Comments on: Microsoft swims upstream on security

The software giant finally lays out its server security plan. But entrenched competitors and wary customers stand in the way.

[Stan Johnson]

OneCare security service is hard to justify

Windows Live OneCare security service is hard to justify when Microsoft's operating systems are the root of their massive security problems by a large margin. All operating systems have their vulnerabilities but Windows is the top dog.

This whole Microsoft security effort feels like paying protection money to the mafia.

[Tanjore]

Well microsoft is one of the vendors

There is no gaurantee that people will go to microsoft for the service. They are just another vendor in security market.

If they give the onecare product for free then it is more like using their monopoly to kill symantec and macafee.

onecare is more than just a security product. It has more functionality than just scanning and elimination virus, adware/spyware.

Ultimately it is the people that are going to make a decison.

[Tanjore]

Microsoft also provides a free service to eliminate virus!!

ideas.live.com - Safety center - is a free service to detect and eliminate virus.

It also provides lots of functionality and its all free.

mafias rarely provide help this way :)

I am no microsoft fanboy but it is always good to get a complete story.

[Björn Lundahl]

The most popular operating system in the world

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[john55440]

Conflict of Interest

If Microsoft were to make an extremely secure operating system, then it would lose revenue from it's new security services.

(i.e., it's more profitable for Microsoft to make an insecure operating system that requires it's new security services.)

In addition, the early reviews of Windows Live OneCare are mediocre at best. They should fix that, before they get into business security services.

[Stalin Hornsby]

Losing Focus for the View; open renters insurance via ISP providers 5.0.10.

While the band marches on without any Islamic threat in America;ditto. I very well am leaving my back gate unlocked and still; posted with "No Trespassing". To no aveil in my acount of the 'Catch 22'or N-stytle agenda placed on my hundreds of thousands of dollars withheld from personnal endowment. Oh, to 'Dow" is motive for renters insurance. rather, when my own family comes to replant my property I will be asking for saltiel tile instead of carpet. Maybe not, but even the Homeland Security super doesn't do windows.

[Björn Lundahl]

No conflict of interest

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more MS will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[proximityguy]

nice gig

"protection money to the mafia" Exactly!

It's like a car manufacturer selling lemons, then offering extended service and warranties to the buyers.

If the MS OS is such a piece of Swiss cheese, why should we have to pay MS for measures to clean it up and keep it secure? Isn't this their OBLIGATION?!

This is why our shop has gone to a Linux enviroment, but the whole Windows thing still cheeses me off

[Lindy01]

Linux...

has just as many security problems. It just does not have as many people after yet. If it ever gains any real market share it will be a fat target.

The car analogy is lame. Car makers never used to include any kind of theft protection devices....there was and still is a big after market for ant-theft devices for cars. Of course you can get all of that stuff right the auto maker for a PRICE!!

[Björn Lundahl]

Extended service and warranties I bought for my watch

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[gggg sssss]

in a heart beat

I will buy it for the servers and workstations I manage, even pay a bit more than symantec, who we use now, simply because it is one less vendor's licencing scheme to deal with

[Lindy01]

I agree

One less contract and one less comapny to deal with whe there are problems.

I am going to bet its going to be cheaper to move off of Symantec for my windows enviroment and Exchange as well.

It cant come out fast enough.

[km4hr]

If "vendor's licencing schemes" are a problem...

Then why aren't you using Linux?

[danielgarciaacosta]

Actually, Open Source is the king

Propietary software has more patch developer time than open source. The question is how many programmers destiny microsoft to develop patches and how many programmers forming *NIX comunity

[Tanjore]

Open source will be king only when...

It is true that open source is very good. Specifically linux.

Open source will be king only when it have lot os driver support from hardware vendors. There are many vendors who do not have drivers for linux.

It also needs good software support. There are many applications that users use on windows and those application have scaled down functionality in linux.

It is true that there are many vendors behind the linux bandwagon, but still support from commercial vendors is less than what it is for microsoft platform (unfortunately this is true).

And for a vendor to support linux, it may be a nightmare because there are so many linux distributions out there and making sure the software/device driver works on all the distributions is a nightmare (probably not).

Though linux os is superior in many ways, it doesn't have the same kinda support microsoft enjoys.

[Björn Lundahl]

A very tiny king

Open Source is a very good thing, I think. But a king.....? I do not think so. But we never know about the future. As long as the market is free and people will have a choice, that is enough for me. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[J_Satch]

Boils Down to This...

"For Microsoft, it's simpler to create security add-ons than to build security into its products, an approach that would also make it harder for the company to make extra money"

Nuff said.

