OK I read some of the comments and read some of the online revies of this. And I have a few things to say..

Well first off.. Microsoft has worked with thier partners for years. Now all the sudden they wanna take over all the other markets to destroy them as they did with alot of others.

Then instead of FIXING the security holes that are found allmost everyday by the community of users of said product. Now, instead of working with thier partners to better detect these false positives and other programs, they just let all these bugs run rampent. So that programmers have to use special machines without all this stuff or AVG or the like will call them viruses, and subsequently remove or deny access to these files that aren't even viruses to begin with!.

So let me get this straight.. Microsoft, Makes a product,rushes it through testing, puts it out with bugs that they know are there, then tries to fix them with 500 updates on windowsupdate, then when they finally got more of the problems worked out, they try and tackle the other programs that are used to protect other people from taking adavantage of these SAME security holes..

And instead of putting this suite of programs on the net for free, as a thank you for all it's users being so loyal to windows, they charge 50 dollars a year or so to give you a program that will protect your computer from the security holes that they can't even fix.

I am sorry for being critical of Microsoft, but I have seen all the destruction that they have done to the tech community. In my opinion, they have set back the developement of better programs then windows can offer. They squashed Lindows, they continualy act like pirates conquering the tech world. They had a bird when they couldn't do anything about Linux being a opensource medium. And now they want to get thier hands into other markets!? TRY FIXING THE PROBLEMS U HAVE WITH YOUR OS'S NOW, instead of comming up with other crap that thier is allready a market for.

The only good thing, I have seen so far is that Windows VISTA, has been tested and re-tested, over and over, tons of builds.. they even pushed back the release date. Personally I think they knew it wasn't ready. From the reviews I have read, and the MSDN posts and all.. They are finally listening to the useres..

So, I would just like to say, that Microsoft should stick to one thing it does best. Make a OS that the customer can use "right out of the box", and not have all the problems. Hell Macs have allmost no viruses made for them. WHY?? DO macs have a force shield around it? You have seen the ads.. No, they just do thier job right, and make it harder for the hackers to find any security flaws in their product before a release..

And you have to get it that Microsoft has more of the OS market share then Mac. So, why can't they use more of that money to get it right the first time?

Ponder on this.. thanks.

"Macs have allmost no viruses made for them. WHY??"

Because MACS are nowhere near as widely owned as Windows machines. This is why Windows is the most popular OS to aim a virus at. If MACS were the most popular desktop machine instead, you would see the exact reverse of what it is now.

You sound like an idiot, you proof nothing except bashing Windows in favor of Mac.

Mac has as much security problems as Windows, only reason Windows draw attention is that has 90%+ the market, while Mac got a merely 3%. Here is a million dollars question for you, with both systems have that many problem why is Windows with 90%+ and Mac only has 3%?

If Mac is such as perfect OS, why is there so many revision (Service Pack)of this OS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_history

Somebody mentioned that they didn't think AVG was any good. However, I have it and I really like it. What's more, it is pretty accessible withmy screen reader. I also have the beta of Windows Defender from Microsoft. It is quite accessible with my scree reader except for one thing. When I first downloaded and attempted to install Windows Defender, there were some buttons which my screen reader did not catch. Therefore, I had to have someone click on them for me since I can only see light and dark. But other than that, Windows Defender is accessible and does a very good job. BTW, I was not trying to offend anyone when I said that AVG is good. That is only my opinion.

AVG serves a purpose and a good one at that. I don't rate it as the best antivirus in the world, but it's free, and not everyone has a lot of money to spend on software. Also, any antivirus is better than NO antivirus.

This sounds great. However, I don't have enough money right now to make many big purchases, but I think this will be well worth the money so I will see what I can do. The other thing that is keeping screen reader users like myself from buying these new programs, is the lack of accessibility of such programs. But I have seen an improvement in this regard. I think Microsoft and Adobe, for example, have done an outstanding job complying with accessibility standards.

Kaspersky Labs won't be worried. Their definitions own all AV's.

Symantec, on the other hand, should be worried. Their integration with windows is horrible, as is there product.

That's a big maybe. I believe Symantec get most of their profit from big corporation. I worked for 2 big banks, and they both use NAV.

The problem here is:

Viruses exploit security holes, antivirus does not solve anything.

While it is understandable that antivirus tools are provided by third party, here the polluter charges for the cure instead of stopping the pollution i.e. patching the security issues.

Brilliant input.

I have been using this for quite sometime now, I was also a beta tester of it before its debut.
I used to use use Norton, McAfee, ZoneAlarm and I must say for the price and its ease of use, its really good and well worth having it.

--Comment removed--

sorry, posted in wrong section :)

Unless this is much better than what they've shown us so far, I wouldn't pay for it. I have excellent protection now, and it doesn't cause me any trouble. Some of the earlier versions of ZoneAlarm caused problems, but not for some time now.

