Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

MS to Offer Windows Antivirus, More

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 13, 2005, 11:40 AM

In a long expected move that the antivirus industry has been dreading, Microsoft will offer a comprehensive security package for Windows users called "Windows OneCare." The subscription service will go beyond online threats, delivering data backup tools and automating computer maintenance tasks.

Currently set to enter beta testing, Windows OneCare revives Microsoft's PC Satisfaction trial from 2003, which bundled third party antivirus and firewall solutions, as well as backup and PC health monitoring services into a single interface.

With OneCare, however, Microsoft is using in-house technologies it has acquired since PC Satisfaction. In June 2003, Microsoft purchased the antivirus technology assets of GeCAD Software. In late 2004, Redmond bought up anti-spyware company Giant Company Software, which led to the release of Windows AntiSpyware earlier this year.

Windows OneCare will pull together Microsoft's disparate security offerings into a single, integrated experience. The service will run in the background, notifying users of updates and potential threats to their system, such as worms, viruses and spyware.

The bundled Windows firewall will provide two-way protection, although it's not clear if OneCare will expand the functionality of the firewall shipped in Windows XP SP2.

OneCare will also automatically carry out PC maintenance including hard drive defragmentation, disk cleanup and file repair. Automated backups can take place to CD or DVD, copying all files on a system or only those that have changed since the last backup.

"Windows OneCare is the next major advance in our ongoing efforts to help keep consumers' Windows-based PCs 'healthy' in a way that's simple and as worry-free as possible for them," said Ryan Hamlin, general manager of the Technology Care and Safety Group at Microsoft.

"We're designing the service so it will continually update and evolve over time, helping to ensure that our customers will have the most complete and effective protection and safety services in place every time they turn on their PC."

Employees at Microsoft will begin testing Windows OneCare this week. A public beta will ship later this year. Interested Windows users can apply now for the private beta test by visiting BetaPlace using the Guest ID: OneCare.

Pricing and a final release date for the subscription service have not been announced by Microsoft.

Add a Comment (109 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By esh3

posted May 16, 2005 - 8:38 AM

Now come on would you fix holes in your OS if you sell the software to detect them? That's like the President investigating oil price gouging when your family is in the oil business. That's like the gas companies building cars to get better gas mileage! These types of situations happen everytime republicans take control of our country. Wake up America!

Score: 0

By surfbum4fun

posted May 16, 2005 - 9:22 PM

thats why i'm in linux.............

Score: 0

By esh3

posted May 16, 2005 - 8:37 AM

Now come on would you fix holes in your OS if you sell the software to detect them? That's like the President investigating oil price gouging when your family is in the oil business. That's like the gas companies building cars to get better gas mileage! These types of situations happen everytime republicans take control of our country. Wake up America!

Score: 0

By chimpypimpy

posted May 16, 2005 - 12:30 AM

>There have been viruses for Microsoft's OS's since the 80's when Unix was more popular, where were the Unix viruses?

For all intents and purposes, there was no internet in the '80's, not a world wide web like we think of now. How many script kiddies were there with Unix mainframes at home? :P

>Microsoft has over 90% of the world market in desktops.
That's why MS Windows attracts hackers. Get it?

> Posting all those numbers is a great thing, but what is your point? You don't appear to make one in your post (as usual).
He likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

>Microsoft Antispyware is actually a decent product.
It's at the very top of most testers charts.

>I don't use Norton or McAfee anti-virus any more! The Avast! HOME EDITION is FREE and updated almost every day. They catch far more viruses, trojans and other malware.
Norton or McAfee usually kills Avast! in tests. Still I am glad that Avast! does provide a free decent AV.

>NOD32 is by far the best AV client out there.
No, but it's good. Don't get me wrong, I use NOD32 too but Kaspersky is the best. Not my opinion, the tests prove it.

>That, then the EU will want a copy that comes without the anti-virus protection and Microsoft will call it "Windows Un-Protected" then they will complain about the name being no good because it makes it look "un-attractive"?!
And will sue for hundreds of millions!

>IMHO antivirus protection should be build into the OS.
Me too but look at the previous post. EU antitrust blackmail.

> Man.....they need to ban "regular joe's" from using a computer
Go get Linux and show off your new T-shirt to the nerds!

*Tests
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
http://www.virus.gr/engl...lt.asp?id=69&mnu=69
http://www.virusbtn.com/index.xml

My opinion? This appears to be an all inclusive deal with antivirus, firewall and much more. It seems a good idea for those that aren't computer weenies.
NO ONE WILL BE FORCED TO USE IT.

Score: 0

By jordenpro

posted May 16, 2005 - 11:24 AM

">Microsoft Antispyware is actually a decent product.
It's at the very top of most testers charts."

- MS Antispyware, making the charts. Hmm, this is easy for them to have high numbers in detection ratings, for example, goto c:\windows\system32 and create a empty file named, notpad.exe . You can run a scan with MS AntiSpyware, and boom you have a trojan horse. My point is false detection, gives a false sense of security, this is MS following the path they have been for years. Do your research, testing, and make your decision. In my experience no "all in one" product should be used for security.

"Posting all those numbers is a great thing, but what is your point? You don't appear to make one in your post (as usual).
He likes to argue for the sake of arguing."

