Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Anti-Virus in Vista

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the left-out-in-the-cold dept.

Microsoft 444

truthsearch writes "Microsoft will omit anti-virus protection in Vista, the next version of Windows. Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software. For unspecified business (not technical) reasons, Microsoft will sell anti-virus protection to consumers through its OneCare online backup and security service."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


So first virus in? (1, Funny)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601319)

So I am wondering... how many seconds after Vista launch until we have first virus for it?

Re:So first virus in? (4, Insightful)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601524)

If Vista is susceptible to 99% of known viruses today, it's got a big problematic future ahead of it.

They hopefully told their designers: "Throw Blaster, and Melissa, and Norvag at this new system, and if it dies or allows itself to be infected, FIX IT!"
"Anything related to fix compression/decompression, image file interpretation, or anything that opens a port, must be reviewed against all known viruses attacking those vectors."

Will they, or have they done that? No, but we'll see.

Two possible reasons (5, Interesting)

RandoX (828285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601322)

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

Re:Two possible reasons (1, Funny)

zaxus (105404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601338)

Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune. God forbid Windows users are protected out of the box.

Re:Two possible reasons (2, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601552)

Definitely reason number 2. Nothing like making money off of someone else's misfortune.

More like the ol' bait and switch.

Step 1. "Buy Windows Vista! It's so much more secure, we didn't bother including a virus checker!"
Step 2. Dumb consumers purchase Vista. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 3. "Having virus problems? Subscribe to Microsoft's monthly virus protection at the low, low rate of your first-born son!"
Step 4. Dumb consumers fork over more dough. (Some aren't left a choice, poor saps.)
Step 5. Profit!!!

Religion is blind. (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601564)

This, of course, is the conspiracy theory de jur. But it seems more likely, in light of legal issues both at home and abroad, it's actually to avoid messy legal bullshit that would end up eating time and money. That they can also sell the same functionality as an additional service is just an added benefit.

But it's interesting to see how the pundits here spin things, we are hearing and reading about how this is just one more Microsoft trick to stick it to the consumer, but I would very safely bet that if a virus package had been included, we'd be hearing about unfair competition and anti-trust. Religion is blind.

Re:Religion is blind. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601656)

If you are going to try and sound smart, at least spell correctly: du jour

Re:Two possible reasons (2, Insightful)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601386)

Yes, those are the reasons likely, as they are allready in hot water for including things in the operating system and making more money with subscriptions is allways nice...

The real question is however: How long until that thing bites them hard like the security problems they had with XP?

Re:Two possible reasons (0, Troll)

Kalecomm (926735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601483)

For me, this totally does not matter. M$ pissed me off when I tried to upgrade my Windows XP Professional to Windows XP 64-bit. They were allowing you to exchange your Professional 32-bit version for the 64-bit version for awhile. Being that my wife and I both have laptops with an AMD-64 chip, I decided to get the 64-bit version of XP.

However, when I called them after having trouble with their website, they told me that notebook computers were "not on the list" to be "upgraded" to 64-bit. So, the deadline passed, I didn't get my 64-bit version of Windows and I told my wife that she had better learn to love XP Professional because I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER M$ PRODUCT AGAIN!

This machine is dual booted with XP Pro and Kubuntu 64-bit. After I'm done with my MBA (I need DimWoes for school), I plan on investigating WINE under a 32-bit environment to get my games and Quicken 2005 running under it. Once I'm successful, I'll wipe my XP Pro install and be completely M$ free!

So as far as I'm concerned, Vista is a non-issue for me and my household. Long live the Penguin!

Best Regards,


Re:Two possible reasons (0, Offtopic)

zxnos (813588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601608)

hmmm, i have an amd64 based notebook and i was able to exchange my licence just fine. just typed in the info and away i went. it only took a couple months to get it though... ...the only problem is that hp doesnt support xp 64bit. however; everything i need works.

does kubuntu 64bit support broadcom wireless? how is it working in general? i gave ubuntu 64bit a whack and had a plethora of problems. the biggest of which being no wireless. with all of the stuff i am hearing about vista, i am seriously considering open source. but i dont want to hassle with an os and my wife needs it to be as seemless as possible.

Re:Two possible reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601609)

I find it amazing that you would hate Microsoft because you couldn't get free product. Sure, they may have some sort of promotional going, but if laptops indeed were ineligible, it's not Microsoft's fault that you didn't read the fine print.