I am using MS Castle, and I used MS antispyware earlier. Never once in all the time I used it did it ever catch any spyware. I often found minor spyware using Spybot and AdAware, but the MS Spyware never saw any of it.

So, why should I pay for an inferior product?

first off, spyware by one company may not be considered spyware by another product. I have a download manager, that counterspy believes is spyware, because at one time they included gator, and now that company has forever flagged it as spyware. I know for a fact, its not, but I contacted counterspy, and they won't "white list" the product, because they said "It was deemed spyware at one time, and their policy is that a product can't be trusted once its flagged".

So 1 spyware program out of dozens, considers that one program spyware, which its really not. That's called a false positive.

Secondly, spybot isn't as good as other spyware products, so you are using an inferior product already. Ad-aware is good, if you have the pro version (because you can scan from command line switches, and its faster).

So its all relative. YOU like spybot, but I happen to think its inferior. You don't like this product, but this product is better than the avg anti-spyware product.

Third, this is America. If you don't like something, feel free to NOT use it. Its very simple. You don't have to pay for it, but don't simply dismiss it as inferior because it didn't work for you. That's why there are so many OTHER choices for you to pick from.

Amusing that you don't bother to mention the fact that the "minor" spyware objects the two freebies are detecting are usually "tracking cookies" which Microsoft has deemed insignificant since simply clearing your browser cache removes those.

Indeed, and incidentally, the most senisble post you've made today.

You are correct...this IS America -- where we are FREE to DISMISS anything as INFERIOR for any reason WHATSOEVER.

In fact, Windows users who purchase this are INFERIOR for not seeing the obvious conflict of interest.

spyware by one company may not be considered spyware by another product

Translation: Now that Microsoft have started selling ads, you can bet they won't flag anything that disrupts their secondary revenue stream.

i will test it, and pretty sure that this suite after sometime will be N1 on most PC rusnning on Windows, despite Kaspersky, Panda, Norton, Mcafee etc efforts...

Given how long it typically takes MS to (a) acknowledge and (b) react to reported vulnerabilities, especially compared to third-parties who react much quicker, why on Earth would I opt for a solution like this? That's like asking a burglar to help you arrange your house. I don't care about flaws in other products or OS's, MS is the slowest to respond to widely-reported problems. Fixes from other companies usually surface days or weeks ahead of MS's. I don't see the value in this at all.

For sake of accuracy, I would like to point out the following:

1) Microsoft used to produce security updates immediately upon availability. They used to be very quick about it. However, over time customers (mainly corporations) were overwhelmed by the releases and insisted on having more time. It is for that reason alone that they s***ed to the monthly update cycle that infuriates so many of us. They are slow by customer demand, not by inability to respond. Granted, I will agree that I feel they should be released ASAP, but then again I'd also rather give them time to make sure the fix will do what it says.

2) In terms of OneCare's AV and Defender components, they release updates quite frequently... as often as daily in most cases, so again, the response issue just isn't a factor.

3) Actually, statistically, Oracle and Sun are among the slowest companies to respond to issues.

Edit: That said, I agree that the monthly cycle is no longer suitable. I have always believed in releasing them when ready. Afterall, businesses can make use of WSUS now, so they can deploy updates when they want and let the rest of us move on.

I would like to correct that corrected accuracy for further clarification.

*1) Microsoft used to produce security updates immediately upon availability. They used to be very quick about it. However, over time customers (mainly corporations) were overwhelmed by the releases and insisted on having more time. It is for that reason alone that they s***ed to the monthly update cycle that infuriates so many of us. They are slow by customer demand, not by inability to respond. Granted, I will agree that I feel they should be released ASAP, but then again I'd also rather give them time to make sure the fix will do what it says.*

- MS STILL is quick about updates, they are not broadcast to the whole world. They are available to MSDN subscribers, for testing. They are available on the MS website, if you look around you can see them BUT only Once they have been TESTED. That's the key. They have not slowed, in fact they are actually faster, but at the same time (so many people are lacking in that people don't realize ALL the products that are updated on a daily basis) for ALL their products. They have multiple daily builds of Vista, Server Beta products, SQL, Programming tools, SP, patches, games.. you don't realize what you are saying. Look at the MS product offerings and you tell me you can keep up with their product line, but customers are notified by SP, its called "windows update"! People (once again, I keep saying this but no one seems to care, but its the truth) *PEOPLE* are the damn problem, NOT Microsoft. Microsoft gives you ALL the tools you need, but if you don't use them, how are they supposed to help you?

If you notice, the windows update has a place for beta updates.. as well. There are plenty of websites, dedicated for EACH product, Office has a website, XP, Server, 2003, VB, etc.. they ALL have websites.

Use the tools. Technet, MSDN, support.microsoft.com. Its all education. MS has everything you need on their website, people are not looking for them, but they are there!

The update cycle was done (it was once every 3 months by DVD) now its monthly, but that only applies to CD (if you want to WAIT that's fine) but you don't *NEED* to wait, download them, they are available several times a day, on their website.