- You posting that comment is for the sake of arguing. Stick to the topic, Windows AV.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited May 17, 2005 - 12:02 PM

Seeing how MS bought the top of the line. Giant AS.

EDIT: I tried what you said and it didn't even pick it up. That is what I thought.

Why do people tell lies to bash a company?

Score: 0

By Ozieo

posted May 15, 2005 - 5:21 PM

If there *IS* a God, He'll stop them !

Score: 0

By metazoan

edited May 15, 2005 - 5:46 AM

If Microsoft is releasing antivirus and Microsoft also develops operating systems,then why are they selling antivirus for their own system? It's a money maker and a scam by the company to say that you also need to pay for antivirus since the operating system has so many holes in it, a hacker can easily manipulate the software? I call foul on Microsoft for doubting the intelligence of the customer for attempting to empty more pockets. Develop the software properly and there wouldn't be a need for antivirus or antispyware!!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 15, 2005 - 9:43 AM

*looks down and shakes head slowly*

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 15, 2005 - 10:08 AM

Agreed

Score: 0

By ArabianNight

posted May 14, 2005 - 4:39 PM

.......next thing u kno theyre gonna come out with their own "microsoft p2p sharing client"....jeez.

Score: 0

By lazarus98

posted May 14, 2005 - 10:16 AM

MS doesn't need to SELL and AV product if tthey just make there damned OS more bullet proof from viruses in the first place! It's just another way to make money without adressing the real problem, their OS...

Score: 0

By jtb1965

posted May 15, 2005 - 12:59 AM

I think this is what they are doing!
The OS is like any other product on the market; you can buy a car without airbags and ABS (like plain Windows XP) but now Microsoft are saying you don't need to purchase after market airbags or ABS you can purchase them with the OS (just like with cars).

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 1:08 PM

You are absolutely right, but let me point out the flaw in that logical solution...

You see... every time they TRY to do this, a few things happen:

A) They make something idiot-proof, and someone turns into a bigger idiot.
B) They integrate this functionality into their software to make it better, and someone cries about having their feelings hurt or losing money or antitrust violation, etc etc...
C) They integrate this functionality and make things better, and someone cries about how Microsoft is force-feeding "crap" down our throats.
D) They fix something to make it better, and someone cries about how Microsoft's program broke their program that used that bug or flaw that shouldn't have existed to start with.

So, you see... someone, somewhere is going to cry because they're not happy. Then the hypocrites will join in and support that argument because Microsoft is just a big evil monopoly demon from Hell, and needs to be fined and shut down until Hell freezes over.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted May 14, 2005 - 2:15 PM

Actually, the OS does gets fixed for many viruses and such. The problem with the statement is that it is nearly impossible to build a bullet proof software to start out with, especially something as big as an OS.

I don't mind if MS makes an antivirus or antispyware or image editor or chat program or... as long as I don't have to pay for it or install it when i don't want/use it. Just cause it's made by MS doesn't mean it's the best, or the worse for that matter.

Every time I've installed WinXP (full) I didn't have a choice of which bundled software to install or not install. Interesting enough, after "removing" things such as msn messenger and outlook, and then check windows updates, I see securty update for outlook. I download it and whala, I have outlook again (or is it still?)

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 7:31 PM

I think you misunderstood what I said... I did not claim that they didn't do it anyway... I simply said they were damned if they do and damned if they don't. :)

Your points are very valid... they do try, and it is very difficult to find a balance of security and functionality. This is what gets them in trouble though, unfortunately. Hopefully, as Longhorn goes through development they will be able to find a better balance! :)

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited May 14, 2005 - 10:32 AM

Okay. So what would you suggest that they do to make it "more bullet proof from viruses"? I mean really. This would be really nice to know.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 14, 2005 - 1:52 PM

Every other OS on earth doesn't seem to have a problem with figuring out how to do it. ;-)

Play the marketshare card, I know it's coming.

There have been viruses for Microsoft's OS's since the 80's when Unix was more popular, where were the Unix viruses?

How come there have only ever been under 600 Linux viruses and barely a hand full of them have ever been seen in the wild? Linux has 3% right? Where are all the bad ones at? 30M users is a lot!

Where are the Mac viruses, they have 4% of the market, do you mean to tell me that out of 40M users there isn't one bad one? Hrm, that alone is a selling point then huh?

There are over 50K viruses for Microsoft's operating system family. Microsoft has over 90% of the world market in desktops. The numbers just don't support the argument that it's market share. If 1% of Microsoft people out there were as capable as 50% claim there would be 50K viruses for Linux too.

They can fix their code, but it will require that they break compatability and since users won't stand for it, it will likely never happen.

Score: 0

By nerc0ne

posted May 15, 2005 - 6:13 AM

[FEWT] i see that you like to give you opinion but don't try to make your opinions facts when your points don't factor out if you were to consider every factor. How has every OS has been able to manage making it a bullet proof OS?

All apple fanboys i know swear to their life that the macOS X is impenetable but those are just opinions... there is no such thing that an OS is hack proof. It's true Apple closes many ports/services that can be taken avantage of, where as in the Windows environment these ports/services are taken avantage of because by default it has those ports\services open/running which should be no problem to a geek.

