| 11:28 am on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I do not really bite on that one
MS AV stats seems very high it does not match what I see in real life (I mean among non IT person)
Will it work as well as IE and other MS magic wand?
The UK paper asked a question “Will it be included with new MS OS releases”
Answer is “No”; reason is that MS expect making a bundle out of it.
I do not foresee a real call for such a product, even Dell sales machine with long time tested AV pre loaded such as Norton, “Mac crappy :)” and Pc-cillin (Which I use since almost ever)
A better impact and major factor in MS reinforcing its security image (Therefore a good marketing coup) would have been to simply include it in the OS as possibly one of MS “true?” security move
| 12:34 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I find it hard to think of Onecare without hearing the other word it sounds like.
Regarding charging for this, it must be aimed at people who don't realise that home users can download very capable anti-spyware and anti-virus software packages for free.
| 12:41 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The end is near.
When a company with a long history of vulnerabilities thinks that is rational to sell security for their products as an add-on you can begin to smell the rot of gray matter.
If anything Microsoft should be giving away security tools with sympathy cards: "Dear user, we're so sorry for all our past security holes. Take this security package as our gift . . "
Microsoft's constant security issues has added an unwanted layer of difficulty and anxiety to my life for years. As a result I've been considering making a move to a new browser, email client, O/S, etc. for a long time, especially since the security related headaches has offset the benefits of many of their products.
"Selling security" for its products - as a separate product - is the ultimate farce, a slap in the face for Microsoft users who have anxiously tracked security bulletins for years. The time and effort spent in tracking patches, installing patches, looking for signs of system compromise, and so on has likely exceeded the amount of time their products have saved me. Stunning lack of insight.
Security for Microsoft products as a separate product? Brilliant! Someone award Microsoft the Bonehead Idea of the Year Award. This is the coup de grace as far as I'm concerned. Their ultimate arrogance made manifest. "We've got you! You can't stop using our bug ridden, security hole riddled products, so you have to buy this new product. Muhahahaha."
Yo! Microsoft! Read the tea leaves! When a MS regular such as myself takes such a dim view of the proposal I'd say that's a fair sign that MS's rate of loss of market share is about to accelerate.
Time for a Linux box, no threat, just fact. My next server will run Linux and Apache and it's onwards and outwards from there.
[edited by: Webwork at 1:04 pm (utc) on May 31, 2006]
| 12:49 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Webwork, 2 out of 3 let's roll our own stats :)
| 1:33 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are you sure that name is right, or is it NoneCare?
| 1:46 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OneCare. Isn't Microsoft's whole problem with viruses and hacks directly related to the fact that they're the omnipresent system? Everybody has Windows so everybody hacks Windows.
Isn't uniforming security and even unibranding and unimarketing it, like, the exact opposite of what you should do?
Virus hackers' response to OneCare: OneHack.
| 3:27 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't seem to make sense that Microsoft should sell a product to separately secure another of their products, but imagine the backlash if they gave it away free or bundled it with their OS.
Remember that when IE was first given away free, then bundled with Windows, Netscape et al cried foul and got the Department of Justice to impose antitrust sanctions against Microsoft. The exact same would happen with a security tool like OneCare.
It's the government's antitrust legislation that keeps MS from helping to secure their OS for free.
| 3:28 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
kinda ironic right? If they were so good at security they'd fix windows. Like buying an extra lock from the same company becuase the first one is faulty.
As far a selling: I think they'll do pretty good. Sure they are plenty of free ones, but average people feel comfortable with a brand name, and like plug and ly type things. $50 or so is no biggie for many...
| 4:45 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|backlash if they gave it away free or bundled it with their OS |
IF security was built into the product - IF the product itself was secure - then the add-on "security package" would be what? Unnecessary?
I'm sure it will be a big seller. Why shouldn't it? I mean, without buying their security product, all you are buying is what? Their insecure products? Makes perfect business sense. I believe Gillette used an analogous model when it gave away free razors - without the blades.
Who has done more for creating a market for security products - to harden your network, harden your servers, secure your PCs - than Microsoft? But for Microsoft's hole riddled products who would need McAfee, Norton, etc.? So why shouldn't the source of the problems that have driven the growth of the security industry now sell a separate product to fix the problems they have spawned?
What a mass of simple minded fools we are to have taken this as a given. For all the needless aggravation, lost resources and waste of time Microsoft should have been sued into oblivion by now. IF a car manufacturer made cars that rountinely veered off the road when it rained or snowed that manufacturer would be out of business.
Just as an aside: Given how important software has become to the health of the economy maybe an FDA type approval process for software is an idea whose time has come? A process whose rules are "you can't release a mass distributed product for public consumption until it's field tested for side effects", i.e., susceptibility to hacking? Maybe then Microsoft would never get a product out the door, as the hackers would delight in proving the bugs - endlessly?
| 4:57 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wow... wonder if it will be as robust and reliable as "adcenter"?
