Sure, Microsoft apps are secure--the security apps!

OK! So they will be charging for, say, One Care? So what if they did, like many suggest and include it in XP and Vista? Because they would get sued by the likes of Symantec etc! They would be accused of trying to put them out of business with a FREE service that competes with them. For example, Real Networks player versus FREE WMP? It's included free AND THE PAY FOR COMPETITION DOESN'T LIKE IT.
Now, what else would you like Microsoft to include to protect it's OS for free so we can see more anti-trust lawsuits?

by stonehkm (See profile) - February 27, 2006 1:01 PM PST

What if all apps were secure...Would people just sit around and be hunky-dory and "love" there OS or apps no matter what they may be...You know they are going to find someway or somehow to find holes in any app...

We all rant and rave about all OS and apps no matter how good or bad...

It's like the movies we got all these "critics" slam-dunk the movies, why don't the write and make the "perfect" movie...

Lucky we live in this world that we have "variety"...

As for MS...over $25b has been given to charity to make this world a little better...

by whodaguy (See profile) - February 26, 2006 3:05 PM PST

Maybe I just don't understand this topic enough, but I don't see what everyone's up in arms about.

Not being a programmer or otherwise possessing in-depth knowledge of computer security, I do not know what built-in virus protection for Windows Vista would entail, and therefore wouldn't know how it could be more effective than antivirus software. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that "built-in" protection would not work significantly better than add-on software to protect against viruses.

If Microsoft includes built-in virus protection with Windows Vista, it's sure to add a premium to the cost of the OS. Since they won't, then the consumers' money that would have gone toward that premium will instead go toward antivirus software.

That said, it's not like you won't have a choice which software to go with. If Microsoft's proves to be the best, then pretend you're paying for a better OS. And if Symantec or McAfee or whoever provides better antivirus software than Microsoft, then be glad that you didn't have to pay more for the OS AND buy antivirus software.

Am I just so misinformed (and I won't pretend this is far from possible) that I'm missing major points? Or is it fair to say that people are looking for reasons to accuse Microsoft of monopolistic tactics? Shouldn't MS's stepping into the ring just mean more competition and higher-quality virus protection options for consumers?

by vietjew (See profile) - February 25, 2006 5:25 PM PST

While I think MS is stupid for joining the Anti-virus market, I in no way see the OS issues today as their fault. Many of you claim to be 'this' or 'that' and power users, but I just don't buy it. I fix 2-4 computers a week (free for friends, family, sometimes I do help some small businesses to, but they normally are more locked-down and safe). Anyways 99.995% of issues are user based. Most of the time they do not update or even run their anti-virus, anti-spyware software, they turn off their firewall because it 'blocked some funny sounding link', hun think so? Anyways Microsoft did not protect its system because it was never meant to be connected into the Internet, and it was built to be open, this lets you have powerful open source, and interface changing programs. I mean windows blinds would never work 1/6 as well on a MAC because it is to locked down. It would only work if it was built into apple's software. And thats a pain. Almost nothing works on macs, and thats why PCs are great. Anything runs, sadly that means viruses to. But don't say you want this tight, secure PC, you don't!

by AuroraAlpha (See profile) - February 25, 2006 5:09 PM PST

this is another display of Microsofts terrible costumer support and another display of Microsoft acting as if they are a monopoly. If people werent used to M$, and tiger and xp were released at the same time, who do you think would win. Tiger which is easy to use and doesnt get viruses or Xp which gets a virus every five seconds if you have no antivirus. Tiger, its too bad that microsoft pulled out to a lead and became the ultimate norm for the american/international consumer, but if that didnt happen, m$ would have died in the 80's.

by metalhead11 (See profile) - February 25, 2006 11:27 AM PST

Why should people pay for protecting a product they've already paid for. I don't understand.
It's like having a manufacturer recall for something wrong with your car, and then be expected to pay out of our pockets. Shouldn't the manufacturer, in this case the creator, of mentioned product create a safe product be responsible for all financials involved in maintaining such product safe.

But, M$$$$$$$$, to those easily offended, can do, and have done, what they want.

I don't get into the silly wars 'cause I use all the popular OSs. But, I don't understand why MS is now making money from users for protecting a product that should've been built with better security issues in mind.

Silly and profitable for M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

by Dead Soulman (See profile) - February 25, 2006 7:05 AM PST

Anyone who defends M$ is a dumbass. Im sorry ok. Dont show anybody how your head is up your ass by telling them not to say "M$" because if the truth hurts, maybe you shouldn't be talking.