But I ask you...
if you are in this website i would like to assume that you are pretty tech savvy but correct me if i'm wrong... if you are... then you should be able to make your windows OS (if you use one or if you were to use one) safer to any threat. The notions that Mac's are hack proof and never had a virus. If you ask me go ahead and go to Norton and look for MacOSX viruses and you are sure to find a few[http://www.symantec.com/search]. The thought that MacOS X are hack proof is foolish, because last time i check MacOS has contant updates to fix bugs/exploits/vulnerabilities ....(Go here http://www.pcmag.com/art...2/0,1759,1813926,00.asp ....) As you can see they have quite a few exploits and vulnerabilities just like windows have... same with Linux but not to the mass market(Windows).

The fact of the matter is that Hackers don't often take avantage of these exploits/vulnerabilities of MacOS X or Linux is because their malicious reasons to exploit a mass user base that MacOSX or Linux don't have. In Addition Linux Users are more tech savvy because of the complexity the OS have and yes Linux by default is safer but not hack or virus proof. If I were to hack into a MacOSX\Linux Machine it wouldn't be known to the public because overall it did not affect the mass market. Just as crimes in really bad neightborhood are not reported in the news unless they are a prominent area.

I'm not here to hate on any of the OS such as Linux or MacOSX but i hate the fact that so many people cry out loud that MacOS X\Linux are hack proof and virus proof when indeed that is only an opinion not a fact. I use Solaris and WindowsXP and I love both OS but neither are invinsible to anyone who wants to hack it.

So please don't talk out of your ars and perhaps you can say that MacOSX/Linux are not targetted as Windows is by hackers/crackers/wanna be hackers(majority of malicious hackers).

On the note of MS competing in the anti-virus software i think that it will only benefit us since these antivirus would be enhanced and improve more on their tasks. I'm sure that with MS as a competitor many Anti-Virus software firms will get their act straight and provide a top of the line product in order to compete.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 15, 2005 - 9:45 AM

I'm not talking out of my rear. I know it's absolutely possible to make Windows safe"er" than the default, that's not the point here. The point the initial poster was making is that it's not that way, and it's not until a technically capable user makes it so.

How can you all write off 30 and 40million users as not a large enough base to attack? That's 3 and 4 times the number of people in NYC, i'm sorry to dissapoint you but they are big enough targets.

Did you read to the bottom? I said that it is absolutely possible for Microsoft to have a bullet proof OS but the market won't allow it. I didn't blame them, did I?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 15, 2005 - 9:59 AM

We did not write them off... we simply point out that hundreds of millions or even billions of Windows Users outweigh the number on other platforms.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 15, 2005 - 10:01 AM

My response to that is can you imagine the press that a Linux or Mac virus would get compared to yet another Windows virus?

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 15, 2005 - 2:29 PM

Opps forgot to mention one thing on the subject of Spyware...

The biggest reason we have spyware is the same as SPAM and all other types of junk mail. Money.

Now if you want to make money you want to make the most money you can. This means going for the biggest target (not necessarily the biggest users base though). For Spyware that is Windows. As I said the majority of the users don't know how to really use Windows. They surf the net looking for warez and porn. Download music using spyware full P2P apps such as Kazaa. This makes Windows users the easy target. 50M Linux users is significant but it isn't going to get you the biggest return on investment. Remember all these people want is money. Windows users make them more money as there are more of them and they are easier to attack.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 15, 2005 - 2:24 PM

Fewt: I agree with you. 30-50M users is a significant user base. The difference, as you said yourself, is backwards compatibility. It isn't really an issue in the Linux world if an update breaks compatibility as most Linux users favor security over features. When Microsoft has backwards compatibility of 10 years and then remove support you have a huge number of users complain (probably in the 30-50M range). I have done work for mid-sized companies when migrating to XP (they skipped 2000) that had endless problems because they needed to run applications they developed for Windows 3.1! The managers didn't want to pay thousands to get the program updated so they put off upgrading to XP even longer. They waited as long as they could.

The story is different on Linux. If an update is brought out and it kills an old program it isn't a huge problem. Firstly the userbase is smaller so the number of people complaining will be smaller (probably the same percentages though). Another key factor is that Linux being open source means nearly all the applications for it are open source. So Linux Kernel Coder A updates something that will break an old application Linux App Coder A is already updating the application so a new version is available when the update is released. This is one of the major benefits of open source. People doing things because they want too not because they are making money.

On Mac OS it is slightly different however most Mac owners are very passionate about owning a Mac (as are Linux users) so they tend to support the OS themselves more. This normally means that Mac OS apps are updated pretty quickly.

Also as you have said it isn't easy to secure an OS. Microsoft are working on it, they are working very hard indeed but it is a slow process. Longhorn has a lot of changes that will cause many problems for users of older software. Something users will most likely cry about when it comes to upgrading to Longhorn. The Linux product lifecycle is much quicker than Windows which is also another advantage.

