hmm i wonder if it'll be a subscription model or free like WU
i agree with /Lars first post in this thread..
its sort of akin to taco bell buying the alka seltzer co. and putting small kiosks in their restuarants..
eat the food - get heart burn then buy medicine
i think its a huge mistake to try to charge for shortcomings in your own product
they should dump this idea..
On another note - they SHOULD buy adaware / spybot / cws-scrubber / highjackthis - and let them run as a team within MS
SP2 does nothing to stop the crap that these programs fix - and for viruses - the most evil of all - id stay away if i was MS - and just link to top 10 companies
GooberDLX wrote: I thought MS was taking a position along side of current AV software companies to ensure that the core OS and API have greater connectivity with the functionality of AV software
They have a close cooperation with the AV-vendors. But partnerships have never stopped Microsoft from going in and taking over a market. They want it - they take it.
The article on /. has an interesting question:
"If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?""
They do patch fast enough. The problem is that the patches aren't distributed fast enough.
..of course the reason they are doing it is so they can eventually CHARGE for Windows Update "Premium"..
the reason for the delay is marketing
how do you get people to PAY for windows update
when they answer that question theyll roll it out
say goodbye to what little free stuff is offered on WU as the system theyre building is to - what else - maximize revenue
* MS! too much nickel and diming at every juncture!
Hah! You rock, Lars. Tell it like it is.
Regarding the slashdot quote: "If they can't seem to patch their OS fast enough, what makes them think they can keep their AV software up to date?"...
It seems to me there there's a significant difference between updating their binaries, and updating an AV signature libraries. If I understand AV correctly, it just searches accessed files for virus signatures, and blocks them, right? There's a lot less work involved in maintaining that than releasing a new OS binary. With the OS binary, you have to test, test, test, test, test, test, and... test some more. If you break something, oh, you're screwed!
I think that rhetorical question kinda touches the subject of motivation. Patching Windows is something that costs Microsoft money. Being the first one to detect and zap a virus is important for an AV-vendor to increase sales. They can't label a threat as "low" and then just leave it alone. When there are several different AV-vendors competition makes sure that they do their very best at all times.
Very good point. OTOH, AV software is a "quick" way for Microsoft to claim that they're handling security, mitigating one of the (big) reasons that people choose another platform. Maybe?
That is such BS. The ADODB.Stream security hole last exploited in the the 180 Solutions Trojan has been known since Aug 26 2003. And it's still unpatched.
Think before you talk. And look things up instead of just saying what your mates tell you. Then maybe some day you'll get a clue.
Sure. As an end user it would be great to get a free AV bundled with the OS. Like we now get a firewall for instance. It would enable Microsoft to reaffirm its statement about security being number one. It could even be an incentive to those with pirated copies of Windows to buy the OS to get access to the definition subscription.
But it's a dangerous path. The AV vendors just might not like being pushed out of business. It would be a similar situation to the one Microsoft is facing with the EU over the bundled Media Player. If their appeal is rejected they will have to remove Media Player within 30 days.