LOOK FOR THEM. You can't complain, when you dont' spend the time to actually help yourself.

Its infuriating to YOU because obviously you are not keeping up with their regular help and newsletter updates. ITs ON the CD (upcoming changes, schedules, website updates, beta offerings, where to find patches...) READ READ READ! Its there.

Look at the documentation, if they spend as much time sending out flyers and newsletters and emails as they do putting the documentation for you to READ, they would never get anything done. Its not their job to hand hold and lead you to the water, for christ sake, DO SOMETHING for YOURSELF!

They give you to the tools, they are ALL there.

*LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK* *LOOK*

*2) In terms of OneCare's AV and Defender components, they release updates quite frequently... as often as daily in most cases, so again, the response issue just isn't a factor.*

So they manage to keep up with this update, because you are ACTIVELY involved in the BETA. ALL their products are handled the same way. They have thousands of employees that are dedicated to different products. There isn't one central team that does everything, each team has a development staff, technical writers, beta test group, and a FULL time support staff. You are public beta, which gives you a chance to tweak the software or give feedback. If you don't respond or interact, how are they supposed to know to fix stuff?

the BIGGEST complaint at Microsoft, is that people (once AGAIN - PEOPLE are the PROBLEM -) like to b**** about stuff MS ISN'T doing, but does anyone bother to write and TELL them?

NO!!!!!!! And why is that? Because people like to b**** and whine, and slam Microsoft rather than HELP the situation, THAT's what's going on.

rijp ,do you work for mirosoft?

If he did, I would hope that he would at least use correct information for a change.

RIJP---

We've been on this site a very long time, so you know by now that I do not spout off nonsense for the sake of doing so, and that I support and use just about everything Microsoft pushes out the door. Do not EVER assume to know what tools I use or do not use.

For all your ranting and raving in your post, I should point out that releasing TEST UPDATES to a private (and expensive!) group of people [MSDN/Technet] versus releasing finalized updates to the world are completely different things. The rest of us, had you bothered to read before ranting, were discussing finalized, production worthy updates... not updates that can potentially break a system.

I've always had "Beta Updates" enabled, and yet I've never EVER seen any updates appear on the list despite my testing of numerous products. I defy you to list even a single item that has ever appeared there... and you better believe I am anal retentive about checking that site DAILY.

As I said, you are making a lot of ignorant assumptions again about what I [and others here] do and don't do, and quite frankly, the more I read of this post the more you are P***ING ME OFF. Most of the time I just try to voice valid comments about the article and point out the major flaws in people's rants for sake of being factual, but this post of yours is beyond incompetent.

As a matter of fact, I *DO* keep track of monthly updates because as I've said, it's my job to do so where I work. I have pretty much every Microsoft product team's blogs feeding into my RSS feeder multiple times a day, and I actually take time to read each and every post.

So... If you are going to continue "supporting" Microsoft as you do, that's great and it's encouraged.... but you need to learn how to follow your own advice and LOOK AND READ before you post. Even I am getting fed up with your incessant ranting about things that you're usually wrong about!

Edit: Fixed a few spelling errors.

mancub, why do people who support a company always get asked if they work for the company? Can't a person just LIKE something and be supportive rather than instantly jumping on a criticism bandwagon? :)

Man, I am a long-time MSDN member and have access to more than I can admit to here. I still say it's like asking Ford to manage recalls instead of a third-party. I don't care how much you say "LOOK LOOK LOOK" (as if once wasn't enough), it's fine for you, not for me. End of story.

Probably because of things like viral marketing techniques in which certain companies have been known to pay to have people go onto websites, forums and blogs and spew/flame about certain products or competitors. nVida, Microsoft and Stardock are all well-known customers of viral marketing firms. With the transition to a kinder, gentler Microsoft...where the developers let everyone in and see a little piece of their world with their oh-so-honest market-drivel-strewn blogs, it's probably a given that Microsoft has some of their lemmings out en-masse blanketing every site they come across with glowing praise for their kludgy crap.

Don't believe me?

http://www.aeginfo.com/clients.shtml

So next time you read some "fanboy" with glowing praise for some product, take it with a grain of salt. He might be getting PAID to be a fanboy.

So then it is simple. Those that are in this forum only work for one of two companies - Microsoft or Mozilla(or would it be Linux Corp)

The bulk of MS's patches come out on the Second Tuesday of each Month (ie: patch Tuesday). Every once in a while, a patch will come out that is important enogh that they will release one out of the normal order. (The big one that comes to mind is the WMF patch in January, that by-the-way Microsoft only decided to release early because they recieved alot of negative feedback when they were going to release it on the normal schedual of the second tuesday in January.) The do this every once in while when something seems to be deemed higher than critical. Otherwise, Production ready patches for thier main software lines are released on Patch Tuesday. (This doesn't include Anti-virus defs which obviously should be released as soon as they are tested.) I know that Microsoft has thier internal test group, there external test group (DOD has a contract that allows them to get the test patches long before the public even knows a patch is being worked on) and then the public group that if you know where to look, you can get some of the patches that are release a little early, but not really advertised (don't know if that is the right word for it) until the big release on patch tuesday.