Also most users of Linux/Mac OS know how to look after their systems. At least better than most Windows users. Now this can be seen as more of a challenge for a virus writer however I don't know what drives virus writters to write virus'. Is it fame? Money? Seeing something they created have such a huge impact across the globe? If it is fame then I guess writting a virus for Linux/Mac OS would get them the most fame these days. However if it is money or impact it is Windows and only Windows. More users whos machine you can infect means more money (at least I would assume so?) and MUCH bigger impact (not to mention you also get the fame) so it is win on all 3 base there.

Also Spyware is also a huge problem. It is funny that in 4-5 years Spyware has got on par (or beaten?) virus' as the biggest problem to users.

Microsoft can't release an update that fixes all the holes that let spyware in because it would break millions (billions?) of internet based (read Internet Explorer based) applications that use the technology. Again it is the problem of security vs. features/usuability. Firefox is great but not the answer because companies will not/cannot re-write all those web applications to work with every browser. It works with IE, they have a SUS server and antivirus in place thats fine for them. Why do a rollout of an application which is difficult at best to use in an enterprise and spend loads of money to update their web apps? They have no idea if Firefox will be around in 4-5 years so it could be dead money. One of the biggest problems with OSS is that companies are worried they will just dissapear when they can't afford to pay the bills for hostinng, etc. Then the company is stuck with an application with no real development team so therefore isn't going to get updated anytime soon, at least not unless they do something about it. That is not acceptable to a company which uses this application to run their business.

Microsoft might not be great but they make the customer feel safe (its a backward statement I know :) because if you buy Microsoft you know they will still be there in 5-10 years. The same can't be said for OSS applications. This is slowly changing with some companies giving OSS cash injections and more people willing to donate though so it is not all doom and gloom.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 15, 2005 - 3:18 PM

I absolutely agree that the spyware problem Windows faces today is all about money and they are the largest target. Cross your fingers and hope that Microsoft plays that too-bad card and makes everyone buy new software.

I've worked with lots of companies that won't upgrade based on some old legacy application. What usually happens is that systems with that application are grandfathered and the upgrade proceeds on any machines that can be updated, then the grandfathered application is replaced and those systems are retired or upgraded later. You are absolutely right though that many companies can't or won't re-buy some software and well looking at it from both sides of the fence I can see valid arguments from both angles.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 11:22 PM

Posting all those numbers is a great thing, but what is your point? You don't appear to make one in your post (as usual).

Actually, it does make a point that you don't have a clue what you're talking about... at least, in terms of the "market share card" that you speak of.

But since you bring it up, let me explain (well... explain to everyone else, since you don't seem to get it):

You see, Windows does, in fact have roughly 90% of the desktop market covered with various flavors of Windows. This means one simple fact:

More Users = More Targets = More quote-unquote "Idiot Users" + More malicious quote-unquote "Hackers" (aka bad guys, even though not all hackers are bad) + More Spammers (aka other bad guys, even though there's more to malware than just spam).

Now, here's the problem with that... If you're a "Bad Guy" (of any type- "Hacker" or "Spammer"), your goal is to either annoy as many users to prove your point that their OS is "l4m3" and that you "p0wnz0rz" their "4zz".... or your goal is to turn as many PC's into spamming drones, because successful spamming = higher profits (potentially).

OK, so now we know the results and the motives... so let's look again at the targets. If you're a "bad guy", you're going to go after the "Idiot Users" because there's more of them, and therefore requires little effort on your part to accomplish your goal. Afterall, if you spend too much time on your project, you miss out on opportunity. Therefore, you want quick and easy... well, quick and easy means go after the majority.

Even though "Open Source" by its very name suggests an easy opportunity to find more holes and exploits, if there aren't enough users to be worth your time, you're not gonna go after them....

Now, let's make sure we understand reality, by reFEWTing (refuting) your claim... it's not just viruses we're talking about... it's security holes and exploits, and I'm sorry to burst your numbers bubble, but if you trust eeye and secunia, there are an awful lot more than just "600" problems in non-Microsoft software. Do we hear about those? No, not unless you are a user of those products, and the nice thing about minimal share is that only "elite" (aka knowledgeable? debatable, I realize...) users use those products, so they can more easily circumvent those issues.

Well anyway, a long explanation short, your numbers mean absolutely nothing and prove nothing... because the bottom line of your market share card is not about the numbers... it's about whether you're looking at a big target area... or just a small blip on the radar... as to whether anyone cares about you or not.

If you are a Linux user as you often claim to be, I suppose that makes you a blip on the radar... and thus insignificant to this entire question of whether Windows OneCare is going to be a good product or not. :)

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 15, 2005 - 9:42 AM

WOW, how can you write off 10s of millions of people as not a big target? LOL.

What's with the personal attacks? I'm entitled to my opinion, and I've backed it with evidence to quantify it.

Where is the proof to back up your claims that it's about a big target area?

Does this imply that the author wanted to attack the largest number of systems?

http://icnorthwales.icne...l&objectid=12547176

what about this one?

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5160493.html

Don't see anything about marketshare here.

http://www.geek.com/news...b/gee20010215004344.htm

Your argument is invalid.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited May 15, 2005 - 9:55 AM

You need to learn how to read before you post.

Not once did I "write off" 10M users as "not a big target"... claiming people said things that weren't stated is why no one accepts what you say. I just said that your "Billions of users" in the Windows group is a BIGGER target.

