Login:
Password:

Symantec, Adobe Complain Over Vista

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

September 21, 2006, 2:46 PM

It's no surprise that Symantec and Adobe are wary of Microsoft bundling its own security software and electronic document format in Windows Vista, but the companies had yet to lodge official complaints about the operating system until now.

According to a report in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, Adobe has told the European Commission that Microsoft should be barred from building into Vista competing software for reading and creating electronic documents. Adobe developed PDF and is the leading provider of software for the format.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has developed its own fixed-layout document standard known as XPS, or XML Paper Specification. Vista will have a new printing architecture based on XPS, and the operating system will also be able to natively render documents created in the format.

Microsoft previously got into hot water with Adobe regarding plans to add PDF export into Office 2007, which will instead be offered as a free downloadable add-on. Adobe now seems to be taking aim at XPS, asserting that with Microsoft including both reading and creation tools, sales of its PDF software could be negatively impacted.

The WSJ says that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer previously asked EU antitrust chief Neelie Kroes if the Commission wanted XPS removed from Vista, but received no response. It seems the EU has been focusing instead on Vista's security features, with a warning being issued earlier this month telling Microsoft not to shut out third parties.

Symantec claims that the features will do just that, giving precedence to Microsoft's own security offerings. Windows Defender, for example, will be integrated into Vista, and Microsoft recently launched its own all-in-one security suite known as Windows Live OneCare.

For its part, Microsoft says that if the EU requires changes to Vista's security components, it will delay the operating system's launch in Europe and potentially put customers at risk. Symantec denies such a claim, saying it simply wants to be able to replace Microsoft's Security Center with its own, like it could in the past.

In addition, Symantec is unhappy about a new feature called PatchGuard, which is designed to prevent malicious software such as rootkits from modifying critical system files in Windows Vista. The feature, however, also has the side effect of locking out security vendors that need such low-level kernel access to be able to detect and prevent security threats.

The European Commission isn't commenting on the specific requests, although Symantec plans to travel to Brussels next week to brief journalists on the issue. Microsoft has often used the press to present its case to the public, and now the Redmond company's competitors are doing the same.

Microsoft has had a tumultuous relationship with the European Union after being found guilty of violating antitrust laws in March 2004. The Commission long accused the company of not complying with the ruling, while Microsoft has responded by publicly chiding regulators for ignoring key information.

The company was fined an additional 280.5 million euros in July for continuing non-compliance, and the Commission threatened to double that number if Microsoft did not get its act in gear.

Add a Comment (93 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 DarkSideofOZ

edited Sep 23, 2006 - 10:14 AM

here's the bottom line, Microsoft makes the OPERATING SYSTEM, they make the software that runs on the OS, if MS(microsoft) curcumvents the technology that the software comapnies make thier cash on, they should get thier bums swatted and fined... BUT symantecs complaint of
" PatchGuard, which is designed to prevent malicious software such as rootkits from modifying critical system files in Windows Vista" is unprecedented, its a security measure not a malicious attempt at the companies assets and technology and thus they should work around it and shut the hell up complaining about a security fix.

My 2 pennies

Score: 0

By Mr.knowhow

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 4:14 AM

"If its a O.S its gotta be microsoft's". These strategies of bundling in security software and other applications reflects the sole objective of microsoft "to grab monopoly" and have its O.S omnipresent; thereby enabling security service providers go obselete...

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Sep 24, 2006 - 7:34 PM

I have about fifty grand tied up in a server and PCs and there are lots of days when I wish I had taken up quilting. I say it's all broccoli, and I say to hell with it.

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:00 PM

If Microsoft continues to do no better than Windows Live One Care, the other firms should keep their mouths shut. Anything Microsoft does can only mean more business for them.

After giving Windows Live One Care a six-week trial, there is no way in Hades I will *EVER* trust my computer only to Microsoft. One Care was as bloated and disjointed a product as anything seen from Redmond. It made no sense as a "suite" of products not initially or later designed to work *together*. Its interface was completely counterintuitive. (Not a one of my clients understood it at all.) It offered the user little control over anything. It provided precious little feedback--good or bad. One did not ever know if it was working or not. It even installed a new firewall, but left the old one in place.

And in the end, it simply failed at its purpose. Spyware Doctor had quite the mess to clean up from everything One Care either missed during scans or never caught in real-time. One Care is perfect for anyone who only surfs directly to CNN and then turns off their computer. That's as far as I saw it could be trusted to care for any computer on which it is installed.

