Take a look here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/nov08/11-18NoCostSecurityPR.mspx WOW! That's great!
It is good. People here debate the "best" way to achieve security,while millions never give it a second thought. Anything that makes it more likely one of these users will implement some kind of security program the safer the net becomes. Maybe people are more likely to download/instal a microsoft inhouse solution than to go to the "trouble" of looking up a third party freeware,or paid program(s)
hey any protection offered does protect all users on the net in long run not just those using one care free would be good.
I think it's brilliant, and I hope it's bundled with Windows 7 on by default. Considering it will probably be the next big upgrade leap since XP, it can secure an anti-virus on nearly every MS operating PC.
I think it's good, it means hopefully more PCs will become protected because many people simply aren't aware of how important protecting their PCs is. The key is, to have some wizard prompt you to get it setup when you first unbuckle your PC..so that it's up and running. The problem I foresee, is the majority of PC users out there purchase retail brand PCs..that commonly come bundled with 90 or 120 day trials of McGuffee or Symantbloat. Will these two giants fight with the OEMs to kill those setup wizards from within Windows for One Care? How many times to those of us who work in IT support see home users with expired "trial" versions of the above 2? IMO the key to this is how the major computer OEMs out there allow One Care to exist on their boxed PCs in the retail channels...and combat the flack from the traditional big 2 antivirus brands. Because I don't believe an adequate percentage of home users out there will know to go download/install One Care on their own when the trial versions of S and M are expired.
If the way that Windows Defender is made available is any indication, the free antivirus will be made available as a separate download. MS may have to do it to avoid litigation. Personally, I think both of those products should be installed by default.
It should be made as a separate download regardless of the anti trust issues. If it was installed and automatically updated by default, malware writers will just target OneCare and make sure it is not detected.
The news of the free av was a surprise, especially since MS OneCare had improved quite a bit in detection over the past year or so. With the free av we now have an MS version of a cheap suite- av, as, fw and anti-spam for their Live Mail download. What companies does this effect the most? I don't know right now. It could be the larger companies like Norton, TM and McAfee while it could also be the fringe companies. It is odd that MS would scrap OneCare altogether and replace it with a free av. It would make more sense to have the free offerring and advertise OneCare as an upgrade for purchase. However you slice it, I doubt MS is doing this because they have a heart of gold. There is a financial reason for it.
1. MS should build a secure OS to begin with. 2. The new offering will probably be targeted by malware writers even if it is a stand-alone download. Despite 1 and 2, I think it's a good idea. I only wish they would concentrate more on 1.
Vista is already secure by default: UAC alone is a terrific antiexecutable, but most people find it irritating (I don't), it has Windows Defender which properly configured is not a bad antispyware, most people turn it off (I do as I browse 99% of the time fully virtual, and I have no other antispyware), DEP and SRP, and last but not least a configurable firewall. I think it is a good idea to offer an AV as well, it will have to be uninstallable otherwise they will run against antitrust rules, as we all know two different AVs usually can't co-exist as residents.
Re 1, easier said than done. Re 2 all depends on market share I think. If Symantec has bigger market share, will be more of a priority for malware writers. MS is making much more sensible policy decisions which is awesome.
I don't use Windows anymore but I agree with Microsoft's choice. Windows is already a vulnerable OS by itself, and it MUST include an antivirus (it would be perfect it if was installed by default). Even if it's not integrated, it's still free and everyone can use it. Of course, we'll have to see how good it will be. I hope that Microsoft doesn't scr*w this up, too.
I'm still using XP Home and I like the idea that the UAC is like an antiexecutable, but the user is still not a limited user by default from what I understand. From what you wrote, it looks like the user has to have the knowledge to configure and use a lot of the security options which are not on or configured by default. I'm not picking on you, I just think there needs to be a simpler and easier solution. I suspect that it will gain a decent market share if it's easy to use. Many of us including me have to setup our friends and families machines with simple security softwares. If MS can fill this gap, 'morro' will be popular.
I agree with you, people should have some knowledge anyway about anything they care to deal with. DEP and SRP are definitely not for the average user, but UAC you can't ignore it, and lately after playing a bit with Ubuntu I realized that you can't change anything without entering your admin password, which is basically the same as UAC in Vista (you can run admin with UAC on, or guest with limited privileges). So why would you have UAC running if you are admin? To tell you if something (malware could be a possibility) decides to run in the background without your knowledge and authority. I think this is great, but guess what? Most people find UAC a pain in the back rather than an improvement... Probably your simplier and easier solution will be OneCare free for all. MS can certainly afford it, and it will put a lot of pressure on other companies to improve their products. I suspect that given the current financial outlook, many AV companies will go out of business.
Even if it were targeted, for the average user, having _some_ kind of AV software that auto-updates its virus definitions is immensely better than not having any. It's because the average user does not install AV software or allows the trial license for their AV software to expire that having a default, free AV solution is a good thing.
But isn't OneCare already free ? Pretty much YES . Windows Defender - Microsoft's antispyware engine integrated into OneCare is free . Windows Live scanner is free (it offers free on-demand antivirus,antispyware,antimalware scans + optimisation). Microsoft's virus lab is accessable even if you use a free product of theirs . Microsoft already provides free anti-virus/anti-malware help for its US customers - no matter the antivirus/antimalware product used . Microsoft general support is free (and I doubt they'll reject you even if you have virus/malware problem , at least they didn't reject me years ago) . OneCare itself offers a 90-day free trial . Last , but not least , Microsoft's OneCare for home users is not expensive . It may not be the best antivirus solution (100% detection) but in combination with other Microsoft things (up-to-date Windows OS and applications) , DEP , IE's security feautures/modes , User Account Control , Security Center -> is ~ ok ~ . Isn't it already free ?
