|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
11:22 EST/16:22 GMT | News Source:
ZDNet |
Posted By: Matthew Sabean |
For years I have used the following explanation when people ask me why Microsoft doesn't bundle antivirus software:
Although Microsoft has never ruled out the notion of adding antivirus software to its offerings in the past, it has had no real bottom-line reason to do so. Microsoft does not do anything unless it fends off a threat to the core business or makes money. So why develop a huge company infrastructure to support antivirus software? There is no way Microsoft could sell the software, because people would demand that it be bundled as part of the operating system. And Microsoft would have to do that anyway, to have a consistent story about how it innovates. So where is the additional revenue? With antivirus software, there is none: It's just an added expense.
So, I was just as surprised as anyone else when Bill Gates told a small group having dinner with him in Manhattan just before the launch of Windows XP that the company may be reconsidering its position on the issue. Note that Microsoft is already toying with building firewall protection into the OS, as with Windows XP. There doesn't seem to be any money in that either. So what's going on?
I think Microsoft will incorporate antivirus software into its system for marketing reasons that are directly related to the company's .NET strategy. I also suspect that Microsoft will license the software from an existing antivirus company and put it under the Microsoft label, but that's not important. What is important is the underlying reason for all this—and it's not computer security.
|
|
#1 By
531 (12.23.169.194)
at
12/6/2001 12:37:35 PM
|
Honestly, it would be pretty nice to have that functionality in the OS, and I think that most people would argue that it's becoming a necessity...
however...
this is just going to get Microsoft into more trouble.
It shouldn't - but it will. Nobody's going to buy the idea that Microsoft isn't making money off of it (even though it's pretty obvious), and they're going to accuse MS of trying to "squash" it's competitors in the AV market.
Maybe it would just be better to:
a) licence an antivirus solution from one of the AV companies instead of writing a new one
or
b) just include API hooks that an AV program could use to interface with the system at OS-level.
Personally, I vote for B. I wish they would have done that with the web browsing functionality too. (I would still use IE, though...)
|
#2 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
12/6/2001 1:45:33 PM
|
Did you read this entire article?
Dvorak is insane.
|
#3 By
2960 (156.80.64.164)
at
12/6/2001 1:58:43 PM
|
#6,
There's a big difference between the consumer _wanting_ something, and Microsoft forcing what it _thinks_ we should have at their discretion.
TL
|
#4 By
1295 (216.84.210.100)
at
12/6/2001 4:40:09 PM
|
I agree sodablue, this guy is insane. My mom is more qualified to talk about this stuff than he his.
"The downside to all this, of course, is the antivirus software itself. Will it be as good as what we currently have?"
The only thing that makes AV software "good" these days is how long it takes to get a virus definition out for the newest viruses.
He also is automatically assuming the MS will write their own... ROFL. They never do that for bundled software (Minus Windows Media, MSN Messenger etc) Defrag, Photo processing, Terminal Services/Remote Desktop, Scanning... these are all licensed programs from third parties which in turn get a few pennies of each OS sold. MS will likely just use symantecs stuff. Everyone should have some AV Software even if they are to stupid or cheap to doso. These viruses plug up the net and tie up e-mail servers. If there was a way to get something on to every machine I'm all for it.
"Anyway, Microsoft has to find some reasonable excuse to access your machine. And antivirus updates are that excuse"
WTF Does this mean. Does he no know about windows update? That thing is incredibly intrusive... but it also provides an incredible service to anybody (both ignorant user or an advanced administrator) I bet Devorak uses a belt, suspenders and even paperclips to keep his pants up.
|
#5 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
12/6/2001 6:13:29 PM
|
#19. I agree that on newer computers the virus scanner doesn't impact much. It used to be a bigger deal with 200 Mhz and slower computers. Now with my 850Mhz it can run a full system virusscan in the background and I barely notice.
Having lot's of memory helps, as well. :)
|
#6 By
2332 (129.21.145.80)
at
12/6/2001 8:51:31 PM
|
#25 - Microsoft designed WM tech themselves. They do, however, license some of the streaming technologies.
Frontpage is an MS original... which isn't, in my opinion, a good thing - I hate frontpage.
SQL Server was purchased in it's original form, but it has been completely redesigned and rewritten since version 7.0. There is basically nothing in common, other than partial compatibility, with the original purchased version. For this reason, I consider it an MS original.
|
#7 By
18 (64.126.36.84)
at
12/6/2001 10:30:57 PM
|
I think they probably will, but it will be Blackcomb before we see this. It is already rumored that Blackcomb will be subscription based, so why not pay $1.99 (or whatever) more a month to have a virus scanner on your PC? It would make sence and I'm sure they could liscence it from someone. If it is done on a subscription basis with Blackcomb, it could be profitable for MS. Just my opionion, anyway ;)
|
#8 By
135 (208.50.201.48)
at
12/6/2001 10:45:53 PM
|
#27. Actually Microsoft paid several million $'s for QDOS. The original agreement was for only like $80k, but after they began shipping they paid Seattle Computing a very healthy sum. The author of QDOS even went to work for Microsoft.
#28. If Microsoft licensed Norton Antivirus, McAfee would complain that it was unfair to competition. Honestly, they'd be right. Especially in the area of virus scan the healthy competition does push forth the quality and responsiveness of the vendors.
|
#9 By
1295 (216.84.210.100)
at
12/6/2001 11:11:46 PM
|
#25 Just so you know I knew that and yes frontpage powerpoint dos all of those count too.
On that subject I would just like to inject one thought. I hope to god that I write software that MS buys from me.... hell if they bought my company I would jump up and down like a little school girl.
They have the manpower and the minds smaller companies don't have. As for Dos that was simply a case of some moron not knowing what he had and Gates et al owning him and IBM in simple business strategy. I don't hold MS in the wrong for any of these purchases. SQL Server was a piece of crap when they bought it and now look at it... it owns!
This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Thursday, December 06, 2001 at 23:17.
|
#10 By
931 (24.98.84.49)
at
12/7/2001 7:35:21 AM
|
a) I install av on all servers and all users system.. however some server and my workstation will always have the services disabled untill I think I need them.
9 years in this field an not a virus on any of my systems yet. (excluding users)
They all hog some noticable performance up to about the 1.gig area then it's a wash.
If you've got a decent clue your 99% protected.
b) I dont really like the idea of MS getting into virus protection.. They've shown that they are not the best at protecting and finding ways to protect there own os.. I'm sure they could make a good app, but I bet NAI and Sym. can make better apps.. However if there going to do it.. Like others have suggested they should make it an optional and very streamlined and feature poor version that is as quick as possible. They should ship a core .dat file with the OS, and then update only with service packs, with the rare exception of some really really wild outbreak. Doing so keeps a good amount of compatition in the marketplace for 'real' virus protection with advanced features and weekly updates... ie NAI\Trend\Symantec\etc. What this would provide though is an optional, kind of base level of protection for JoeBlow Clueless consumer, while corporations will likey continue to buy 'feature rich' programs. Don't get me wrong, it'll hurt Mcafee and Symatec a little bit, but I dont honestly see alot of consumers not continuing to purchase real virus protection. This method though would at least ensure that most viruses would be all but edradicated shortly after each service pack release.. so then we're only dealing with outbreaks inbetween SP's.
ahh I dont know really, but I dont see them licensing the technology from either major vendor, if anything it'll be licensed from some more minor player in the AV space.
|
|
|
|
|