Symantec and Adobe, just wait for the fallout. P. T. Barnum was the great-grandfather of Bill Gates. Lots of suckers will fall for "security products" from a firm that continues to prove it is entirely clueless about both security and the people needing it.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 12:42 PM

Why don't both companies spend the time and money improve their software and give customer what they want?

US car companies didn't cry fouls when the US first import foreigns cars. Now they are because foreign cars are better than domestic.

Score: 0

By Jonnn21

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 9:34 AM

Screw that ! ! You'll never see a foreign piece of shi t in my driveway. SUPPORT AMERICA!!!

Hi, Im an american and I drive a Honda (...riceburner). I think not!

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Sep 23, 2006 - 4:05 AM

Welp, I'll tell you one thing. If I'm forced to run an MS OS for WHATEVER reason, the least I can do is not pay for it. Ahh, I feel better already. Actually now that I think about it, in 15 years of Microcrap, I have actually never EVER "bought" a Windows OS... NEVER. Wow.

And thats the only real way people can fight back. If you must use it, don't buy it. Man pirates and crackers really are heroes!

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:03 PM

xyzcb1, I see you aren't very old. U.S. car companies very much did cry foul when the Japanese cars first took over the marketplace. In fact, to say "crying" is quite the understatement.

In fact, it was Japanese automakers' alliances with the government and Japan's national banks which were most frequently mentioned as being unfair advantages. American firms did not enjoy those financial luxuries. (At least that's what I was teaching my business school MBA classes at the time.)

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 6:36 PM

True. Chrysler in particular begged for a bail-out loan (and got it) using the same mercy line. However, I can't recall any audio companies like Alpine or Pioneer filing any complaints when Ford, GM, Chrysler decided to install better audio systems in their cars to improve sales. Now, if Microsoft wants to put a better antivirus into their offering, the after-market whiners start crying foul. Too bad. They should just make a better product and let the public decide.

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 8:17 PM

Exactly... even though the auto makers are putting in *better* audio products, the 3rd party audio makers are making their offerings just that much better and consumers are buying the products. Case in point: I have a built in GPS system in my car. It's "OK", but I went ahead and splurged on a better unit which is a step ahead in both reliability and features.

Let MSFT put all they want into the OS as long as they don't lock out competitors. (I know, tall order, but what the heck! lol)

~dnc

Score: 0

By dmcg

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 9:48 PM

Why don't you guys just ditch Windows and go to OS X? It's far more stable, runs some of the best software on the planet and is not plagued by viruses. Windows, in my opinion, is a popular yet inferior product that is downright UGLY. It works at being counter intuitive and attracts viruses and trojan horses like flies. I'm so glad I don't have to use Windows. That would be shear torture.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 1:04 PM

I've tried OS X, had to work on the machines when they were still PowerPCs at my last job. I saw nothing superior about them, and there were some of the really really expensive models. They were slower at almost all things, and no more stable than windows. I found them no more stable than windows. (Actually, I have found most OSes are stable until users start installing crappy software on them, like betas or "work-in-progress" software.) As far as windows being ugly, its not so bad if you turn of the fischer-price scheme. Any OS is "counterintuitive" to those not familiar with or used to it. I still think title bars and menus should be attached to an application's main window...and all machines made in the last 15 years should have come with mice that have at least 2 buttons.

Some would argue windows "attracts viruses and trojan horses like flies" in no small part because it is popular; but that is veering off-topic and really is a debate that could not be decided unless OS X reached the same kind of marketshare as Windows.

Oh, and "some of the best software" is nowhere near "most". MS made windows a success by making it easy to develop applications for. This might be one of the reasons there are so many virii and the like; but it is also the reason for the abundance of software for it, and the availibility of diverse, easy-to-use applications is really what has attracted most of the users.

Score: 0

By Jonnn21

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 9:40 AM

On a second note to that, If you know what NOT to install you dont have the virus, popups and malware that most idiodic consumers get. They install FRee crap and wonder why they have problems. Its slow and find out they havent defragged for 4.5 years. Store 3 GB of data on their desktop and wonder why its slow to boot. Face it people are stupid. People are the reason windows is slow.