Pick a side to the debate... you can't argue that OS's don't have flaws AND flip sides to say they do have flaws... and you can't argue that large user bases don't equate to market share and target sizes only to turn around and argue that they do. Your numbers are fine and dandy, and they only prove my point that Windows does have a significantly larger user base than any other OS (~90% to be certain). Therefore, more users equals bigger target, equals more vulnerable to scrutiny and attack.

Yes, you ARE entitled to your opinion... and we are entitled to point out where your opinions are wrong, inaccurate, invalid, and otherwise just plain ignorant.

I'm going to say this to you one last time... if you want to join in discussion and debate, that's great... the more the merrier... but DO TRY to have a point to your posts, do READ before you post, and do pick a side that you can support with facts that don't prove your wrong.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 15, 2005 - 10:05 AM

I'm still waiting for you to quantify the statements you made claiming to be facts.

I never said they had no flaws. I said that they are more bulletproof which is absolutely true. If you re-read my original post I imply that Microsoft CAN fix their OS but that their USERS won't allow it as it will break compatability with legacy applications. I also believe that Microsoft may pull a too-bad card and do it anyway. I hope that they do, because it really is necessary to add controls to lock the OS down that will break those applications.

Could you imagine the press a Linux or Mac virus that actually propegated would get? Much much more visibility than yet another Windows virus.

;-)

Score: 0

By Neoanarchist

edited May 15, 2005 - 1:10 PM

fewt:

quan·ti·fy

1. To determine or express the quantity of.

When you say "I'm still waiting for you to quantify the statements you made..." You're saying "Im still waiting for you to express your statments in a form measurable by quantity."

Stop trying to sound smart, you're not good at it.

You've obviously lost this arguement, just stop posting.

Score: 0

By badbadman

edited May 15, 2005 - 1:35 PM

WTF, leave the guy alone f*cktard! The only person that's backing his s*** up is him!

Why the **** do you people have to attack him everytime he opens his mouth?!

Maybe I should blast all of you mother f*ckers every time you open your cake holes.

The one that was wrong was your mom that night 15 years ago that brought you to this forum.

Quantify that.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 15, 2005 - 2:31 PM

That last line brought a smile to my face :)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 17, 2005 - 12:43 PM

Wow... For those interested in how to clear a room, look no further.

Nice one.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited May 14, 2005 - 2:22 PM

Where did you get these #'s first off. Second, if MAC or Linux were hated as bad as MS (for doing a great job) then they too would be going through the virus invasions.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 14, 2005 - 3:54 PM

I made them up, well not really. Actually I low balled the numbers since XP alone has sold over 200M copies. The only number I made up was the total number of computer users worldwide. I pretty much based it on 1B users which is not that far off I don't think.

Here is Forbes reporting Microsoft selling over 210M copies of XP.

http://www.forbes.com/bu...4/05/03/rtr1356086.html

The 3% Linux marketshare number came from this:

"Market share of new and used PCs running Linux is expected to grow from 3 percent in 2003 to 7 percent in 2008."

http://news.com.com/IDC+...100-7344_3-5492399.html

Apples 4% came from here:

http://www.windowsitpro....icleID/17781/17781.html

Why I believe that there may be 1B computer users in the world.

http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0904.htm

Do you really think that out of 200M people running XP that none of them hate Linux?

Look at some of the message forums alone and I bet you would find enough hatred of Linux that would make you wonder why there aren't more viruses for non-windows platforms. ;-)

Score: 0

By px208

posted May 14, 2005 - 4:27 PM

Translated as: You are talking out your a** again.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 14, 2005 - 6:30 PM

Really? I provided lots of proof to back up every statement that I made.

You got nothin, so go away.

Score: 0

By px208

posted May 15, 2005 - 12:47 AM

I wouldnt trust your "proof" any more than I'd trust a politician. You just make stuff up out of thin air and arrogantly expect everyone to accept it is truth. Face the facts buddy boy.. yer irrelevant.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 15, 2005 - 9:11 AM

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Sorry child, I posted credible links to back up my statements.

Why don't you get out of the basement for a while and go play with the neighborhood kids.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 15, 2005 - 9:57 AM

Yes, you did post links ... but they contradict your statements because you didn't make a point to start with, and you contradict yourself with each post.

Before you accuse someone of being a child, try posting like an adult.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 15, 2005 - 9:59 AM

LOL

How did they contradict themselves?

Details please, "you contradicted yourself" all by itself is not a credible argument.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 15, 2005 - 12:27 PM

First of all, I made no statements that require quantifying, because it's not the numbers that matter. If you want evidence to support my arguments, however, read the article above as well as countless others about Microsoft from the media recently. Heck, for that matter, just pick your ears instead of your butt and open your eyes to reality of the computing industry.

"Could you imagine the press a Linux or Mac virus that actually propegated would get? Much much more visibility than yet another Windows virus."

You contradict yourself even with a statement like this... Secunia rags on Microsoft almost daily for their flaws, but do you see them publicize the latest Linux flaws like they do against Microsoft? No... they just silently publish them to their site without a word from anyone else.

All this being said, you are taking us way off topic just like you always do, so I'm done wasting effort on your attempt to get attention.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 15, 2005 - 12:55 PM

How is an exploit a virus? You still have no argument, and you have quantified nothing that you have said.

