Then some replies... No, I do appreciate free competition. Free competition is great. Although "anticompetitive" seems to be the buzzword of the day, that argument is really not convincing here. Free competition isn't just free for "you", it's free for "everyone", including Microsoft. So, if Microsoft happens to want to do something with their OS that prevents, even only partially, certain types of actions on it - like modifying system service tables - then that is within their rights. Even if you don't like it, because it also prevents you from doing that. It also prevents others from doing that with the same methods, so there is no unfairness to it at all. How about you? How is your "free competition"? I mean, would you like to allow other third party software to make whatever modifications they want to Sandboxie, changing its functions to do things other than what it was meant to do by default? Would you want to allow people to patch Sandboxie to do things it was not made to do? No? So how come it is okay when you do that, but wrong and anticompetitive when Microsoft does that? Because Sandboxie is security software, and should protect itself from tampering? Sure, that makes sense. And Windows is an operating system, and the operating system is the single most important technical aspect of ... well, operating system security. The OS is the single most important "security software" on any system. So, it should definitely be allowed for the maker of an OS to try to limit what changes can be made on its OS. I don't prefer "one entity" to be responsible for everything. I have nothing against people making security software. They're free to make it. People are free to use security software. If people feel like they need it, they probably should use it. Third party security software is great, if you like it - just as long as it doesn't cause stability issues. What I am against is those security software makers coming in to tell Microsoft or any company what they can do with their own software, like, say, Windows. You say: "But what we are against (Ilya and I, anyway), is for the largest entity to make it difficult for smaller entities to participate in free competition." And what does this mean? It means: "I want to do X to Windows to make my security software more effective, but Microsoft won't let me patch their OS kernel!" Apply some logical thinking here, people. This is how it works: If you, the "smaller entities" get what you want, then you get free reign to patch the kernel and do your thing. But then, Microsoft doesn't get what they want, which is to prevent certain kind of kernel patching that is known to have caused stability and security issues in the past. I've seen so many systems where security software causes bluescreens with their kernel patching that it's not funny. Either you get what you want, or Microsoft gets what they want. One is going to be disappointed. But which side should that be? Should Microsoft, the maker of Windows, have the right to decide what they do to their own OS? Or should "smaller entities" be able to tell Microsoft what they can do to their own OS, even if Microsoft is only trying to prevent stability and security issues? To me at least, it is obvious that Microsoft should have the right to apply protection against kernel patching, even if it's weak, and even if it causes trouble for some security software. It's their OS. Just like you can protect your security software from third party modifications, so can Microsoft. That is not anticompetitive. The point at which it would become anticompetitive is if Microsoft started telling you that "Defensewall can patch the kernel all they want, because we like them, but Sandboxie can't, because we're just mean and nasty that way" or in other words if they made arbitrary, unreasonable changes that can have no other useful purpose except blocking some competing software from working. Microsoft has given the same rules (patchguard) to everyone. They apply to you, me, and company X equally. Their OS, their rules. It's not anticompetitive just to make something hard or impossible in the OS. Windows 32-bit can't run 64-bit software, but that is not anticompetitive against makers of 64-bit software. It's just a limitation that the author of the OS decided to put in, and applies equally to everyone. Patchguard is for blocking - or at least making more difficult - kernel patching that can cause serious stability and security issues. Microsoft should have done that a long time ago. You said: "Say that you prefer having more RAM to the availablity of some obsure security tool." Yes, I prefer more RAM to obscure security tools. It would be kind of unwise of me if I didn't, since RAM is really quite useful for the things I do. No, of course it does not. Which is why I used the word "or" in that sentence. There aren't that many 100 % guarantees in the world, anyway. That wasn't the point. The point was, third party security software vendors will complain about anything that: a) may decrease demand for their security software by making the operating system itself more secure and/or b) will make it more difficult to code security software that can then be sold to people. And they will do this, even if the changes they are complaining about will actually make (some) systems more secure than before. Or in other words, security software vendors aren't some fearless white knights out only to protect us poor users - their main interest is quite often making money, which is only reasonable when you operate a business. So, when security software vendors complain about something, they are not necessarily complaining about users becoming less secure in the future, as if they had a great selfless desire to protect the users - they're more likely complaining about having a harder time to make and sell their own products. If the government sucks, overthrow it, or move somewhere that has a better government. Sure, you can stick around and try to protect yourself from the screwups of a bad or useless government by hiring mercs and private security. That might work. Or it might not. The government will still be one that you don't trust. And I don't see why you'd want to deal with that kind of government. I think the main issue is that the operating system does provide a lot of protection that could be used, but it isn't "on" by default and people don't use it. Or in other words: the house has strong doors with good locks and steel bars blocking Windows, but people just leave the doors and windows completely unlocked and open because they're uneducated, and then install a burglar alarm they bought from some door-to-door salesman. And after that, they register in some forum and complain that their burglar alarm couldn't stop criminals from taking everything they had. Marvelous. Anything that makes it more difficult, even a little bit more difficult, to screw around with the kernel makes the operating system more secure. That is good. Sure, it might give some third party security software a really hard time if they want to do stuff in the kernel, it might even make some fabulous program break completely. But it still did make the operating system more secure. If you make operating systems, that should be your concern - making your OS more secure out of the box.