I have YET to understand Macs 1 mouse button design. WTF is up with that.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 1:35 PM

very well said. I worked on OSx for a few years and it really opened my eyes to what propaganda can be. It's all software folks...the more popular more often used software will be more exploited and targetted.

Intelligent computer users will know the trade off of functionality over non functionality. Some people may not like it, but I prefer the democratic nature of the PC/Windows environment over the candied up communism of a certain competitor.

Hegemony indeed...it was their favorite word for a while. :)

Score: 0

By fsadfsfsdf

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 10:32 AM

How ironic it is that M$ can sell us half-baked buggy software in the first place, and then turn around and sell us security software/services to fix the software it sold us. Doesn't the mafia use this strategy?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 12:48 PM

Apparently you'd rather just bash MS without reading the article? Considering it is about 3rd party companies not wanting MS to be able to include things like security features into the OS, your comment is completely offbase, or at least misdirected. (It would be the 3rd party companies acting like the mafia in this case.)

Score: 0

By Pensador

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 9:56 AM

There is a lot of competition in the antivirus market and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Adobe holds the majority of the market as far as portable e-documents are concerned.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 11:29 AM

yes but they wouldnt exist if it wasnt for microsoft to begin with.

Score: 0

By Frostek

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 2:20 PM

Perhaps not, but another OS (or OS's) would have received all the cash from the business, and then later the home markets, and it seems to be a fairly obvious connection that people would want to read documents on their computers.

So, whilst it might not have been called Adobe, there would have a been a company doing pretty much exactly what they do now.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 8:41 AM

Despite having a crappy piece of software in Norton, I do think that Symantec (and any other security company) have a perfectly valid point.

However Adobe are talking complete crap. XML will be direct competition to Acrobat in the same way that IE was to Netscape. However the arguement doesn't hold up in the same way because while both IE and Netscape accessed the internet and there was no difference in that, PDF and XML are two completely different formats and PDF is just too widespread to disappear. I may be wrong but don't recall anyone who developed JPEG or PNG complaining about the inclusion of BMP in Windows - do you? And anyway, did Movie Maker kill off other similair apps? I think not. Again, PDF is just too widespread to disappear. No companies are going to adopt a brand new format on a widespread scale when PDF is just as tightly integrated into business practice as DOC is. Tsk - not a case to answer for.

But Symantec have a very good point.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 11:42 AM

Good point - and noone complained about a word processor (wordpad) being included either, did they?

I disagree on the symantec part though - While they certainly have a point, I think it just forces them to make a better product. If the windows version is so much better then I wouldn't buy symantec, but if symantec had a better version then I might consider it. So this ultimately is good for us consumers.

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Sep 23, 2006 - 9:06 PM

Symantec is not capable of making a better product. They just keep making worse ones. Norton is the most bloated, inefficient, buggy piece of AV software I have ever used. Installing it on most systems means instant death.

And they try to call it a security suite.

Score: 0

By Jonnn21

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 9:44 AM

Amen. We won't even sell norton anymore. McAfee is getting the same way. We use AntiVir (AVG sucks ball s) www.free-av.com

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 12:03 PM

Well I think Symantec and others do have a point insofar as PatchGuard is claimed to be designed to prevent malicious software such as rootkits from modifying critical system files in Windows Vista. Now I don't know myself but Symantec seem to feel this is an issue. If this does stop Norton and other security software from doing it's job - then that's a real problem. It may be bad for Symantec but this shouldn't be about bashing Symantec - it could be a problem for other companies.

Score: 0

By ^M^

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 8:07 AM

"although Symantec plans to travel to Brussels next week to brief journalists on the issue"

Flying headquarter ?

Score: 0

By englishmen

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 5:37 AM

This is getting annoying, it seems all the big 3rd party developers are getting at microsoft for having programs in windows along the same line of which they the 3rd part developers make.

If the 3rd party developers make better programs then microsoft word will get around and users will switch to them. Symantec & Adobe are 2 companies i cant remember making a good piece of software. All there software is slow bloated and buggy, give any new PC user a year online and they will see from news, forums and chatting to others that the software that come with there PC. Which among others is adobe reader and norton antivirus (which is strange because i thought that was what there moaning at microsoft about) is rubbish and there are better, smaller, faster and cheaper i.e. being free software.

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Sep 23, 2006 - 9:07 PM

adobe photoshop... that's their saving grace.

symantec doesn't have anything going for them though.