Thanks for playing though. :-)

Score: 0

By

posted May 14, 2005 - 9:27 AM

For those who aren't as tech-savvy, this might be a good idea. A lot of people I know won't trust 3rd party anti-spyware/virus software because it's not made by Microsoft. They're probably going to be cheated out of their money, but at least they'll be protected.
I imagine just about everyone who browses this site is beyond such things, however. Microsoft Antispyware is actually a decent product. AVG Antivirus 7.0, ZoneAlarm 5.something, Ad Aware, Spybot: S&D, and HijackThis are a bunch of free programs that I use, and they all work greatly.
Using Firefox isn't a bad idea either. I never see any ads or have to worry about bad iFrames or javascript thanks to the adblock function.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted May 13, 2005 - 9:13 PM

I don't use Norton or McAfee anti-virus any more! The Avast! HOME EDITION is FREE and updated almost every day. They catch far more viruses, trojans and other malware.

Combine this program with Lavasoft's AdAware and the ZoneAlarm firewall. The Three Musketeers are all free to use. Professional versions provide some extra features; so it's better to purchase those and not software programs which couldn't do the job before...

Score: 0

By LeXTeRiTY_X

posted May 13, 2005 - 7:52 PM

Norton AntiVirus used to be good, although versions after 2002 are absolute resource hogs. I'm sticking to the original 2002 Edition.

Score: 0

By lilmegz

posted May 13, 2005 - 5:41 PM

WILL ALWAYS LEAD IN THE WORLD'S MOST TRUSTED ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 1:10 PM

This post, like most of your others, demonstrates exactly the types of users that Microsoft caters to in their software development decisions! :)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 14, 2005 - 12:10 AM

Norton? Fails almost every in the wild virus thrown at it. Thank God they update it frequently!

NOD32 is by far the best AV client out there. It ain't free, but it's small footprint, low resource usage, blazingly fast scans and ability to catch viruses before they're even added to it's definitions database makes it better by the rest by leaps and bounds.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 1:13 PM

Heuristics have never caught anything in the large networks I've worked with that I didn't manually detect and remove on my own... regardless of vendor. In fact, even NetSky and MyDoom last year made mention of the fact that various heuristic scanners needed to be "better" because they weren't catching all the variants.

I'm hoping that maybe Microsoft will change this situation.

Score: 0

By VikingBlade

posted May 14, 2005 - 10:41 AM

Don't put blind faith in heuristics. All the top heuristics combined (NOD32, Dr. Web, Norman's sandbox, BitDefender's HIVE, mks_vir, F-Prot's neural networks) only detect a relatively small percentage on ITW malware. Not to mention, the more popular NOD32 is, the less useful its heuristics will be, since the malware will be tested against the AV before release. A good AV, should have good heuristics, but also a large database (NOD32 is somewhat there, Kaspersky, McAfee, and some others have larger), fast response time to outbreaks, relatively fast response to more exotic malware (only Kaspersky probably fits this bill with hourly updates irregardless), and fast response to false positives.

Score: 0

By esh3

posted May 13, 2005 - 11:09 PM

Yeah once you install Norton the only thing that works right is NORTON!!! Hoses my computer everytime I try it!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 13, 2005 - 7:08 PM

Norton?

BLEH!

Score: 0

By just-crosby

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:23 PM

Forget Norton try Trend its far better

Score: 0

By justinb

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:30 PM

i agree :) trend is sooooooooooo much better

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:03 PM

Norton is the worst you could ever use. It Hogs system resources and will crash 7 out of 10 PC's anyone that uses Norton's has mental problems if not a little retarded on the side. Microsoft will be doing a great job on releasing this.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:05 PM

Funny, symantec antivirus corp edition (provided free to the army) is a VERY sound anti-virus solution. I love it!

Score: 0

By roj

posted May 13, 2005 - 10:22 PM

I have worked extensively with SAV, in particular SAV 8 and 9.

It is an aging product with new features grafted onto a ten year old architecture.

avast! 4 Home Free offers much more comprehensive protection, takes less RAM and system resources, doesn't pollute the hell out of your Windows installation and Registry and is a far better achitectured product.

SAV 9 is offered free for home use by the organization I work for. i ditched it for avast! six months ago and will never look back.

IMO and speaking form a technical perspective, Symantec's "security" products are badly overrated and overhyped.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:14 PM

That goes right along with what I just posted.

Score: 0

By CiAUSA

posted May 13, 2005 - 7:41 PM

Which means what? Is that a crack at MetShrine or the US Army?? Norton Corp. is provided to every major university as their antivirus software and in my testing on those campuses it works just fine. Norton is a burden on some of my older machines though. I guess Norton is just another big company that you love to hate.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 13, 2005 - 8:17 PM

Yeah, any time a company makes it big, people start to whine and call their products bloatware, its the same with ANY software manufacturer. Once they get big and start adding features the users want, they call it bloatware. And if that was a crack at me, it wasnt a very good one, because it made very little sense

