardize on for departmental email servers reached a 'vi vs emacs'-like level.
Re:Oh, give me a fucking break... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:2, Insightful)
As I recall, people were declaring the death of Zone Alarm and Black Ice when it was heard that XP would contain a firewall. I remember the predictions of Symantec's doom because Windows 95 had a disk defragmenter (3.1 and NT did not). The deaths of MusicMatch and REAL were all too.. er... real, when Media Player was to be included.
These companies will either adapt, dissapear, license technology to MS, or create a product that is so much better than the included software that people will be willing to shell-out $$$ to make their OS better.
I don't see Microsoft going out of business because Wordpad is included in Windows. Clearly, a direct competitor to Word and Works! Okay.. bad example.. but you get my point.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy, Microsoft can't win with you guys, can they? You bitch every single fucking day that there's some security exploit, and when Microsoft addresses that, suddenly you're crying anti-trust.
It really is hard to take anything you guys say seriously when it's all about bringing Microsoft down.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
And that guy who invented that polio vaccine, worst of the lot.
I presume you have never used an anti-virus product. I have and I'm happy to pay to clean up the mess that other clueless idiots create with virii and worms etc.
And now with one only analysis done on a virus and no competition to get the fix out how long do you think you will be safe.
When every user is Administrator (Score:4, Insightful)
An obvious first (and large) step would be to not have every user running with Administrator privileges. Has anyone heard of any initiative by Microsoft to change this unfortunate default?
Wouldn't running your everyday apps (e.g. Outlook, IE) as a non-privileged user mitigate a lot of these worms? Some of the worms that just blast off a emails via script would be unaffected, but those that install SMTP servers and other backdoor processes would be stopped.
The current setup seems just like giving everyone a key to your house and then hiring a team of live-in security guards.
Too bad Microsoft's software features are ultimately dictated by their marketing department and not by the user community. I really feel they need to break backwards compatibility, force users (even so-called "Power Users") to use unprivileged accounts, and provide a convenient equivalent to Unix's "su".
Sure, a lot of companies would have to release updates in order to cope with use by non-administrative users, but with the current hype around security these days, I would think most companies would be willing to do so for little or no charge. Most average Joes these days have heard of viruses, worms, etc...I think it would be really bad PR for a company to say, "well, MS improved the security of Windows, and it broke our software." Most, it seems, would rather say, "MS improved the security of Windows and our software is no exception...here's the free update you need."
Re:Oh, give me a fucking break... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of like what GM does with their OnStar system? And like every manufacturer is now doing with anti-theft devices (immobilizers, etc.)? Viruses in the Windows world is an everyday reality and this is a good step to take, just as vehicle theft is an everyday reality in the automobile world and the manufacturers have taken good steps to prevent theft.
A business shouldn't be prevented from innovating simply because of the existence of third-parties which have profited from that business's lack of innovation in a certain area. If what they're doing is really so innovative, then they should get a patent and protect their innovation and license it back to the business. That's the purpose of patents.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, MS is doing better than it used to. XP is a far cry better than Win98. But they have to maintain as much backward compatability as possible and that's a fundamental problem that won't go away.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:2, Insightful)
It's much easier, and more fun, to create a new product than it is to grind out the fixes to all the problems with your existing products. This is why Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Initiative has been a complete failure thus far. Microsoft will add cheesy Anti-Virus, Personal Firewall, and Anti-Spam features to Windows that are "good enough", but will continue to have the same problems that they've always had due to their mediocrity.
Bill Gates has stated that customers never buy upgrades to fix bugs. That thinking reveals quite a bit. He's right of course, but it's because customers feel that bug fixes are owed them as part of the original product purchase. He's wrong to believe that because there's little money to be made by fixing bugs that he shouldn't have to do it.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:1, Insightful)
And do you believe that to be the case for Windows Anti-Virus companies as well?
They have something else in mind (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a feeling that this is an intentional side effect, as that is the real problem in the first place as far as worms go. In terms of viruses, it's the users fault for openning the stupid file.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:2, Insightful)
Well said. There's little hope for the future if the AV corps benefit from virus activity--MS defintely seems like the lesser of two evils here.
ATTN - Before you reply to my other post (Score:1, Insightful)
I am [obviously] also saying microsoft should spend less time on a anti-virus program and more-time making it so those vulnerabilities are not there in the first place
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hearing the cries of anti-trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Windows not come with a firewall because someone else makes a firewall (Zone Alarm)? Should Windows not come with a browser, because someone else makes a browser(Netscape)? Should Windows not come with a TCP/IP stack, because someone else makes one(Trumpet)? Should Windows not include multitasking, a GUI or a memory manager because someone else makes those things? (DESQVIEW, Dr-DOS, QEMM)?