Which is a total piece of ^%$$#.
| 4:59 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Webwork, excellent point you have in a few words digested the whole MS process
“We are specialized in selling hackable products.”
“Safety only comes a the cost x-tra $”
Pretty much a failure admission
As such I do now question the source reliability
How could MS marketing gurus not seeing the trap?
| 5:53 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
some people require a higher security package than others. banks, small businesses etc., can't afford losing valuable information etc.,
[edited by: rohitj at 5:54 pm (utc) on May 31, 2006]
| 5:54 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For any race fans on here:
"For the first time, computer giant Microsoft will be the primary sponsor of a NASCAR Nextel Cup car. At next Sunday’s Neighborhood Excellence 400 at Dover, Del., Microsoft’s Windows Live OneCare will be the primary sponsor of the Haas CNC Racing #66 driven by Jeff Green. The deal is for one-race only, but does mark a significant first for Microsoft."
I like it, something different, and it's nice to see Microsoft follow Best Buy's entry into NASCAR sponsorship.
[edited by: jatar_k at 6:51 pm (utc) on May 31, 2006]
[edit reason] no links thanks [/edit]
| 7:05 pm on May 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I installed this on a laptop a few months ago when it rolled out through beta invites to see if I could use it for certain individuals as a simpler solution for those who don't need sophisticated data protection, but just need some simple computer protection & maintenance.
So far, the experience has been great. It reminds one to update the computer, runs security scans, has a decent firewall, etc. While its still early to tell if you want to run this on an advanced users computer, for a simple/easy experience - it's been seamless.
I'm a fan of zonealarm - however, with the small ultraportable laptops, it can take up 60% of the processing power when some of the programs just don't seem to slow down again - this has not been an issue with onecare because of the tight knit integration with windows.
| 12:18 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The thought of dumping all those Symantec products is immensely appealing.
| 1:54 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've kept my eye on this service since last July [webmasterworld.com]. I get the feeling that some of you posting in this thread might not be looking at this product the same way. ;)
Of course it would be fantastic if all operating systems were 100% secure and there were no viruses , worms, or other types of exploits out there. The reality of the situation is that systems and maintenance have become too difficult for the average user so a product like OneCare becomes helpful for the less sophisticated user.
Looking at the feature set OneCare is more like Symantec's SystemWorks product. It handles a lot of system maintenance tasks:
These are trivial tasks for the experienced user, but may be confusing for the more casual user. Norton and other companies have been providing these products for years.
- Hard disk defragmentation
- Virus scan
- Automatic Updates
- Remove unnecessary files
I look at this as a service that offers a lot of the centrally-managed IT administrative functions you might expect in a corporate environment, but for home users. OneCare gives us an Internet-based service that is automatic and is always up to date. This is the sort of system you can let grandma subscribe to and you can then rest assured that essential system maintenance tasks are being handled.
A lot of the companies/technologies that Microsoft absorbed to create this product were top in their field. (i.e., Giant AntiSpyware) I hope that MS will have created a worthwhile product that will allow people a chance to get away from a lot of the Symantec bloatware.
| 3:00 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well said, Bill :)
(and I agree 100%).
My only wish list for this (so far) is that the automatic backups won't transfer to an external hard drive on a wireless network, it must be via an actual cable connection.
| 3:11 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In other news, Foarde Moter Company, having marketed a line of expensive cars with faulty brakes for the past eleven years, is now entering the auto insurance and auto-body repair businesses.
MS, get your priorities straight. No new feature releases until your software hits the five nines quality mark. Your job is to make "security suites" redundant and obsolete. All the rest is just fluff and eye-candy if the OS is not reliable and secure.
| 10:45 am on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The thought of dumping all those Symantec products is immensely appealing. |
Thank you for shedding some light on the real joys of this release. I 100% agree!
| 8:23 pm on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Some people are so predictable.
They complain and call Microsoft names for selling this product.
Yet, change the press release to say the product would be bundled for free with Windows and these very same people would likely complain because Microsoft is trying to put the anti-virus and firewall companies out of business.
Come on folks, its a reality that Microsoft can't simply bundle everything with Windows and avoid anti-trust lawsuits.
| 10:29 pm on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why does MS have to charge to plug their security holes?! I must say MS, please fix your OS and only then all security products will not be needed any more as an essential part of our everyday life.
| 11:04 pm on Jun 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Come on folks, its a reality that Microsoft can't simply bundle everything with Windows and avoid anti-trust lawsuits. |
motorhaven - Exactly what I'd been thinking.
Additional thoughts... we all know that there are some big flaws in Windows, but has anyone ever built such a secure operating system that features like anti-Spyware, firewall, and virus scan, would not be needed?
Would such a program be usable by the average consumer... or would it require such a combination of privileges and permissions to lock it down that it would then require someone very experienced to maintain it?