Score: 0

By marrix

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 4:45 AM

Personally, in this brave new world. I am firmly of the opinion there is no longer any room for competitors' to M$. Indeed, we are now living in "The World" as defined by M$.
This is very eloquently asserted by the vast majority of posts below.
Accordingly, the sooner we have a Barcode tattooed on our foreheads, or an M$ approved RFID embedded beneath our skin. The better this place will be!!!

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 5:23 PM

I hate people who always say "M$", it's so immature.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 6:54 AM

1. You spelt Matrix wrong in your screen name.
2. We are arguing that being told what you can and can't make is bulls***.
3. Apparently you seem to have missunderstood this as fanboy ranting, yet it's quite the opposite; we all know that the inbuilt security will be crap, but it's still no place for Symantec (and Adobe seperatley) to butt in and demand it be removed.

Score: 0

By 9i08

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 4:46 AM

"In addition, Symantec is unhappy about a new feature called PatchGuard, which is designed to prevent malicious software such as rootkits from modifying critical system files in Windows Vista."

why are they unhappy?!

i wish Norton AntiVirus would go away, its easy to use at the cost of dreadful[in comparison] ram consumption

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 6:33 PM

SO true. Been using Symantec AV 7.x, 8.x, 8.x and now 10.x and all are EXTREME RAM hogs. I hate SAV! The only reason I prefer seeing after-market products is that it keeps a flame under MS's butt to improve their own offerings.

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Sep 23, 2006 - 9:08 PM

why do you use it then? use something lighter, more effecient, and less crappy.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 24, 2006 - 7:40 PM

At home: I don't. At work, I have to. It's pushed as part of the corporate image deployments

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:37 AM

I promise everyone, that EVERY feature in Microsoft's Security Suite, is possible to code in a third party.

Cause if it wasn't even Microsoft couldn't do it, perfect example of this is IE, people for years have been able to build upon IE in other browsers ( a Avant Broswer I believe is one )

The exact name escapes me, my point, Symantec needs to hire some new programmers who can use the PatchGuard feature within their suite.

Score: 0

By rogueworld

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:31 AM

Its all going crazy. The average user does not want to have to download all the various security software etc. Windows Defender being build into Vista add's to the security of the OS.

AS for the XPS .. i mean come on. Are adobe basically complaining that they have a competitor???

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 8:27 PM

LMAO... yeah, Adobe is complaining about having a competitor. What gets me most is that while Adobe seems to want to control PDFs, which is fine, they did invent it after all, but... MSFT's XPS format is not a PDF; it looks like a PDF, acts like a PDF, but isn't a PDF... So, I fail to see how Adobe has much ground here.

This seriously reminds me of arguments that I see at my 4 year old son's school. "He did it! No! He did it! Make him put it back! He's touching me!"... I seriously don't want to see this in the software industry.

~dnc

Score: 0

By mshulman

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 11:49 AM

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 12:38 AM

"...with Microsoft including both reading and creation tools, sales of its PDF software could be negatively impacted."

How about with Adobe's terrible coding and laughable Acrobat 8.0 release being the reason Adobe is "negatively impacted." I recommend kaopectate.

I'll ask again: why do governments presume to tell Microsoft how to build their software? WE WANT SECURITY — just not in the OS, and definitely not from the very people who built it. How freakin' ridiculous is that!

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 12:12 AM

What a bunch of crap i just bought a new PC upon first boot it installed windows then Norton security center(not optional)Google toolbar( not optional)real player(not optional)WildTangent(not optional)Adobe reader(also not optional)surprisingly Netscape asked if i want it installed.

These companies have obsolutly no right to complain as they themselves make deals with computer companies to have their software preinstalled aswell with no option not to install it with the exeption of Netscape i don't like Netscape but atleast they get some respect for asking.

Score: 0

By Intrusive_Rogue

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 10:18 AM

Amen

Score: 0

By Murphmeister

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 9:25 AM

This is why I hate unions, the left and the EU.

These parasitic companies have made billions off their applications on the Microsoft operating system. Then when MS expand their file protection/document support on their own product you have Adobe and Symantec crying foul.

They are treading a fine line by biting the hand that feeds. The two crap peddlers are lucky that MS has brought them to be the empires they are today.

As if that wasn't enough to have their claims thrown out the window, take a look at their products. Adobe's PDF Reader is lined with useless addons, and it takes 10-20 seconds to startup sometimes. However I do respect Adobe's other products like PS, Premiere, After Effects...