I personally like the once a month thing for your normal patches, as long as the big one's (ie: WMF) are released early. With all the hats I wear at work, there is no way I could keep up with the hodge podge of updates and patches that would be released otherwise. I'm really glad that they finally combined the windows and office patches to one page. And yes, I am a faithful user of WSUS. I also get more newsletters from microsoft than I know what to do with. As for the MSDN and Technet, I subscribe to the free versions and try to get out of them what I can. I'm still trying to convince the little 2 branch bank where I work that a subscription would be worthwhile.

Ok, sorry for my jumbled rant, It's 2 A.M. and I should probably go to sleep. If I get a chance, I'll try to clead this up a little bit later.

In the past many years since I noticed and enabled the "Beta Updates", I think I've seen 1 or 2 beta updats, and they were some sort of video driver that there was no way that I was going to put on my system. For all I can remember, that was probably when I was testing the beta for the current Windows Update. :-)

For what it's worth, I enjoy most of your coments, even if I don't always agree with them. I too, get most of the blogs and newsletters, as it is also my job, but with everything going on, I have a hard time keeping up with it all, and usually skim things for what looks important. That is why I like the monthly patch updates, and set aside the wednesday following patch tuesday to watch the webcast from Microsoft and SANS to see what is going on.

Incedently, I understand that Adobe is looking into moving into a monthly update cycle, what with all the programs they have now, and others are thinking of following suit.

Why would I buy an "tuning tool" from Microsoft? LOL
Does that make any sense?
Why they didn't include that piece of software in SP2 for example?
Oh, now I get it !! I have to pay again for something that will make my OS work better and faster. Like it was supposed to work in the first place.
The antivirus software is a nice touch though. I already fell protected, don't you people?

Grow up! It's not MS'es fault that hacker work day and night to screw you over. You have anti virus scanners for all OSes!

Why they didn't include that piece of software in SP2 for example?

Lawsuits.

MS can't bundle a damned thing nowadays without getting slammed.

LOL.

Truer words were never written.

I'd like to cite an early example. IE. Bundled with 95. We ALL remember that, that was a CUSTOMER driven request. And MS STILL got slammed by people and Netscape (where are they now?) complained and screamed "foul".

This was back when modems were slow, who the hell wants to wait 2 hours to download a browser, I ask you? Today its not a problem, but back then.. ok, don't get me started.

Why would you buy it? Well, the same reason you'd buy Norton SystemWorks or anything else that claims to make something better than it is. Perhaps because you are actually interested in improving your experience somehow. Can you get cheaper alternatives? Sure! But then again, you do get what you pay for more often than not...

I think PC_Tool and other responses in this have already answered the whole included in SP2 question.

You do, I hope, realize that OneCare is a tool to simplify protecting your computer investment... if you have alternative means, go for it... but some people like the convenience... some people appreciate being led by the hand and are willing to pay for the service.

Netscape made two mistakes--

1) They released 4.x as a complete piece of garbage. It was huge, and it was slow. That's not just opinion, it's fact. People who rant about slow load times don't know slow until they've run Netscape 4.x. Additionally, it ate a ton of disk space when disk space was still a premium. It bundled way too many "tools" that were bloated and buggy, and they released full-install "updates"/re-releases multiple times a week until they hit 4.76 for a version and gave up.

2) They later sold their soul to AOL... from there, well... 7.x, 8.x... need I say more?

And as you said-- they blame Microsoft, lol, go figure!

I am not a One Care fan, but I beta tested it and at the price and the ability to share it with two other computers and it has a great quality, I would place it much higher than McAfee and Symantec. I really feel that MS has done the right thing here. As most of you know I am neither for nor against MS, but I am glad they have taken a stand for a change! Good for you MS. I know I rarely recommend a product, but I would have to recommend this to normal home users! I would not recommend this for an advanced user or a gamer.

With a history of vulnerabilities to hackers and viruses I would opt to stick with Symantec or McAffe. Although they have their own weaknesses Microsoft's***ory makes them look minor. MS needs to work on their rep. My personal opinion.

Symantec's solution has just as many, if not more flaws, and McAfee's suite isn't a showstopper either. In fact the consumer product "Norton Internet Security Suite" is now so bloated and cumbersome it's often far more crippling and damaging to a system than the viruses and malware it is trying to prevent. I would rather run with no protection than use Norton.

At least the Microsoft solution has some reasonable anti-spyware capabilities, and although intensive, isn't the same system-killer from Symantec.

I personally HATE Mcafee and Symantec. I tell all my clients to take it off and use a free antivirus like Avast or if they want a pay use CA or Trend Micro. Macafee and Symantec just eat up resourses and I've had to reinstall windows on a couple systems because of blue screen from their junk. Maybe Symantecs business software is ok, but their home stuff I stay from.