As time marches on things progress. In 1993 it was perfectly acceptable for a computer to require $80 worth of additional software just to browse the Internet. In 1998 you expected to be able to plug in a brand new Windows machine, tell it the number of your ISP, and be browsing the web right away.
Now if the only way you could buy Windows was by also buying Office that would be an abuse. But does anyone complain that a perfectly usable word processor, WordPad, is included with Windows? No, because it's a basic application. It's designed to give the casual, out of the box user the basic functionality they expect from their Windows computer. Windows XP included a basic firewall, the idea being that security was becoming a requirement rather then a luxury and so users should have something out of the box. Now is the included firewall very sophisticated? No. If you want a professional firewall you get one yourself. Same could be said for a lot of other features; you want a browser with tabs, popup blocking, automatic history on open, etc? Get a "professional" browser like Opera. The time has come that virus scanning is a requirement, not a luxury that only the 5% of users with a clue should have. MyDoom spread like wildfire, despite it being an easily detectable virus totally blocked by any version of Outlook updated in the last few years and requiring total user stupidity. MyDoom makes MS look bad because the child like masses expect someone else to take care of them. While some people want a professional virus scanner, the average 90% user wants it to be dealt with from the moment they turn on their Gateway machine.
Re:Virus Scanner (Score:3, Insightful)
As at least one comment in every other thread of this story has mentioned: Microsoft included MSAV (MicroSoft Anti-Virus) with DOS-6. This is is not new to them, they are simply bring the idea back. Your comment is entirely incorrect. Quit trolling against Microsoft I guess these days, its pretty common knowledge. Also, you meant to use the word "it's", the contract of "it is", not "its", the possesive form of "it".
Re:Anti-Trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because no car maker was a monopoly.
I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included.
IMO, anti-virus software (software that detects known viruses or detects unknown viruses based only on heuristics) is a bad workaround for insecurity, not a security measure.
Ford never had a monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
No joke! I'm still angry about Henry Ford putting all those carriage makers out of business.
Oh, you are being serious. A company does something to make it's customers happy, and you want government gangsters to split them up because they put someone else out of business? As a consumer, what entitles TrendMicro to my $$$ when I would rather give it to MS (or not give it - service packs are free.
It makes a difference, legally. It remains to be seen whether MS uses its windows monopoly in an anticompetitive manner with regard to antivirus software, but it's something to consider. If they strongarm their OEMs into not bundling McAfee or Norton so as not to compete with their version, then they will likely run afoul of anti-trust laws. If they don't, they will be OK. I think what people on this site are saying is that MS has never passed over a chance to exploit their monopoly, which is why they've been in court so much.
Get a clue. Just because you can write code doesn't mean you understand economics.
Likewise, just because you understand economics doesn't mean you understand anti-trust law. [usdoj.gov]
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
The competitive advantage of cars over carriages is that cars are more useful than carriages.
In this case, MS isn't providing a more useful virus scanner or a better product. Their virus scanner will arguably be less useful than existing offerings in the market. However, (and this is where my anticompetitive gripe comes from) they're able to instantly capture a majority stake of any given market just because they own the underlying platform, whereas other vendors are forced to blow millions on sales and marketing and trying to entice consumers to download and install their product. To add insult to injury, MS includes the product for free with the OS, knowing that given a free pre-installed product that's "good enough" the vast majority will be too lazy to look for better alternatives.
-fren
Re:Norton will adapt (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, we tear down MS because they do moronic things. Instead of including a Virus scanner how about just working to make virus infections less of an issue in the design of the OS?
Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is more than welcome to make and SELL AV software.
But by including it free, if that's what ends up happening, then they are exercising their monopoly (again) to drive competitors into bankruptcy.
And even then it's not so simple. Obviously free software exists. But such software is not built into the OS.
OS + free browser, then + free webserver, now + free AV.
Microsoft is always wrong, correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since that scenario clearly will never happen, Microsoft is instead opting to create a program that will, in theory, eliminate or significantly reduce the threat of viruses and worms on their operating system. The end result of either patching up the OS or creating a good, integrated AV program is the same -- significant reduction of viruses and worms, much to the detriment of existing AV software. What's the big deal?