Score: 0

By CiAUSA

posted May 13, 2005 - 9:05 PM

Score: 0

By CiAUSA

posted May 13, 2005 - 9:04 PM

Love the posters that hate "newbies" and "monopolies". Most of you experts were/are newbies in one field or another and most of the monopolies were small start ups that made it through a lot to get to be so hated. I guess the anti-establisment exists in the geeked kingdom of computers too... rodney king once said " can't we all just get along?" Oh MetShrine; all my respect to the military but sorry to say the Mets really suck :)

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 14, 2005 - 9:35 AM

Too bad my name has nothing to do with any sports team. I suggest you try googling it :-P

Score: 0

By CiAUSA

posted May 13, 2005 - 9:04 PM

Love the posters that hate "newbies" and "monopolies". Most of you experts were/are newbies in one field or another and most of the monopolies were small start ups that made it through a lot to get to be so hated. I guess the anti-establisment exists in the geeked kingdom of computers too... rodney king once said " can't we all just get along?" Oh MetShrine; all my respect to the military but sorry to say the Mets really suck :)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 14, 2005 - 12:14 AM

Come on.... It's a monopolies nature to stagnate and stifle innovation. Name one Monopoly that has a good business reputation and is continuing to inovate and produce tech years ahead of it's time?

Leave Monopolies to the thoughtless masses. The true pioneers of tech are the start-ups and the little-knowns.

Score: 0

By javip

posted Jul 30, 2005 - 12:42 AM

i know these comments are from a couple of months ago.. but lol phoenixpath
so what should those start-ups and little-knowns do once they become big.. dismantle and start again?
lol
how bout google.. i guess they should stop and start again with their near monopoly on search.. it's stifling innovation =)
lol

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted May 13, 2005 - 4:44 PM

Who knows, this might actually force other people to make their virus programs better and cheaper to even get people to look twice now.

Or maybe alot of those companies who develop anti-virus software will revolt against Microsoft like all the others before it? More whining you can expect for sure.

That, then the EU will want a copy that comes without the anti-virus protection and Microsoft will call it "Windows Un-Protected" then they will complain about the name being no good because it makes it look "un-attractive"?!

All this madness. Nothing but a bunch of haters out there.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted May 14, 2005 - 2:49 AM

hmmmm... I am glad they are offering this as a subscription service. Havivg all that lobbed in most new computer buyers' laps will just increase the calls to tech support. Microsoft has a bad habit of spoiling everythiung they touch and I forsee this being no different.
I prefer to see what all is out there and make my own informed decesion as do most who visit here. We wont be taken in by a substandard protection. Unfortunately every day more and more new pc users get pcs and they only know what's in front of them

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 13, 2005 - 7:11 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if it was blocked. This would be a new market for Microsoft so they may not legally be allowed to release it due to their monopoly status.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 13, 2005 - 6:04 PM

BAH hahahaha, however you are right.

Score: 0

By MSUser

edited May 13, 2005 - 2:18 PM

I'm not convinced that MS will provide a good solution. In support of that suspicion, I point to its "beta" AntiSpyware product which will define a file as malware based simply upon a filename and nothing else at all! And here's how to prove it.

Paste the following text into a Notepad document and save it as "C:\{Windir}\MyBlankPage.html" (where {Windir} is the location where Windows was installed into, usually "Windows" or "Winnt").

[HTML]
[HEAD]
[TITLE][/TITLE]
[/HEAD]
[BODY]
[H1]My Blanked Page[/H1]
[/BODY]
[/HTML]

Replace all left-bracket "[" chars with the less-than char (the shifted character above the "," comma keyboard key), and all right-bracket "]" chars with the greater-than char (the shifted character above the "." period keyboard key) in the above; I had to use [ and ] as substitutes because the wanted ones would not otherwise easily display in this messageboard.

Does that look like malware to you? I assure you it is not malware by any stretch of the imagination!

Now go into Internet Explorer, click on File and then on Open and then navigate to that saved document. You'll see that it opens up to a blank page with only the text "My Blanked Page" displayed. To make that your "home page", click Tools and then click Internet Options and then click the Use Current button.

Now, run any antivirus or antimalware product that you wish, with the exception of Microsoft AntiSpyware absolutely NONE of them will detect that file as a virus or other type of malware. Now at this posting this is many months later since AntiSpyware first went to beta and it STILL detects false positives based ONLY upon a filename! How potentially destructive could that "accidently" be, and how much trust does that earn MS?

Score: 0

By RLD612

posted May 13, 2005 - 3:32 PM

It's not detected by MSAS as spyware on the 10 machines that I have tried it on. It simply asks you if you want to allow the homepage to be changed from your current homepage to that one. Which is good since many hijackers, etc. attempt to change your homepage along with $crewing with your TCP/IP and winsock. Microsoft changed very little if anything when they bought Giant. Even the exe's are the same. Do a little research before you post.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 14, 2005 - 1:18 PM

Exactly right!

People--- You really should spend more time READING dialogs that are presented, rather than just clicking OK, CANCEL, YES, OR NO and making assumptions about what you're doing.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 15, 2005 - 2:34 PM

Very true. Users just clicking Yes to get rid of a dialog box is one of the reasons Spyware has become such a problem.