I think this is absolute a travesty. We buy an operating system full of bug and holes, now they want to sell software to do what they should have done in the first place. No excuse for such a screw up. I for one, will not but any additional software from Microsoft.

You have the right to purchase any software that you feel will suit your interests and your needs. However, the argument you make against Microsoft's efforts is foolish and even somewhat ignorant.

Last time I checked the headlines, even Symantec's products are "full of bug[s] and holes" as you so put it. In fact, every significant piece of software developed has bugs and holes of some sort or another. For that matter, a lot of people jokingly (or seriously) refer to any software from certain vendors as bugs (consider AOL, haha).

That said, you make the point of how Microsoft should be offering this in the first place. Actually, they did. MS-DOS 5.x, 6.x, and Windows 3.x all had Antivirus utilities offered. They were forced to remove them by antivirus vendors of the period for antitrust violations (or at least, fears of them, nevermind the resources needed at the time to devote to the effort).

I happen to agree, because I think they should offer a lot of these tools for free. However, the more they add, the more they are criticized by others who can't compete fairly by merit and have to resort to law suits.

No offence, but Linux updates and fixes bugs almost weekly, you can't really say MS is that bad, however they are slower, but they do want to make sure that it works on most PC's and they do have a larger user base.

Anti-trust suits will come knocking at their door the minute they bundle it with their OS for free. You should know better.

Yes, I agree with most of your points, I just think that people need to be a little more open minded. I am not perfect nor do I expect anyone to be, I just expect people to look at more than one side.

RIGHT ON!! BROTHER/SISTER, RIGHT ON!!!

Can I get an "amen"...

*No offence, but Linux updates and fixes bugs almost weekly*

ah here again, we listen to the public OPINION. Microsoft, actually releases fixes/bugs DAILY. Sometimes many fixes in ONE day.

*MS is that bad, however they are slower*

They are slower, in what regard? The fact that you don't see a daily post-it that says "hey we released a patch today, come get it?".

IRS makes changes to their tax code DAILY, but you don't see announcements by them do you? If you were a Tax Attorney you would KNOW what they were, but since you aren't you dont' care.

If you were interested in keeping up with Microsoft, or if you are in the know with MS technical advisories, then you would KNOW how to find their updates.

There is a difference between the avg user, and IT techs. "REAL" IT techs KNOW how to get updates.. and they are EASY to find..

You can't cut out words to change the meaning! You are just trolling.
Oh and BTW, MS uses MONTHLY updates for almost all patches and updates, not daily. You are years out of the loop here. As for Linux updating, how can you call a well know FACT an opinion? And it clearly states in my post "you can't really say MS is that bad," you left out the "you can't really say" part to try and twist my words. I get the damn mailing from MS weekly about the downloads, but you really should learn to read what they have in them, Mr. "REAL IT TECH" that is 17 years old and has worked in the computer field for 25 years.

The last "updates" I saw were on the 9th, not including some stuff with Windows Genuine Advantage recently. I'm not sure what you're smoking today to think that finalized, production-ready updates are released daily, unless of course you're referring to OneCare specifically, in which case you're more or less right.

It doesn't mean a hill of beans if you're an average John Doe or Super IT-Man... updates are easy to get-- it's called Windows Updates or Automatic Updates. Or it's called http://www.microsoft.com/security/ so I'm not sure what the heck the last part of your rant is all about.

I’m just curious, and I don’t mean any offence by this, But I am an IT Administrator “in the know”. I get tons of daily and weekly advisories on things they are working on, and beta updates and downloads. But very seldom do I see daily production ready updates or patches except on Patch Tuesday. Yes they have put out a few 0-day exploit patches, but this is not the norm. If I am wrong about this, and they are putting out daily PRODUCTION READY PATCHES, please post some links and back this up. I’ve only been I’ve only been working with Microsoft Products since the late ‘80s, so I probably haven’t had time to peruse their site and find everything. This is my job, I am a 'REAL" IT tech, "IN THE KNOW" and if there is a place where I can be better informed, I would like to know so I can do my job better.

I apologize for any un-intended sarcasm and again I don’t mean any offence, but wanted to get my point across about the production ready patches. (This doesn’t include anti-virus updates which are not on a schedule or game patches which as far as I know, are not available on a regular schedule)

I tested Windows OneLive beta for Microsoft. No offense, but the antivirus tool is a joke.

Could you be more specific? Why do you think so? Do you have some specific evidence to back up your statement, or are you just spouting opinion?

Not particularily, I had tested it half a year ago and enjoyed it for the most part. The virus scanner worked fine, and the firewall was pretty good. Nothing i'd write home about though.

One thing that has me wondering is the fact the new firewall implemented in OneCare reminds me of Windows Firewall with outbound protection. Since Microsoft is alreadying adding outbound protection with Vista, and you can get more configurable free outbound firewalls like Kerio or Zone Alarm...why is this feature going to be so costly to the consumer?