As much talk as I hear on Slashdot about how record companies are trying to cash in on a dead business model, I'm baffled that is hasn't occurred to anyone that AV companies are cashing in on a business model that, in theory, will completely dry up.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:1, Insightful)
well, mr perfect, just take your ball and go read some other website then.
eh?
what's the problem?
oh... you LIKE to get annoyed at how everyone else is such a jerk?
well, then you've come to the right place.
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so fast (Score:1, Insightful)
Not my problem (Score:4, Insightful)
I use a number of programs for which Microsoft has "integrated" alternatives. I use ACDSee Classic as an image viewer, I use Nero for burning CDs, I use WinRAR for archiving, I use Mozilla for web-browsing, I use Miranda for IM.
But to get ACDSee to work, I had to wend my way through assorted registry entries to disable the MS integrated version (changing registered filetypes wasn't enough). To uninstall MSN Messenger, I had to fiddle around with an
If Microsoft bundled an AV solution with Windows, and included it in the "Add/Remove Software" selection, as every other application is, or provided an uninstallation tool, I wouldn't mind. But based on track history, I'm going to be stuck with a lump of code taking up at the least disk space, and probably memory space and CPU time, that I don't use, don't want, and can't get rid of.
I Highly Doubt It... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would bet that Symantec and Norton's biggest and most profitable customer base is business customers. These are exactly the kind of customers who would want more fine-grained control over virus scanning and who would buy a commercial product that would let them deliver a customized product to their employees.
Just a guess.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't addressing the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We speak from experience (Score:5, Insightful)
We can speak quite effectively and accurately from experience. Microsoft still manages to produce some of the most insecure operating systems after being in the biz for how many years now. They still manage to bork installations during minor little updates to things like Microsoft Office. Outlook, IE, and Exchange are still some of the most insecure pieces of software available for purchase today. We as IT professionals can speak from experience when we say that Microsoft will not be able to do this without borking something else.
Re:Virus scanner (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Virus scanners run kernel-side, as device drivers embedded in the file system.
The system should already "isolate and warn"--when applications unexpectedly quit, guess what? This dosen't change a thing in that regard.
Not if the code is running in kernel mode.
I've used Norton, McAfee, and a number of other AV softwares, across hundreds of computers. I've never felt the urge to say they do it poorly at all. Perhaps McAfee is a bit more bloated than it needs to be, but It's probably better in almost any respect than what MS will put out.
McAfee has been known to badly clean viruses, leaving the payload intact and causing new variants of the same virus to spread. Norton has problems with their software not updating its virus signatures other than on a weekly basis (again, something this API tries to fix). CA's EZ-AntiVirus has occasionally caused BSODs when using files over network shares.
I've not crashed Norton yet, but I expect to be able to do it at some point. I've certainly had occasions where it has brought my system to a complete crawl.
Re:Not so fast (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry... I really don't agree that an OS provider should not be allowed to bundle software. If a product is good enough, people will purchase it. If Norton and McAfee (or whoever) can create a virus scanner that is smarter or faster or in some-way better than Microsoft's free version, then people will buy it.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:2, Insightful)
That is exactly the point! You should be able to choose. But when Microsoft incorporates the product into the operating system, you have no choice. You are forced to pay for their product. If they package and sell it separately, then you have a real choice as to where to spend that money. Microsoft sure as hell isn't giving you a free Virus scanner (or service packs for that matter,) you and I and everyone who uses Windows are paying for it without choice.
If you thought NAV 2002 was good... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you thought NAV 2002 was good, you should try Norton AV Corporate Edition, Version 7. Came out circa 1999. Designed for Win2k/NT. Works like a charm on XP. No stupid bloated interface with fuzzy yellow buttons. No "subscription" reminders to pester you (It just LiveUpdates, the defs and the engine, without bitching). I install it on every computer I build.
If regular users understood the difference between an updated version of AV software and updated Virus Defs and Engine, Symantec/McAfee/etc would have no retail sales at all (they would only have the OEM market). I mean, in reality any old version of AV software will protect you from viruses just fine as long as you keep the defs and engine updated. People just buy the boxed versions because either:
A. they think they have to in order to get new virus defs (this is the dumber group) or...
B. their 1-year "free subscription" is over and they think they have to either buy a new box or subscribe in order to continue receiving virus defs. (Anyone smart could in most cases just remove said software and reinstall it to restore another 1-year "subscription.")
