| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
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 |
 |
Vista and Security Bundling | |
|
||
| Time: 09:24 EST/14:24 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Several reporters have asked me what the Windows OneCare Live widespread beta means to security software vendors, such as McAfee, Panda, Symantec or Trend Micro. What OneCare foreshadows is significant. According to the release notes: "Windows OneCare will not be compatible with the Windows Vista operating system (formerly codenamed 'Longhorn') when that operating system is released." With Microsoft's big emphasis on security in Windows vista, OneCare incompatibility is tough to rationalize. Why should Microsoft's major new consumer software product be incompatible with its major new operating system? One explanation makes sense: That Microsoft will bundle similar capabilities found in Windows OneCare, including antivirus, into Windows Vista. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 438 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:27:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 12/2/2005 12:10:11 PM |
| It seems to me that what the author of the article is doing is just speculating. I think no one know for sure what will be in the final release of Vista. Besides isn't OneCare still in beta? |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/2/2005 1:08:12 PM |
| I think the author makes some excellent points. OneCare isn't likely to take the world by storm at first, at least not in the enterprise market. Over time, who knows. But the conflict of interests issue is very interesting, and given Microsoft's position in the industry, it may be very true that they're not in the best position to offer such products. I would prefer, however, not to have to run anti-virus at all at work, as I don't at home without issue. It'd be nice not to suffer the performance penalty; I'd say the maintenance as well, but thankfully, AV is pretty much maintenance-free these days. |
| #3 By 17996 (66.188.88.180) at 12/2/2005 7:49:01 PM |
|
#4 - Interestingly, the antitrust case's tying issue was never fully resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals vacated Judge Jackson's ruling that it was illegal, and remanded it back to the district court (Kollar-Kotelly) for re-analysis. However, the case was settled before a final ruling could be made.
No doubt the antitrust folks (government and competitors) are watching Vista like a hawk... |
| #4 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 12/3/2005 11:24:14 AM |
|
OSS Hypocrisy:
Linux: 4 million crappy apps on 7 CD's given away as a distro: GOOD! Microsoft: Bundling is evil!!!!!!!!!! |
| #5 By 12071 (203.206.243.239) at 12/3/2005 10:16:13 PM |
|
#6 It would help if you understood what everyone is talking about when they mention bundling. Yes both Linux distro's and Microsoft package several items together as a single product. The difference is the TYPE of bundling practiced.
With the Linux distro you can individually choose to install any combination of additional items as you see fit (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=choice) during the installation. Furthermore, all additional items can be uninstall. With Microsoft, they choose which combination of additional items they see fit during the installation and then not allow you to uninstall any of those items. |
| #6 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 12/4/2005 12:03:01 PM |
|
#7 Kabuki Boy makes stuff up again to try and justify the OSS hypocrisy. What a loser.
|
| #7 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/4/2005 9:30:34 PM |
| #8 Which bit did I make up? It's not my fault you had a poor education and you failed to learn to read and comprehend simple English - blame yourself for that. Seems like you're the hypocrite here - you're always jumping up and down saying that the GPL is communistic (when it actual fact it would be considered socialistic if anything) all the while you're quite happy to be told what to do, told what you can and cannot install/uninstall etc. If you understood what choice really was you'd fall over backwards! |
| #8 By 32132 (207.216.27.238) at 12/4/2005 10:00:45 PM |
|
#9 The last time I installed WIndows 2003 Server ... a few weeks ago ... I was sure there were a whole bunch of choices of what to install from the GUI.
Microsft ads features to the OS to make it more useful. OSS hypocrites whine and snivel and claim Microsft is evil for doing so. Its not bundling I have a problem with. Its your hypocrisy. The GPL is coercive. So is communism. Attempting to opt out of either is impossible except through revolution. But hey, thats why Linux is stalled dead on the desktop and stalling in the server space. People are tired of communistic coercive cults. People like the choice available in Windows. |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/4/2005 10:43:59 PM |
|
#10 "The last time I installed WIndows 2003 Server ... a few weeks ago ... I was sure there were a whole bunch of choices of what to install from the GUI."