Alright, so the firewall isn't really worth the price of admission. What about the fact Window's Defender is going to be free? I love that it's free, but i'd rather just pick up Windows Defender and grab Avast and Kerio and looky, I have myself permanent security.

So I think people are really just paying for a shiny interface with a capable antivirus. It's a good program, but if they shorten it by $20 then it'll really tap the mainstream. For now i'll wait and see what Mcafee and Symantec are going to bring to the table.

It has had out bound protection from day one! It blocks everything! Until you let a program through, it will block it! I am not sure you beta tested it, or if you are just lying. One of the biggest things we b****ed about is that it would block and deny and not just put it on "hold". I am about 99% sure you did not test it and are just BSing!

That's contrary to what I've read on numerous sites. I use a different firewall, but from what I've read the Windows Firewall (in SP2) only blocks incoming traffic.

http://news.com.com/Micr...100-7355_3-6065797.html
http://www.microsoft.com...ain/sp2netwk.mspx#EQSAE
http://www.checkpoint.co...e/comparison_chart.html
http://weblog.infoworld....02/microsoft_windo.html

That's all I'm going to put, but there are a lot more links if you do a good search.

I am talking about the firewall in Windows One Care. Not SP2's or Vista's firewalls.
Anyone that tested WOC is able to tell you that the firewall would block everything until you let it.

If you are referring to me, i'm curious about what you're sputtering about

"One thing that has me wondering is the fact the new firewall implemented in OneCare reminds me of Windows Firewall with outbound protection"

I said that OneCare has outbound protection. It just reminded me of Windows Firewall. The ONLY difference what that OneCare HAS outbound protection. See? Seeeee? Nevermind.

I think it was just a misunderstanding on that one... he's usually pretty good about paying attention. :)

Just in case some aren't aware of it. If you are a RoadRunner customer, you can get Etrust's complete security suite for free, which includes ZoneAlarm.

Much better than paying for this stuff made by Microsoft.

The E-trust version of that suite includes a very crippled Zone Alarm though. But I guess it's comparable to ZA Free, and would also be comparable to the MS solution.

"But I question the method, of competing with longstanding and loyal partners like McAfee and Symantec, as the best approach. Increased Microsoft competition is a growing problem for the company's development partners."

I found this comment funny. Isn't Symantec sued MS just recently?

That is correct. Symantec is suing MS for breach of trust regarding intellectual property rights relating to antivirus protection and scanning.

Well, you're part right. It had NOTHING to do with antivirus protection whatsoever.

It was regarding data storage/management technology that Symantec acquired when they bought another company.

Well, seeing how McAfee and Symantec are and have been going WAY WAY WAY down hill for years now, MS needed to come up with a WORKING product. Neither Sym nor McA have that so it's good business for them to do that.

My bad. You are indeed correct.

I'm sorry it's the Micrisoft behemoth again, but I am that home PC user who wants things to be easier and understandable. I have had trouble every time I try to renew my Symantec subscription on-line and finally gave up and changed companies. The final blow with Symantec, as well as with HP, is that when I do manage to get a real person on the phone, their English is so heavily accented that I can't understand them.

Symantec is horrible these days in terms of consumer versions. They're so overbearing and overprotective that they cause more damage than good.

Taken from here:

http://www.microsoft.com...07OneCarePricingPR.mspx

“…To thank its valuable beta customers and offer an easy transition to the paid service, Microsoft also announced today a promotional deal offering the first year of Windows OneCare Live service for $19.95 to beta customers who become subscribers between April 1 and April 30, 2006…”

I find this appalling. This is the best M$ can do for all the valuable time and effort beta testers contributed to the success of this initiative? I know, I know, some of you will reply: “it’s an honor and a privilege to be testing software for such a great corporation as Microsoft. Why should we dare expect anything in return?”. Save me the formality.

uh.. what do you want, free? If you beta test Vista, I suppose you want that for nothing too I suppose?

You didn't develop the software, you got a chance to use the software BEFORE the avg person, and it was voluntary. Beta testers KNOW before hand that its a way to test things before they come out. NO beta testing company, will just give away their software simply because you were part of a group, public at that, its not like its exclusive membership..

Beta tests take money, even moreso than normal software, because they have a time constraint. Its not FREE for the company to involve you in their beta test, so why should they make it FREE for you when the Beta is over?

Uh..let me ask you something. How much is your time worth to you? Two, three bucks/hr? In reality, the time to properly beta test a product of that scope when factored into the measly discount you get probably works out to about that. If you are happy, good for you.