Symantec are the king of crap. Their flagship product, Norton AV and all it's attached bloat has failed to deliver for the last 5 years on anything but system slowing reminders and notifications that it has updated the definitions for its outdated virus scanning engine. The main feature list on every symantec release is the new set of glossy buttons and animations.

They then have the audacity to take shots at Microsoft for improving its own product security and providing more options to users. Shame on them, if they were the innovative, creative firms that they make themselves out to be then they would embrace Vista instead of disparaging it.

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:35 PM

Microsoft have an *enormous* operating system chockful of all sorts of add-ons which aren't strictly necessaryfor an OS.

Everytime someone comes up with a new idea for a program, all MS has to do is implement a version of it in Windows. It doesn't even have to be particularly good, just good enough to make people hold off on buying the new product.

New company goes bust... consumer loses the option of going with that product. MS goes back to sleep until someone else's innovation catches their notice.

Repeat, repeat, repeat...

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 5:30 PM

Yup, because no product can compete with anything built into Windows. I heard a story about some broswer called "Firefox" or something like that which was becoming popular and getting a good piece of the market share. But I think all those magazines and sites are lying. It's just not possible.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 11:32 PM

Here's a novel suggestion:
Let Adobe and Symantec provide a better solution than the bundled capability. Users will flock to the better solution and pay for the privilege.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 11:32 AM

or an even better solution, make them create their own operating system.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 1:17 PM

who is it that's going to MAKE them do this?

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 6:26 PM

The honorable Mr. Commonsense. Who I heard has long since died.

Score: 0

By Intrusive_Rogue

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 10:19 AM

Agreed.

Windows has a firewall right? Yet every security software vendor disables it and replaces it with their own product...why would this be any different.

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:38 PM

Yes, but imagine if the firewall vendor had to "hack" his way into the system in order to disable the firewall, because the system wouldn't let you disable it using regular methods.

Note that the system firewall wouldn't necessarily have to be any good by virtue of that, just that it won't let a software install turn it off.

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 6:30 PM

I have yet to see one single software product for Windows that couldn't run on Windows because Microsoft "blocked" it. Netscape, Firefox, OpenOffice, StarOffice, VMware, Acrobat, ZoneAlarm, SAV/Norton, WinAmp, Nero, Roxio, even SpyBot, and on and on. Every single competing product runs just fine on their O/S. All this sky-is-falling talk is just plain stupid. Vista hasn't even shipped yet. I'm sure when it ships, the add-on vendors will have new goodies waiting to run on it. What makes this ANY different than when XP shipped? Nothing at all.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 8:47 PM

The reason Microsoft can never be crushed by ANYONE is that it caters to both criminals, non-criminals, and everything in between. EVERYONE profits off of MS. Think about it. Spammers, information-thieves, advertisers.. They all use MS to mount their barrages of CRAP on usually computer-illiterate users. Oh but wait, here come the "heroes" (which we'll refer to as the software-security companies) rushing in to "save us" from all the shhhit.

Whats the point? No point, just f*ck Adobe, AV/Security firms, spammers, unscrupulous advertisers, etc.. But most of all F*CK MS for knowing about all this crap but turning a blind-eye to real solutions while instead integrating useless OS-clogging security "features" to hold the hands of millions of mindless baboon-like computer users.

All in the name of staying financially super-comfortable.

Score: 0

By The-One

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 9:18 PM

"All in the name of staying financially super-comfortable."

That my friend is capatalism at its best :)

I could easily apply your logic to politics as well. So, you may have actually solved the human puzzle :)

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 8:37 PM

Pharmaceutical companies have relied on patent and marketing monopolies for decades. Nobody bats an eye. You can buy another O/S if you want. Linux, Mac, whatever. If you're told you have to take something like Paxil(TM) (just using an example, pick any you like), you have NO other choices except abstinance. That usually leads to death or reduced quality of life. Not having a favorite OS on your computer doesn't usually have the same impact.

Pharmaceutical companies launch products via patent protection, which provides perfect monopoly. MS only got where they are by *CUSTOMERS* buying their products more often than others. Microsoft didn't make you buy Windows or Office. They "offered" it and people bought it. There are alternative products available. The same is NOT true for drugs however. Double-standards are stupid.

Score: 0

By Heero

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 8:26 PM

b****, b****, b****...