[Björn Lundahl]

Good for the customer that MS charge

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[kamwmail-cnet1]

So how often will Windows Live OneCare call Microsoft per Day?

Who would be dumb enough to trust Microsoft?

[kamwmail-cnet1]

Let's make Buggy OS and than make more $$ selling the bug "fixes".

Gotta admit, it makes perfect business sense.

[Björn Lundahl]

Blame the customer for bad security and not MS

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[Tui Pohutukawa]

Get a Mac,

and your expenses for security are exactly... Zilch.

[Björn Lundahl]

You might need a firewall, though?

Macs are nice, I think. But there are a lot of other points than security. As we all really know. That is why XP is so popular.
Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[john55440]

Apple Leaving Money On The Table...

If Apple made a version of OSX that could be preinstalled on Dell, HP, and other current-Windows computers, they would probably make a pile of money.

Currently, with a stagnant 3.x% market share, Apple is no threat to Microsoft.

[wbenton]

I'll believe it after I see it!

Microsoft doesn't swim upstream with security... they usually float downstream like all the other crap. (* GRIN *)

FWIW

[technewsjunkie]

"It's simpler for MS to charge for add-on then to secure Windows"

This statement says it all:
"For Microsoft, it's simpler to create security add-ons than to build security into its products, an approach that would also make it harder for the company to make extra money, at least one analyst said."

They are rewarding themselves - and charging us -for their poor security designed products.

[technewsjunkie]

"It's simpler for MS to charge for add-on then to secure Windows"

This statement says it all:
"For Microsoft, it's simpler to create security add-ons than to build security into its products, an approach that would also make it harder for the company to make extra money, at least one analyst said."

They are rewarding themselves - and charging us -for their poor security designed products.

[Björn Lundahl]

It is not bad to charge for add-on

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more MS will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[qwerty75]

Way too funny

MS has yet to make a product that is reasonably secure.

You would have to be a complete idiot to trust MS on anything, especially in regards to security.

[Björn Lundahl]

Are we idiots because we buy from MS

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[corelogik]

Currently

celebrating 5 years of being Microsoft free and loving it. My servers
run LAMP, my desktops are Mac,... viruses to date... zero, spyware
to date... zero, malware to date... zero

Ah the microsoft free life, im lovin it!

[bsacchini]

They are in it for the money?

They are in it for the money, of course," said Andrew Jaquith, an analyst at Yankee Group.

Why would individuals of a publicly traded company form an organization or business group and spend hours and resources on NOT making money? I thought he was an analyst...

[km4hr]

Saving is money is not obvious to MS users.

It's true that businesses are in it for the money. You'd think individuals would be looking out for their own finances as well. But MS users are oblivious to the fact that they're spending money for stuff they can get for nothing. Ignorance really is bliss. MS users spend their money on a flawed system. Then they spend more money to patch it up. MS has no motivation to fix their security problems. Just the opposite. They have every reason to create built-in flaws so they can turn around and sell software to fix them. It's crazy! In the automotive world flaws are called factory defects. Companies have recalls and they pay to fix the problems. In software the customer pays to fix the manufacturer's mistakes. In the case MS, flaws are probably not even mistakes. They're part of the business plan.

[technewsjunkie]

No one is saying they can't make $, it's about HOW they make it

No one is saying MS can't make money, but it's the way they tend
do do it.

I'm a Capitalist and have no problem with people making lots of
money. But in this case (and others) Microsoft makes mediocre
products and in effect creates a whole industry to support their
poorly designed products and then usurps that third party market
to fix thier own damn product!

[Björn Lundahl]

I think it is ok that MS makes money

I think the truth can be like this:

If the general customer for the now coming Vista wants "x amount of security upgrade", Microsoft will deliver it and have it built in the Vista version. MS makes all sorts of things to make the Vista more attractive. Why? The more attractive Vista is, the higher the price and the more will they sell. So, if then the general customer wants mentioned security upgrade, the Vista will be more attractive, the price will be higher and MS will sell more of them. But if the general customers do not want this upgrade, then MS will sell those upgrades only to those that want them. This is very good. We must accept that the customers do not always want the best security. Not everyone is like we are! The demand for security changes and the internet changes, and now MS is also a bit changing there services because of that. Best regards, Björn Lundahl, Gothenburg, Sweden

[gordonf4cnet]

Well don't buy OneCare then, and compute safely instead

Windows had better security in it since Win2K. In fact, over WinME's and Win2K's mainstream support period, Win2K was slightly less expensive:

http://www.antiwindowscatalog.com/?mode=rant&id=31

That's not including savings from preventing downtime.

OneCare was obsolete the moment they launched it, so don't buy it if you don't want it.