Actually, I have been an active beta tester for quite a few years (for MS and other vendors). On occassion, they do indeed give complimentary licenses to testers. Anyone that thinks this untrue is naive or hasn't worked in the field very long. I was on this beta also and I too was dissappointed at the "reduced rate" offer. For essentially what I can get for free elsewhere (Trend Micro House Call, Defrag, SpyBot, built-in backup and so forth). I can't see spending $ on what they should give away. After all, each of the pieces was the result of their previous shortcomings, which they are only now addressing themselves (to the dismay of long-time "partners")

Because beta testers are essentially considered disposable cannon fodder is why I quit 99% of all beta testing. Only 30 days for beta testers to purchase is a rip and less than a sufficient "Thank you" from Microsoft. If Microsoft wanted to really say thanks, they would give beta testers 60-90 days to purchase. And then to find anyone can buy it at the same "special" price with only a little web search is insult on injury.

Now, if only I could get Microsoft to *stop* offering me beta tests. The last straw was a "beta" test that was in fact nothing beyond an alpha (i.e., Office Live), which arrived DOA because there was a small glitch in transferring a domain name and for which Microsoft was utterly unprepared. That one left me fully disgusted with Microsoft and its apparently complete lack of respect for its beta testers, who Microsoft apparently forgets are doing it a favor.

I got a free T-s*** for testing OneCare

Oh spare us your petty, self-centered whining! "Boo hoo! Those corporate pigs took my time and now they want my money too!" Save you the formality? I'd prefer you just save your breath.

I find it appalling that you expect others to just bow down and offer you handouts. In a post below here, you ask someone how much their time is worth. Quite frankly, a person's work time is valuable to their work. Their personal time is valuable to them individually. If you choose to do something for your own benefit and enjoyment on your own time, then that is important. I wonder-- how much time did you actually spend on the beta that you think it is worth more than you got? Afterall, you volunteered your time to Microsoft, and they volunteered to offer you free software for that time. If you expect them to continue giving you free software even after you've stopped volunteering your time, then you are very greedy.

I happen to be a member of the Perpetual Beta for OneCare which means I'll get it for free indefinitely because of my volunteering to continue testing. However, the versions I get will continue to be developmental beta status. I offer my time and system resources and experience, and as such I get a perk. It's a fair trade, rather than a selfish handout.

Emotional are we? I notice how ridiculously offended you get towards anyone who posts even the slightest negative comment about Microsoft. If you work for them it's okay to admit it. I don't care. If you don't, that's even less reason to lash out at anyone who comments unfavourably about them. BTW, I never beta tested for them, therefore I expect nothing from them and I never, ever expect handouts from anyone. Get that straight. I work honestly for everything I own. I guess you should not have assumed I beta tested for them. My comments concern those who provide a valuable service to a very profitable corporation, not their close relative, best friend or next door neighbor, where it would be honorable and noble to help them for nothing. My point is that MS could easily do more for those who beta tested for them. Half price on the first year's subscription is an insult to those who gave up several hours of their own time to beta test for an enormously profitable corporation.

If you were a half way good tester they gave you a multi license copy and a s*** as well as other products that I will not say, but if you half assed it then you got the crap deal that you posted about! Be glad you got what you got a not a lawsuit.

"BTW, I never beta tested for them,"

Then STFU! Why post about something you have no idea about!

Forget it, that would be a personal attack. You're just not worth responding to.

You post about a something you have NO IDEA about, yet I am not worth responding to. Okay.

Ya freaking retard!

First of all, I don't work for them. I will gladly criticize Microsoft when it is appropriate to do so because of a fault. I will not, however, criticize them just on account of their name as you and others have done.

Second, if you didn't beta test for them, then what was your initial post all about? You were criticizing their offer when you don't even have a clue about the matter, therefore your entire critique is meaningless.

They volunteered to test the product... Microsoft didn't ask them for help, they weren't forced into servitude. They were compensated for their efforts with a free year of service during the testing. Therefore, your argument is invalid and meaningless for further response.

As for personal attacks... well, let's just say I speak only the truth as it appears to be. If you're posting like an idiot, then you will likely be treated like an idiot. Post responsibly, and I assure you that you'll see better responses.

And yet... you responded, thus proving a point.

If you want to work full time on beta products, go work for them then. Otherwise, its a beta, its not required.

Secondly, if they paid me 3 bucks, guess what, they have to pay you 3 bucks, and the other 3 million people. do the math, retard, how much is that?

That's 9 million dollars to TEST, yes TEST a product, mr. wizard. First you complain that MS products are "too expensive" now you want them to compensate you for your time, and just because you BETA test a product doesn't necessarilly mean you ACTUALLY test it like you should, so why in the hell should they pay for you for something, when they can't account for your level of competence?

Obviously you slept through economics 101, or you never managed to graduate high school, because 9 million dollars has to be funded from SOME place, now doesn't it? So if they pay for a beta test, that product price just went up.

So you answer that, and THINK before you ask stupid questions.

I factored it in, before you were born. YOU need to spend more than 3 seconds on an issue before you ASSUME you have all the facts.