Apple does it, and no one makes a fuss, MS does it, and it's the end of the world. Talk about a double standard there.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 5:32 PM

Huh? You mean Microsoft complaining when other companies complain about them? If you spend millions of dollars on an OS which is nearly done, would you complain if you had to go back and remove stuff?

Score: 0

By Heero

posted Sep 23, 2006 - 3:05 PM

Why is it that Apple can do something their OS, and (To no Surprise) when Microsoft does the same thing to their OS everyone b****es at them?

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 7:07 PM

With great power comes great responsibility.

Being the defacto standard OS for the entire planet forces upon the creators requirements normally not needed or even allowed.

MS, being the position it is in, has a responsibilty to the world.

Maybe MS should just turn over all the Windows code to some "global" UN style organization. So that they can ensure the world keeps trucking along withuot fanfare.

Using Windows has become the life blood of all desktop commercial and home use. Apple and others only make a small dent in this and thus are not required counsil on how they should write their OS or what they should include or not.

Feh.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 11:38 AM

if they were critical to life they *might* have a responsability to the world, but since you wont die without a computer(ever hear of the amish? they still live on farms and don't use electricity, and coincidentally still make out fine.)... I think that your post was the largest crock of roasted pig s*** ive ever seen. No company has any responsability to make sure any other company doesnt go bankrupt, well except accountaints, who that is their main job.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 1:35 PM

buggy posting...

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 1:30 PM

"No company has any responsability to make sure any other company doesnt go bankrupt"

maybe you don't live in america, but that's the way it works here.

when you allow people (or companies) to depend on you or your product (especially for profit), you must accept responsability for future actions you take that effect your dependants.
if you don't, you get sued.

simple eh?

Score: 0

By RenegadeMind

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 11:07 PM

Huh?

Then let's have Exxon Mobile, Merck, Pfizer, Prudential, WalMart, IBM and the rest of the fortune 500 turn themselves over to some "UN" sinktank...

Complete insanity.

MS is always unfairly under attack. If the same standards were applied anywhere else... Well... They aren't.

Score: 0

By dougau

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:48 PM

I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft incorporating these features in Vista, they're sure charging enough for it.
To Symantec and Adobe, it's called capitalism, one would hope it's still alive and well in the USA.
As for the European Union maybe Microsoft should delay Vista being officially released and soled in EU countries for a year or two.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:54 PM

your comment is too intelligent and brief...we must all rant and rave! :)

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 5:53 PM

The numpty users who cant be ar$ed to install antispyware and decent protection of a firewall, coupled with the industry as a whole not able to cover the demand of users have forced microsoft to offer basic/intermediate protection. Microsoft bought the giant engine and offered it for free to users, while they can argue that it is anti competitive to bundle it directly into the Os without the opt in button, I feel this has more to do with protecting there monopoly on the security industry.

Let Microsoft have the inexperienced/cant be ar$sed market and it will force non bloated, paid for protection that will be worth the media its packaged in. To deny users reliable, updated, free, and trusted protection is not doing the PC industy any good and microsoft is under great strain with the likes of Apple/linux and there own OS pricing.

Microsofts goal is not to deny others a market, its to maintain and sustain its own. Symantec has had years to sort itself out, most antivirus and firewall software has feeble antispyware protection and im really not that keen on yearly subscription fee's.

Id gladly be given the choice of standard protection as part of the OS, in fact these days i could argue its an essential.

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 5:33 PM

If Symantec is such a good security company, then they should be able to think of NEW ways to offer services to customers using Vista.

If Vista itself has protection against certain attacks, then Symantec should think of ways to add onto such protection. Provide a program to monitor, hell I would not be against a program saying, hey idiot this file isn't suppose to change but it has make sure something didn't happen.

Symantec has made alot of money on Windows being as insecure as it is ( not the fault of Microsoft ), perhaps not Windows XP or Windows 2003 ( that is their fault ) but I am talking about Windows 98, Windows 95, and Windows 2000.

I say its not their fault because, how can a company be at fault for having "security" holes in their OS, in a time where the internet was useed by 1% of the upper class. Now, when the other systems came along, they should have made security their top priority. Can I forgive them for having to wait, due internal plans that most likely were made long before, Symantec was large as it was, yep.

I think my point is, its time for Symantec to adopt or get off the pot. All I know is Symantec makes money protecting us against a virus, that can infect other people, its almost like they are making money by having Windows be insecure and having people be able to fark up your system.