Re:Third possible reasons (4, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601436)

If they cornered the market on both OS and AntiVirus, it might make it harder for them to avoid culpability when the next Windows pandemic breaks loose.

Re:Two possible reasons (1)

imoou (949576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601449)

I wonder if MS is still considered anti-competition if it offers its anti-virus software as a free/share/postcard-ware on the internet?

Re:Two possible reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601458)

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

You can bank on reason #2. Everybody wants to establish a recurring revenue stream, even in cases where it is completely inappropriate.

Re:Two possible reasons (5, Insightful)

nbert (785663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601478)

4) Since everybody would have this software pre-installed only a virus being able to circumvent the protection would have any impact, resulting in even bigger problems if there is a bug in the antivirus software (no doubt about that IMO), because most of the users would rely on the protection coming with Vista, so it would spread even faster/further than anything we have seen before.

Damned if they do, Damned if they don't (5, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601493)

This is one of those areas where Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If they bundle virus protection (ie, "Make it part of the operating system"), they're accused of unfairly using their monopoly status. If they don't, then they're greedy for trying to sell you extra services.

Personally, I think it's good that they don't include it. If I decided I needed antivirus services--something that is generally in need of constant updates--I can shop around between Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, etc. It also gives the hardware (eg Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) and network (eg Time-Warner, Verizon, etc.) vendors the ability to provide this protection.

As long as Microsoft doesn't start strong-arming these other companies ("Nice Windows license you have--it'd be a shame if something happened to it."), I don't have a problem with it. But it definitely should give our anti-trust monitors something to keep an eye on...

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't (3, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601646)

There's an option three.

They could implement a sane security model where file permissions disallow non administrative users from modifying executable code on disk, thus making 90% of what virus scanning programs do obsolete.

Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601651)

Microsoft is damned

Well, D'oh!

That's what happens when you're . . . evil.


Re:Two possible reasons (5, Funny)

muszek (882567) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601526)

5) Vista will be a secure OS, thus it will not need any protection ;)

"will omit anti-virus protection" um...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601533)

You mean my PC needs protection from anti-viruses as well as viruses?

Re:Two possible reasons (1, Insightful)

cli_man (681444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601644)

I have always said that I would rather have a virus on my machine than an anti-virus.

I may get a virus that causes some troubles once every couple of years but most of them are pretty easy to remove and if they are not then I just re-install my machine and go happily along again.

However it seems with almost all of the anti-virus products your computer runs slow all the time and you get some nice random lockups when the anti-virus is scanning stupid stuff like a print job and then crashes your printer subsystem, or a new virus signiture that keeps your computer from shutting off correctly, or a new update that just hoses your install.

My advice for most people:
  1. Use a computer with a private IP address behind a firewall, dsl router, etc.
  2. Keep your updates/patches done
  3. Only use an email service that does good server side virus scanning
  4. Don't do stupid stuff, a little common sense goes a long way

Re:Two possible reasons (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601664)

Well, let's see... They bundled a media player and the EU is still after them. What do you think will happen if they dare bundle anti-virus software?

You have the EU to thank for this one folks.

Re:Three possible reasons? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601671)

1) Avoiding a possible unfair competition suit.
2) To be able to sell the service on a monthly fee basis.

3) Be like OS X and be secure enough not to need anti-virus software.

I'm not getting my hopes up though.

unspecified business reasons eh... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601323)

what's that, the politically correct terminology for GREED?

Re:unspecified business reasons eh... (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601349)

In short, yes. Though there are also other reasons likely, like anti-competition issues they had with mediaplayer.

Sure (5, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601328)

We wouldn't like Norton to go broke, would we?
It at least looks like competition. ;-)

Re:Sure (1)

utlemming (654269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601491)

Actually, after playing with the OneCare beta, I went right back to Norton. Quickly. It doesn't hold a candle in terms of what it does. Sure OneCare does download patches, defrags your hard drive, and all that, but slows your computer down something fierce. Sure it might do all that, but at what cost, not being able to use your computer? If Norton could offer something like OneCare, but without the performanc hit, then Norton could really make some cash.

Re:Sure (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601625)

I liked Norton just fine until it came time to renew
my subcription, and they needed the subscription key
to renew, which is in some email they sent me a year
ago. Heck, I installed it with the subscription key,
why doesn't the software keep track of it? Then after
some email traffic they also explained to me that I'd
have to buy 3 renewal subscriptions because my 3-user
license wasn't renewable as is. Next day I had McAfee

Re:Sure (1)

Psiren (6145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601661)

Next day I had McAfee installed.