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:1, Insightful)
Why don't they set proper privileges settings by default?
Why don't they make it harder to open an e-mail attachment?
Why not put activex programs in a sandbox (like java)?
The problem is that from a security point of view, the OS desing has critical faults.
And if bundling av software is the only way out, we know they'll do it just like they did with IE or WMP, making it almost impossible to compete with a similar product.
And btw:
put in virus and firewall protection and you know why? BECAUSE THAT KIND OF STUFF BELONGS IN THE OS!
The only anti-virus I have in my OS is to scan e-mails to protect people from another OS. So I guess av software doesn't belong in the OS, at least not in mine.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad example. Let me clean that up for you a bit.
Imagine if seat belts were an aftermarket feature only, and then Ford (as per your example, the only car company in existence) goes ahead and puts them in standard.
Gee, poor aftermarket companies! Who's Ford to make us buy cars safe from the start?
Virii cost companies billions of dollars in damage. They cause Joe Average to throw out his computer in frustration. Virus scanners and updates (oh, fancy that - Windows Update) save money for companies like seat belts save lives. Get off your high horse - this is something that really should become a standard operating system feature.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is always wrong, correct? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the point. If it comes bundled no one has a choice. Microsoft is not creating something new. They will probably deliberately undermine other companies to gain the competitive edge because most users simply will not bother to look for alternatives if Microsoft provides something bundled. If they shrink-wrap it in a different box from Windows and sell it or give it away for free that's their prerogative. When it becomes bundled, there's little incentive for people to get something better.
Re:serious shit for mcafee, norton, zonealarm, etc (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I do think that XP is, by far, the most stable OS that Microsoft has developed since MSDOS 5.0 . It still does not mean that I have to agree with the BS they keep pushing on us.
Here's an idea, how about Microsoft start by making tighter code, instead of this lame ass bloatware that they keep pawning off on the public. How about MS also start by understanding their code so that there are not as many "Buffer Overflow", and other gaping holes that have been produced in their "OS"
Remember, half of the worlds population is below average intelligence.
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
However, even the current tactics ARE working.
Before WinXP SP1, lots of people skipped buying the OS as 'they could just borrow it from a friend' (when buying a whitebox computer). Nowdays the OEM OS sells surprisingly well - the fact that most don't have access to the 'proper' warez version without the activation already foils some of them. The rest are usually driven to purchase of the OEM copy due to the blocking of the first old non-SP1 corporate versions from Windows Update based on the widely distributed CD-key.
The masses have learned that 'you cannot update the warez WinXP, and without updates your computer is insecure'. Everyone knows a friend who had the good old Devils0wn XP without SP1 or any other critical updates, and usually without any AV or firewall software - a friend who then promptly got hosed by the Blaster worm & endless reboots. This sells lots of operating systems, and I bet MS is happy. Heck, I'd say latest round of worms and viruses together with the common 'knowledge' that you 'cannot' patch warez XP is the best advertising campaing MS could have had for their product. Which is kinda funny...
Re:Oh boy (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more people are happy to find out that their 50+ euro boxed AV/Internet Security box is good for only 12 months. They pay, but they are making noises and considering the current AV companies to be vultures, basically extorting protection fees to fix a problem that should not be there in the first place.
If MS AV/Firewall solutions are any good, AV vendors are *so* hosed with their current subscription models.
Of course I fully expect MS to bundle the AV software and then charge for updates after a trial period. First baby steps towards 'subscription' OS purchase model... They want it, but so far they had no way to sell it to end users...
Re:Not so fast (Score:3, Insightful)
People on this board constantly complain that too many virii and worms infest Windows platforms and berate people who don't think/know to buy/download virus scanners. However, when an effort to make one included in the OS distribution, and therefore making it a standard and a standard component so that *everyone* will have one installed by default, which sounds like a pretty good idea, then you get mad at that too. I think the vast majority of users will like this "feature", personally and it might even cut down on the number of worms and the like that infest the 'net.
Re:I love the smell of Antitrust Lawsuits in the m (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't work. Forcing a user to tick a box to "sign" the code that is supposedly going to show them t33n b00bi3s before running it will barely slow them down.
Corporate environments would be very excited, since only official, trusted and licensed code runs.
Corporate environments could probably do this right now with the existing technology simply by limiting execution permissions.
MS already has this for the drivers, why not to extend it to .exe and make it changeable by admin only?
Because for the vast majority of vulnerable and already affected machines, the ignorant user *is* the admin.