If Symantec cannot think of features, or a system to be able to increase the security on Vista, then customers will decide they do not Symantec's products.

Regards to Microsoft having features in their system, I feel the only thing that should NOT be included is their own Anti-Virus, if they want to make their system itself MORE secure where they make it impossible for hostile code to change the system files or what not, more power to them.

Although its clear that Microsoft is able to have a TON of features in Windows Live OneCare, so clearly it is possible to have a security suite with features and people buy it, and since Microsoft has access to the same level as Symantec then Symantec should be able to adopt their security system.

Symantec, stop b****ing and figure it out, you have had awhile to figure it out.

Score: 0

By WebWarp

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 5:57 PM

"If Vista itself has protection against certain attacks, then Symantec should think of ways to add onto such protection" LOL LOL LOL .. fool..

Well norton antivirus sux, but build in security is useless .. Every damn virus programmer will go after bugs in MS's code and if users just trust the s*** shipped with vista .. Then its an obisly target and concentrate on .. Then they won't have to worry about writing code that disables the many diffent antivirus system that is out there today, but just go after a single target - that is so much easier... U should have learned, by seeing fx the "firewall", or what you call it, that they build into XP, that their tools are crappy and well .. as close to useless at it gets..!

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:44 PM

It'll be interesting in the first few months after Vista's release to see what its versions of Blaster, Slammer, Sobig, Sasser and the others will be like.

I have no doubts whatsoever that it will be a repeat of XP, where it wasn't until some hefty Service Packs had been released until the majority of the problems had been solved. Look at records of August 2003 - two years after XP had been released and it was one of the worst months ever for viruses and worms.

Does anyone really believe it will be any different this time around?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 4:47 PM

Adobe and Symantec complaining? Boo Hoo. Cry me a river. Let's see them develop an O/S first.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Sep 22, 2006 - 6:58 AM

"Adobe now seems to be taking aim at XPS, asserting that with Microsoft including both reading and creation tools, sales of its PDF software could be negatively impacted."

Are you s***ting me?

First they tried to include PDF rendering natively, Adobe got arsey, now they take it out and replace it with their own brand... Adobe get arsey.

You can't have your cake AND eat it.

Apparently making your own product is no longer legal and should be banned at once.

The important thing to remember is that this isn't even about something bolted to Windows, this is about a new format being put in Office, which is a seperate purchase anyway (it's not usually bundled anymore). That gives them even less right to complain.

Shouldn't you stop whingeing and try and make your own product better to counteract it?

And OS X is entirely built around PDF, how come they don't care about them?*

*Genuine question, not fanboy bashing.

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 10:29 PM

"First they tried to include PDF rendering natively, Adobe got arsey, now they take it out and replace it with their own brand... Adobe get arsey."

EXACTLY! It's amazing how Adobe can get so low.

Score: 0

By photonboy

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 4:35 PM

I absolutely agree with Skinner (but don't call me Skully). In fact, if you can get everything you need in Vista and/or Office I say good.

I think some of Adobe's products are way overpriced anyway. I think they are going to become desparate as people rethink buying from Adobe when cheap or free alternative software comes along.

Score: 0

By photonboy

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 4:29 PM

I feel that Microsoft should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not intentionally making it difficult for third-party software to function properly. If they want their own formats that may be even better for the consumer in the long run, who knows?

The whole concept of trying to force Microsoft to only install the bare essentials is ridiculous. For example, complaints were lodged through the courts and Microsoft produced a version of Windows XP without Windows Media Player. What the heck did that accomplish?

In fact, Adobe complained and Microsoft removed the ability to create PDF files from Office 2007 easily with the click of an integrated button, yet I can get a free program that does this separately. Thanks a lot Adobe.

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 4:54 PM

What? How dare you allow Microsoft to conduct business? What do you think this is, a free market?

The ironic thing is that Microsoft was never challenged nor convicted on the stuff that _really_ allowed them to become a monopoly. The bundling issue was a joke... Netscape was just ticked-off that they couldn't get a free ride after putting out bloatware that made Office itself look somewhat svelte.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 3:33 PM

So what exactly is Microsoft allowed to do? I feel like they should post a list of what work they're legally ok with. It's stupid to think that Microsoft can't compete with other software. They are in the software business, right?

Windows XP N. No one bought it. Case closed.