Just how many "choices" did you have? Could you install your server OS without IE? If you couldn't then it doesn't sound like you had any choice in the matter and you just bent over and accepted whatever Microsoft wanted you to accept. Whether you wanted IE or not is irrelevant to whether you had a choice in the matter - who in their right security state of mind would want IE with it's constant stream of high risk vulnerabilities running on their server! "Microsft ads features to the OS to make it more useful. " That's great! Keep adding more features even ones with ads in them! But allow me the choice of which ones get installed on my pc. Sounds like a very communistic practice (to put it in terms you're more likely to understand) to be telling people what's best for them. "Its not bundling I have a problem with. Its your hypocrisy." The problem you have is the inability to read and comprehend - you have no-one to blame but yourself for that one. "The GPL is coercive. So is communism.... People are tired of communistic coercive cults." I honestly worry about your education! "People like the choice available in Windows." What choice? There is little to no choice available in Windows! There's a lot of "you will have this by default and dammit we're going to try and make it as difficult as possible for you to try and remove it" and very little of "check which applications you'd like to install". And once again, which bit did I make up? Or are you backfooting once again due to your poor reading and comprehension abilities. |
| #10 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 12/5/2005 11:38:40 AM |
|
"Could you install your server OS without IE?"
Well, by default, IE is installed in special lockdown mode for users and administrators on Windows 2003. I can choose to unlock it for users and/or administrators. There are a lot of other services and features I can turn on or off as well. If that isn't enough choice for you, go back to the dying Linux cult. And take your hypocritical crap with you. It gets tiresome when you lie about bundling when Microsoft does it, yet claim that 7 CD's worth of OSS crap on a distro is ok. I mean, aren't you embarrassed enough that I gave you a swirly over the fact that OpenDocument is patented by Sun and PDF is patented by Adobe? This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, December 05, 2005 at 11:41. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/5/2005 5:11:02 PM |
| #12 Keep backfooting there.... it's obvious you have nothing of substance so you're resorting to lying about having choices with Microsoft - I have to admire you for one thing though, you never let the truth get in the way! |
| #12 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 12/5/2005 6:23:00 PM |
|
Backfooting?
Is that some strange slang for rubbing your nose in your own hypocrisy? OSS think: Bundling is EVIL if Microsoft does it. Bundling is CHOICE of Linux does it. OSS Think: Patented Document Formats are EVIL if it is Microsoft. Patented Document Formats are good if they meet the 2 most important criteria: it isn't Microsoft doing it and the word OPEN is in the name. |
| #13 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/5/2005 7:21:00 PM |
|
#14 "Backfooting?"
Yes, backfooting - like you being unable to answer what I made up. Or not answering my question about whether you could install your server OS without IE and instead dodging the question by telling me that you could install it in some fancy special super duper mega lockdown edition - what are you? a politician? marketing droid? Answer the question! Admit that you have no choice whatsoever in whether IE gets installed in your server OS! Admit that there are plenty of other applications in which you have no choice whatsoever in whether they get installed or not. You simply have to accept Microsoft's way. There's no choice with Microsoft, stop lying about it constantly! "Bundling is EVIL if Microsoft does it." Bundling is bad when you don't give the end user a choice in whether they can opt out of the bundle - even going to the extent that you ensure the bundle cannot be uninstalled in any way afterwards (or in the most difficult of all ways) - and that applies to everyone, not just Microsoft. Bundling is "EVIL" (as you put it) when you take the previous point to an extreme and you leverage your desktop monopoly to promote a lesser product that would otherwise have to compete in the "free market" without the great help and distribution power of your desktop monopoly. If you still don't get it, give up, you're obviously too thick and we're not going to get anywhere. |
| #14 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 12/6/2005 9:30:59 PM |
|
#15 Your kind of thinking will keep Linux at 1 or 2% share of the desktop market.
You want an install that asks you 1000 questions, just like Linux. You want a choice of 10 crappy office wannabees, 14 different desktop environments (none of which people can stand for very long), 200 different scripting languages. Yoiu want there to be 453 distros, none of which are compatible with each other because they store config info in 453 differnt locations. Windows users like bundles, because they know full well that they can choose to install later 1,000,000 other software packages if they choose. And those 1,000,000 software packages will install just fine because 95% of the desktop market will be running Windows with the same bundle of services and software. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 438 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:27:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