Put simply, my initial post was in full support of beta testers - you included - receiving appropriate compensation for all their hard work and valuable input regarding testing Microsoft's product. That is all. You fly off the handle toward anyone who states something YOU don't like, especially if it's criticism toward Microsoft. Like so many others, I've criticised MS now and again but never outright slammed them. Geeze, I've happily paid good coin (okay, a nice deal through my employer, but still my money) for several of their XP O/S's for my three machines in my home. As for your claim about me not having a clue about their offer, I took it off a "genuine" MS article! Can I not take it at face value?

Though you are a little insulting at times, you are obviously intelligent and highly knowledgeable regarding the subject matter in this forum, so I've never seen you as mindlessly attacking members in this forum. Unlike some others in this forum, I hold no grudges against you and actually have considerable respect for you.

Yet another one who can read but is unable to comprehend.

Amusing... Thanks, I think.

That said, criticizing anything is fine... as long as it is done with some sort of valid basis, and not simply bashing. If your intent was indeed in support of others and not for your own merit... then I offer my apologies for the comments about being greedy. Your post sure didn't come off sounding that way. On the other hand, I should point out that the actual point of my initial response still holds-- beta testers are, in my opinion as one, well compensated for their time by being able to have early exposure and a voice in the development process, as well as discounts and in many cases freebies. This happens to be a case where a discount was chosen over a freebie, but either way is better than full price... although $50 for 3 PC's is still a significant reduction from what leading vendors offer. :)

I'm not entirely sure that he always reads. It's not that I disagree with a lot of the points he makes.... just that a lot of his facts are flawed. *sigh*

Indeed, it was for others and not my own merit. Please believe me! There's no bs about my respect for your intelligence and knowledge in this forum either. In my books you're pretty cool and my apoligies for any offending remarks against you. You put up a helluva strong argument, as always :)

That's it for me in this chapter. I'm exhausted.

Just a comment to jump in here, I got the email from Microsoft refering to the special $19.95 price, which I thought was a heck of a lot better then the $49.95, which is still better then a lot of the subscriptions out there. The way I look at it, this price is more for your general Beta Tester that was in it to see the product, get something for free, but not really leave much feedback. Some of the really good testers got T-s***s or a cap. (I was not one of those :-( A lot of us recieved an invitation to the perpetual Beta (I was one of those :-)

I agree with your comment that MS should do something for those who put some time and effort, and as far is my experience, they have. As for those who signed up, downloaded the beta (or not) and did nothing else, they get the product at half price. Pretty good for just filling out a form, if you ask me.

I would have to agree with that. He makes some good points, I just usually don't like his presentation. Facter in all the flawed facts, and I just skim a lot of his posts. I have to say that I agree with the point in this current post, again, if it wasn't for the presentation.

Microsoft does give away good stuff to the top testers, which is good incentive to post, post, post. As rijp stated, if they gave 3 dollars to everyone, what would be the point. There are too many people who sign up for a beta test, just for free stuff. Hence the incentive.

The best freebie I recieved was a Licensed Copy of Office 2003 Professional, after Beta Testing Office Business Components. I have to tell you, I didn't expect something that good. :-)

I beta tested OneCare Live, it has replaced AVG as my antivirus solution... if only because I got a year free. When it expires I'll probably go back.

At any rate, it is easy to use and covers everything you could want it to as far as antivirus scanning, real-time protection, inbound/outbound firewall (whitelist based), except for spyware, which Windows Defender handles.

Only gripes (that I've brought to their attention through bug reports): Firewall popups can appear over fullscreen games and cause problems trying to clear the game... also some programs don't take kindly to an Access Denied error when they try to access the internet and you may need to restart them to get them to work if Firewall blocks them the first time. I think the XPSP2 Firewall might have this problem too but I never really used it.

Also, there are a couple false positives with mIRC DLLs that have annoyed me (mainly because when I back those DLLs up OneCare jumps in and breaks my copy operation and I have to turn it off and start all over).

As far as other features go, the backup allows you to select folders to back up, and then it goes to work, burning the files to CD or copying them or whatever you want. I didn't really use it.

The tune up does a full virus scan, full defragmentation, and deletes some temporary files and such. I don't really notice any difference, but I suppose that doesn't mean there isn't any. So I can't really comment on how good it is... but a full virus scan takes a while, especially if you have lots of archives (it scans inside CAB and ZIP files).

Trivia: OneCare is built on the .NET framework. (I got it to error and die once while interacting with a bad shell folder. That bug was fixed when I filed the report. :)

Microsoft did a fine job on this software, I've been a beta test for about a year and I will be purchasing a subscription shortly.

I've been using it since its Beta days. Absolutely love it. Its fast, easy to use and it stays out of your way. I'll be buying a subscription soon.

Amazon is selling it for $19.99, $24.97 after shipping.
Or you can try it free for 90 days at from the OneCare web site.

Thanks for the heads up! Link to Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp...721523-1560030?n=229534

Very nice I will also continue to use it very easy to use all in 1 package, nice interface and it updates it self without user inference. A+

I've been quite happy with it, I'm going to continue to use it.