Well, we all make mistakes. Seriously, do yourself a favour and get away from McAfee as soon as you possibly can. It's a terrible piece of software, letting through numerous viruses that our other software picks up. I'd recommend using Panda personally.

Re:Sure (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601672)

Actually, after playing with Norton for a little while, I tried to go back to *anything* else, but failed, because Norton has so thorougly infected my system that my only respite was wipe and reinstall.

Unspecified reasons? (4, Insightful)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601330)

Unspecified Reasons? Like not wanting to get sued for bundling again? So the EU doesn't make them release a "Vista Version V without Antivirus Protection" that nobody really wants to buy anyway?

Re:Unspecified reasons? (0, Offtopic)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601441)

No worries, there's already free antivirus out there.

It's called OS X, Linux Distro (insert distro name such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Mepis, Gentoo, etcetera), *BSD, Plan 9/Inferno, did I miss something?

Actually, isn't Clam AV, for Linux, used to scan incoming traffic before it reaches Windows boxes? Not for linux protection itself, per se.

Depressing how all the free solutions are better built than the one dominant pay-for solution. Actually, it's more depressing that it's able to be sold....

Really... (1)

VikingThunder (924574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601334)

I don't even know why people even thought Microsoft could even integrate an antivirus without the anti-trust folks raiding the Redmond campus within 30 seconds of the annoucement.

Antitrust (4, Insightful)

dslauson (914147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601337)

It sounds to me like they're trying to avoid antitrust cases from Symantec and other AV software venders.

Re:Antitrust (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601440)

God forbid they should just write a better OS so we didn't NEED to spend money on anti-virus software.

I don't have a big axe to grind with Microsoft. I use some of their products because the business reality is that I must if I want other people I work with to be able to use my files. Fine, I can live with that. What I'm having difficulty with is that one needs to spend money on anti-spyware and anti-virus software at a bare minimum if they want to have any hope of keeping their net-connected Windows machine from being exploited.

I suspect that as more people get fed up and beging to explore other OSes, like OSX or (gasp) Linux, Microsoft's OS market share will begin to erode at more than the snail's pace it is now. So they're just getting ready for the time that they glom their revenue from these "value added services". I suspect THAT is a much more powerful motivator for them than the prospect of being sued (which they can stave off for many years through legal foot shuffling).

Re:Antitrust (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601628)

Wouldn't that be like forcing a car company to produce crappy cars so 3rd party mechanics wouldn't go out of business?

Of course... (0, Flamebait)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601339)

Of course MS won't include it, they can make additional money by selling it seperately, just as they have always done with Plus! for Windows.

So OneCare = .Mac ? (2, Interesting)

tpconcannon (619066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601340)

Looks like this will be a .Mac clone for Windows. How original.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601463)

No, .Mac is a bundled series of services like backup/web publishing/e-mail and some other functionality.

OneCare is essentially Anti-Virus software, along with some performance enhancing features like "Performance Tune-Up."

So, no, it's nothing like .Mac, and Windows Vista has a backup program WITHOUT having to pay for an "extra" service.

Re:So OneCare = .Mac ? (1)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601616)

A free web-based backup service being included with Windows would honestly be good selling point for me, assuming the connection speeds were decent. All MS hating aside, I would enjoy that feature. I know that there are plenty of ways to do this, but something integrated is a plus in my book.

Anti-Trust Concerns? (2, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601341)

I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?

Way to spin it (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601343)

Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.

Way to put a spin on that one. However, let's not forget MS is getting it's butt chewed off for monopolistic behavior in a few countries ( not that they have any danger of that in their home country ). If they were to include an AV as part of the base OS, AV companies would be lining up to take shots at MS.

This only makes sense (2, Interesting)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601347)

Symantec, McAfee et al would scream bloody murder if MS starting shipping AV software bundled into their OS. They're probably only able to ship an anti-spyware tool because the other primary Windows anti-spyware tools are "free."

EU reasons? (4, Interesting)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601367)

Ok, it's probably a bit stupid to connect the dots just because they occur together in time, but might this be a preventive move to avoid further troubles with the EU commission (and possibly the U.S. DoJ) for leveraging the existing semi-monopoly into related markets?

Firewalls, media players and other stuff is generally included in distros and the other commercial desktop OS (MacOS X) now. AV isn't. Therefore, it could seem intrusive by MS to include it. (On the other hand, we are all quite aware why noone else NEEDS to bundle that.)