Score: 0

By Das mod

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 3:35 PM

Windows XP N. No one bought it.

and the few that did, ended up installing WMP anyways because they realized they had gotten a version of windows without it ....lol

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 2:48 PM

The flaw in that argument was that it wasn't enforced. OEMs in Europe should have had to install XP N, not given a choice. If the customer wanted MP, RP BSP, VLC or whatever then they could easily have installed it themselves.

That lack of enforcement essentially killed off all the work put into removing Media Player in the first place.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 3:34 PM

Besides, isn't Acrobat bloated enough now? It's got freakin' video conferencing in it. If that's a bad idea, you should live with that through competition. Your own people use Foxit in Adobe offices. What's that say to you??!

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 4:56 PM

Adobe took a good 3 or 4 versions to get the Acrobat Reader to work well enough to use. Now every version gets bigger and more bloated and has more features wedged in that 99% of users neither need nor want.

The sad truth that these companies, including Microsoft have yet to learn is that once an app does what it's supposed to do, shovelling in a bunch of irrelevant crap does not make it better.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 5:37 PM

It's up to the individual user to determine what is irrelevant and what is not.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 3:31 PM

The two companies with various flaws within their own products.

Look, adobe, symantec, you suck. Let someone else give it a shot for once. you've had 7+ versions to get it right.

Score: 0

By WebWarp

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:00 PM

yes sure, but MS has even more flaws, and there are other great products out there.. that don't yell out however, but a disaster if serious tools, like nod32 doesn't work in vista.. But then no, be cause none of us is going to install crappy vista ;)

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 3:15 PM

Adobe has told the European Commission that Microsoft should be barred from building into Vista competing software for reading and creating electronic documents

Well, the EU can say goodbye to notepad. ;P

Score: 0

By RenegadeMind

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 11:17 PM

But you forget that as insane as Abobe's petition may be, they're dealing with EU bureaucrats. These are the same people that had WMP yanked...

Can we say, "sharp as a marble?"

Score: 0

By Murphmeister

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 9:29 AM

No doubt if MS pulled out of Europe altogether they would manage to fine it for doing that too...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:06 PM

...and 'copy con' and 'edit' and debug....

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 8:07 PM

oops, forgot wordpad too, thats the real contender.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:40 PM

CTRL-Z
enter

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 4:15 PM

You read my mind heh.

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 2:53 PM

i wouldnt be in the last bit surprised if symantec were the one behind the sudden "blooming" on security flaws and eploits purposedly bombarding windows OS ...

" Symantec Business Plan - Job Security 101 "
- discover and/or develop an specific OS flaw
- distribute it to other security companies and let them publish the exploit structure
- overhype flaw to push MS into developing a patch
- wait for patch to fail
- offer in-house solution to fix exploit

Score: 0

By jeanmary456

edited Sep 21, 2006 - 4:58 PM

its not a lie i definitely agree with Das mod ...what if the symantec are the one requesting viruses and spyware or any other type malware ...not just symantec other securoty software...not that microsoft has made his built in they angry ..come on ......how they dont react the same way toward Mac.. os X

Score: 0

By aeisele

posted Sep 21, 2006 - 6:26 PM

I think that Microsoft have all the rights to make Windows Vista safer by including all those security applications. It's like if a car company could not make their cars safer because other companies would like to develop security features for them and then the government would restrict car makers on including security features in order to let others develop. Example: Cars could not come with Airbags because if they come with airbags, X company cannot develop an add-on package to have airbags on that car installed.

Score: 0

By trmfp

posted Sep 22, 2006 - 9:11 AM

I just have to say, all the whining that Adobe and Symantec are doing are really falling on deaf ears for me. They both have become complacent in their market and now Microsoft has been forced to bolster security by offering these products themselves.

The old addage, "If you want it done right, do it yourself." certainly rings true with these vendors.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the products Microsoft is bundling as being superior in any way, but I agree with a log of the posts that there is a need for better software in these two markets.

Case in Point: Adobe uses the .MSI model for their installations, but refuses to allow slipstreamed updates or compacted executables for installation. Instead they require you to install patch on top of patch on top of patch and their installer is super bloated with some other 3rd party compression tool.

Case in Point: Symantec has not had a single innovation in their corporate products in years and at one time were the leader in that market sector. Now people are looking for alternatives.

Sounds like they just need to put up, or shut up!

Score: 0