MS has had crappy OS's for years, in terms of security. People are ALWAYS exploiting basic holes. Just HOW MANY security updates have we had to download from MS? Answer- way too many. They suck ass at what they do and in case anyone needs a history lesson, they are the market leader because of monopolistic practices that now can never be reversed. Look personally, I dont think Ill ever switch from windows because Im just so used to it. It's really intuitive for me and I cant deal with having a one button mouse. Im not gonna hate on Mac OS X, there's a reason why so many design professionals and arstists use them, and an iMac is easily the best looking computer on the market today as are Apple laptops.

But forget M$'s typical uselessness, this is just a bad move because it's INCONVENIENT. If I had everything in one OS, one package, I wouldnt have to worry about getting anything else and that justifies in consumers' minds, whatever ludicrous price point MS will likely release Vista at. But now, Im not so sure I even want Vista when it comes out. You know, more cynical people would say that MS doing security software was an oxymoron. I was actually going to give them the benefit of the doubt but if they want to keep screwing consumers like this, continue to expect an angry majority that is still forced to use windows because they have to, not because they want to

by gss0811 (See profile) - February 25, 2006 12:39 AM PST

MS is well known for releasing products well before they have been fully tested. Security patches sometimes pop up weeks, if not days, after a newly released product because of some security hole they just found. MS's attempt at (poorly) meeting deadlines and beating other companies to market results in swiss cheese products that need constant updates.

Because of this, I would not trust MS to protect my computer from antiviruses, spyware, etc. It is feasible to believe that their antivirus protection may be too late in protecting me, considering their history of being behind the ball.

And why should I rely on MS to protect me from their own software?

If their product adds something that the others dont or that I cant find elsewhere, then I say, good...competition is what makes the world go round.

But if this is just another antivirus/spyware product, I think I'll take my chances with the pros who actually know something about protecting and fixing (Microsoft's) security holes (ie McAfee, Norton, ZoneAlarm and others)

by techmonkey (See profile) - February 24, 2006 12:47 PM PST

Not a bright idea Microsoft….please do mot be drawn into that false delusion of grandeur, for it is so not (sounding a bit like “Clueless” today!)

The idea of having Microsoft making their own antivirus, is the ultimate example of a company trying to stifle competition and creativeness in the market.

The started off with that piece of junk called Microsoft Explorer (I use firefox, thank you very much) and now they want to bundle/sell us antivirus to protect their already buggy Vista OS?

Hmm…...why do I get the impression that they are DELIBERATELY creating......opps......I mean not properly beta testing their OS before release....... the problems LEFT in their OS to make mega bucks from the "future" problems that you will have causing your PC to be subject a viral attacks?

Hmm…...and Microsoft says "Brilliant, right!" well, but a bar over that, cause in logic gates it is so NOT.

Looks more like conspiracy to me.....”Micro-Bucks After Gates” should be the name of this new strategy of theirs, akin to a badly written Hollywood script so common in the movie fare that is being churned out by these churlish movie producers in Hollywood.

Then again.....the whole antivirus industry is ...I suspect...one big conspiracy, as the speed with which the come out with their viral patches, is amazing......I suspect that they have long been at a kind of tag cat-and-mouse game between themselves and the antivirus writers, as many of these antivirus writers write code for some of these big antivirus companies, such as Norton Antivirus.

Also, why sell antivirus? If security features could be improved from within the operating system architecture, why the need to sell antivirus.....?

Oh....and here is a future concept that Microsoft could use........and I am not talking about software patches, but simply robust software that is simply AI (Artificially Intelligent)i.e. any viral, worm Trojan based attack, it anticipates and evaluates the attack by learning how the virus works, quarantining it and isolating it and then analyzing it and finally writing an "antiserum" ...and dealing with the pesky vermin once and for all.

Microsoft should think along these lines, as AI have come long way since the ELISA program. Ditto for the antivirus industry.

As for me.........I'm using Lindows, with a Mozilla browser and writing this blog with OpenOffice........No Micro*^&% on my PC, mate!

by Area_52 (See profile) - February 24, 2006 11:13 AM PST

When M$ started bundling software with windows, people around the world screamed that it was unfair business practice and sued them for monopoly. Now you are saying that they *should* bundle software with windows? Your expectation is not reasonable. Nor is the expectation that windows (or any other complex software or OS) could be made invulnerable to the amazing number of attacks that it sustains. That is what third party vendors are for, they are specialists, and can do a better job of protecting computers than M$ will ever be able to do.

by guybert (See profile) - February 23, 2006 9:57 PM PST