Just what I need ... one more bloated Microsoft software
>one more bloated Microsoft software
Let's wait to see it before we trash it. ;)
Didn't MS try this before several years ago. I seem to recall posting comparative test results here. Needless to say MS results were abysmal.
Did I dream that?
This is typical Microsoft predatory practices to destroy yet another 3rd party software support industry, has anyone got the anti-trust people in the DOJ up in arms yet?
How I'd like to see this work would be Microsoft create an integrated AV platform tied directly into the OS and then companies like Symantec or McAfee just feed it their database, but I'm not sure I want to see MS responsible for the database itself.
|This is typical Microsoft predatory practices to destroy yet another 3rd party software support industry.. |
Those were my words while I watch Norton/Symantec buy out its competition only to kill the companies/products it purchased. I remember PC Tools for Windows (used in win 3.x) from Central Point that had fully featured backups (included Colorado Memory Sys tape at the time), disk defrag, AV, custom/multiple "desktops", file manager with built-in compression, disk fix, etc. Norton bought them out for competing with several of their products and killed off the company. Did the same to PowerQuest back in 2003 and killed off superior products. I guess what I'm saying is Symantec has nothing to cry about as its been using predatory practices for many years.
What I don't understand is people that will complain about Microsoft Products needing AV software, then when they want to provide a solution for free…they are still in the wrong.
As I don't think Windows Firewall did anything to kill the 3rd party firewall industry, I doubt MS AV will spell the end of the 3rd party AV industry.
|Those were my words while I watch Norton/Symantec buy out its competition only to kill the companies/products it purchased. |
It's actually natural to watch a maturing industry shake out and start to purchase some small companies/rivals rather than reinvent the wheel.
MS on the other hand is like the Borg, they assimilate anything in their path, if you resist they simple rewrite it, violate your patents (Stacker for instance), and then pay off a paltry pittance settlement to the corpse of the remaining company after the fact.
|What I don't understand is people that will complain about Microsoft Products needing AV software, then when they want to provide a solution for free…they are still in the wrong. |
I don't think they're in the wrong, but I'm not sure I trust them 100% to secure the machine either, otherwise they'd have done it decades ago instead of letting a cottage industry with much more experience in this matter fill the void.
Obviously having a bullet proof OS would be the preference eliminating the need for AV software to slow down the machines.
Since that isn't the case, I'd prefer a 3rd party who earns their livelihood scrambling to make AV as secure as possible because it's an INCOME, they need to be good at what they do to survive, vs MS where it's free and an EXPENSE costing them more money.
Who do you think has your best interest at heart, the people that view the process as INCOME or a horrible EXPENSE on their bottom line?
Worse case, here's how I see this playing out as I've watched it before:
MS releases this free AV thing into the wild, the cheapskates that used to buy other AV software abandon it for the free MS thing, and all the AV vendors (or most) dwindle and die off.
Then MS quits putting as much resources behind improving and maintaining their AV product, there's no serious competition left, and since it's a nasty EXPENSE the advancements in PC security that an open marketplace would've promoted have ceased to be created moving forward.
I could be wrong but I see the end game in favor of the hackers, not the PC owners, if this all comes to pass because fewer eyeballs on PC security issues is just bad for everyone all around.
|As I don't think Windows Firewall did anything to kill the 3rd party firewall industry |
There's not such a big firewall industry, it's tied into AV software.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 4:28 pm (utc) on June 11, 2009]
|How I'd like to see this work would be Microsoft create an integrated AV platform tied directly into the OS and then companies like Symantec or McAfee just feed it their database, but I'm not sure I want to see MS responsible for the database itself. |
It will never happen, but I like that idea a lot.
|It will never happen, but I like that idea a lot. |
They have ODBC for multiple vendors to plug in database APIs, and many similar vendor APIs, so how hard could it be to have an AVAPI to plug in anti-virus data?
As a matter of fact, lacking an open API for AV services would be proof of anti-competitive practices ;)
[edited by: incrediBILL at 10:15 pm (utc) on June 11, 2009]
It won't happen because it would be helpful to competitors. I've not studied ODBC, but my understanding is that it's simply an MS implementation of a standard developed by others.
There's also a downside to having MS create the system - it will be horrible. I've spent most of the last week battling with 64bit Windows so-called compatibility code - it's completely bonkers. For instance there are three system folders, one called "System" (it's empty because 16bit apps aren't supported) one called "System32" (it holds all the 64bit stuff - I'm not making it up) and one called "SysWow64" that holds all the 32bit stuff. And that's just the start - it's overly complex, and in some areas, buggy.
Wouldn't it be very helpful to virus writers too?
I can understand the issues about anti-competitive practices, but there's a certain irony in not trusting Microsoft for virus protection but trusting them with your entire operating system and (in many cases) major applications and data formats.
Another issue is that the anti-virus sector is full of some of the worst software and worst sales tactics around. It is hard to have much sympathy for the current crop of anti-virus and snake-oil "security solution" providers.