Score: 0

By jonspencerbx

posted May 13, 2005 - 12:58 PM

IMHO antivirus protection should be build into the OS. I don't want to pay for a program that cleans my sytem, while the system should not have been infected in the first place. This should be a default security layer in the OS. Not something you have to pay for. The same goes for a decent firewall.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted May 14, 2005 - 12:37 AM

That will NEVER happen because of our beloved anti-monopoly sentiments. Microsoft got railroaded for IE. Integrating AV software would be political suicide if nothing else.

Anyway... it's a bad idea to include that in the OS. Because then everyone has the exact same protection. All it would take is one hacker to find one vulnerability and everyone's out of business. Not a good idea at all.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

edited May 14, 2005 - 9:36 AM

This wont happen, I think MS has learned their lesson in building stuff into the OS (although almost any other os still builds stuff in, but i guess they arent as big of a threat as MS is to their business, hence why no one whines about linx distros, mac osx, or any other OS bundling junk with their os).

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 13, 2005 - 12:43 PM

It's about time Microsoft releases this!

And I think it's a great idea... those of us who have spent the past decade or longer fixing people's computers have done exactly the same thing--- charge customers to do the maintenance and protective services that they could do themselves if the customer spent 5 minutes of their precious time to learn how.

Microsoft will charge a fee for a program that is essentialy their souped up equivalent of Norton SystemWorks that takes the effort out of maintaining their PC. I saw one article about this where the product manager said it was being marketed at the "JiffyLube" customers who are more than happy to let someone else do the nitty gritty work for them.

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted May 13, 2005 - 12:41 PM

Man.....they need to ban "regular joe's" from using a computer. I miss the days when we were just a few geeks messing with computers. Now every idiot thinks they should be able to use a PC with no training at all. And then they get all upset when they get infected with viruses and spyware. Waaa Waaa....poor baby.

Get a grip. Keep things difficult. You can't just go replumbing your house without training. You can't fix your car without training. Why should you be able to do the same with a computer.

Idiot users.....go away. Computers were fine before you started buying them.

Score: 0

By dex23462

posted May 13, 2005 - 10:17 PM

Does this line of reasoning mean you shouldn't be allowed to drive unless you're a certified mechanic or allowed to eat unless you're a gourmet chef?

Score: 0

By CiAUSA

posted May 13, 2005 - 4:55 PM

Your tirade is so funny... you made me smile; then puke. To reason that "normal joe's" shouldn't use computers would definitely put millions of us out on the streets without a job...online banking, retail, etc... all possible because these regulars are using them all the time. No offense but I think that the new breed of kids knew more about computers than you did at their age. I think it's more about you hanging on to the old geek days when we built our own systems and had a little group of nerds that could giggle because we were different...move on; Dungeons and Dragons and the 70's are long gone...

Score: 0

By psychoactive1

posted May 13, 2005 - 1:39 PM

Just close your eyes, click your heels three times, repeating "there's place like home...".

There will always be a place and need for us good ol' geeks LOL.

Score: 0

By GeorgeSantayana

edited May 13, 2005 - 1:26 PM

As disappointing as it may be to geeks, computers show ever sign, even by the admission of Gates and Jobs, of becoming a common appliance. I predict that not so long from now computers will be about as interesting (boring) as TVs and DVD players.

Score: 0

By binu

posted May 13, 2005 - 1:04 PM

computers were fine before people started writing apps to exploit the vulnerabilities...

Score: 0

By DigiBrian

posted May 13, 2005 - 12:47 PM

"You too my friend, was once a regular Joe"

Besides that I think it makes sense that MS would do this, but they already demand enough money for Windows, so they should integrate in windows and give it for free.

A Regular Joe

Score: 0

By athome

posted May 13, 2005 - 1:22 PM

I agree 100%.

The funny thing is too, that if MS plugged every hole and locked down their OS, we wouldn't buy it or like it. There would be no cool games or business applications other than what was developed by them. Even the machines would have to be built or supervised by them to keep their system safe.

That would suck. So we give up some to get some. This could be one place that they could give up some though. Give it free.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 13, 2005 - 12:45 PM

You know, I would agree with you on account of the fact that idiots and hypocrites tick me off, but.... then I stop to remember that without the idiots, I wouldn't have a job...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited May 13, 2005 - 12:22 PM

...you're gonna have the EU ban you from existance , and competitors are gonna sue you because they aren't smart enough to make a decent AV to begin with and rely on making crappy products so bad you have to update them (and pay for "enhanced protection" every year.) Hypocrites! Nobody using Symantec or Mcafee should ever point at MS and complain about having to buy a new Windows version every two years when they must pay to update their AV at least once a year! You guys need a wake-up call, and here it is.

God forbid we actually stop viruses from being a major threat. Who would make money? I personally don't care who does it, just want less virus problems, and MS to me seems the most capable of doing it.

Sorry that I'm so upset in this post, but I'm tired of "business hypocrites" who blame MS for their own stupidity and sue them because 'it's not fair' and 'poor wittle me'. Waahh! Waahh! Somebody call the Waahmbulence! (I really love that line)

And if you couldn't tell from my post already, I think it's a great move. Now that I'm finished venting I will try to make more intelligent posts, sorry if you're offended :)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted May 14, 2005 - 12:43 AM

*applause* rofl

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 13, 2005 - 3:05 PM

Seconded!

Score: 0