So? What's the big deal? (5, Insightful)

BigBuckHunter (722855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601374)

I'm not certain what the big deal is. Most OS vendors do not ship with an AV solution. I'm not certain I would want to have an AV solution integrated into the OS. Can anyone comment as to why MS 'would' integrate an AV solution?


Am I the only one... (1)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601393)

... thinking that the necessity for an Anti-Virus is the sign that an OS is not secure?
I know that no OS is 100% secure, but if virii can find their way in on a regular basis...

Windows Vista - Titanic Edition (3, Funny)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601506)

Windows Vista won't need any antivirus software, it's practically unsinkable!

- RG>

So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

inphinity (681284) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601395)

... No anti-virus
... No new graphics engine
... No new filesystem architecture

What, exactly are they upgrading??

You mean to tell me... (2, Insightful)

rdavis542 (878124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601416)

that the visual upgrade from fisher price to MacOSX isn't enough for you? Cause I'm sure MS is going to charge about $300 for the desktop clock upgrade.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601462)

I'm not sure if this should be modded as funny or insightful...

Re:So let me get this straight... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601492)

What, exactly are they upgrading??

Vista: now with shinier and rounder icons.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601685)

Not just shinier and rounder, but 3D! Why, those icons practically bulge off the screen, almost like "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses".

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601516)

Been saying this for months and months.

I have yet to see any new "feature" (and I use term loosely) of Vista that makes me think that it would be worth the upgrade. The new FS and graphics engine almost convinced me (not quite, but almost), but then poof! They disappeared. Why should I ditch my perfectly good XP installation which will undoubtedly be considerably less vulnerable to intrusion than the premiere release of Vista, especially since the virus-writing hordes will have a brand-spawking new OS to target with their malware, taking considerable attention off of XP?

Maybe I should upgrade 'cause it's all shiny looking! Oooohh, pretty, shiny colors. Nevermind the fact that I always turn off all styles and use Classic Windows widgets. Those are my system resources, and you can't have them, M$!

Personally, I smell another Windows ME (i.e. miserable failure).

I know we hate M$ here... (3, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601400)

...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.

Re:I know we hate M$ here... (1)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601508)

Optional? Every time you boot, it nags me with the "please install the firewall for connection X" message. Doesn't sound optional to me.

Re:I know we hate M$ here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601583)

Control panel -> Security Center -> Change the way Security Center Alerts me.

Re:I know we hate M$ here... (1, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601618)

...but isn't it just the least bit ridiculous that a company cannot ship their own anti-virus solution with their OS? I'm sure they could make it an option similar to the firewall in SP2.

Not when the company that rightly disgusts us is a convicted monopolist. Convicted of abusing the monopoly by bundling software.

Furthermore, any notion of "cannot ship their own anti-virus solution" being ridiculous is far outweighed by the ridiculousness of shipping a product that needs it so badly out of the box.

Re:I know we hate M$ here... (2, Insightful)

Whafro (193881) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601680)

If they could ship an anti-virus product, why couldn't they just patch the issues that allow the viruses in the first place? I, for one, would be up in arms if a company took such an overtly-passive approach to the security of their software.

It would be like parachute makers/packers offering body padding in case their parachutes malfunction. Yeah, maybe it'd work (), but it displays a distinct lack of confidence and effort with regards to the quality and reliability of their product.

better security in vista? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601403)

I'm not sure that obscurity makes is much more secure than XPsp2.

once the hackers get to work, there will be new flaws found at the rate of 6 a week.

Vista won't work (2, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601407)

I've working for computer security companies, and my experience is people don't buy security unless they *have* to.

Vista will sell, sure, but only because it'll come with every new PC. But I can't believe Joe User running XP will spend the money to upgrade to a new version of windows for "security" purposes. Not a chance.

Now, Joe Pointy-Haired-Boss may want to upgrade -- but his network admin will probably insist on sticking with the Win2k/ActiveDirectory system that is "good enough" right now.

Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.


Re:Vista won't work (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601469)

And yet.. in time as all new branded computers come with Vista... you will also most likely be running it unless you go for Mac or one of the Linux/Unix variants.

Re:Vista won't work (1)

kerplunk1984 (871218) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601530)

You yourself just said that vista will come with every new pc...doesn't that account for a significant proportion of the market? Also, considering the rate at which "Joe user" is convinced by PC world (or whoever) that he needs an upgrade, dont you think its just as prudent to assume this "update" will be just as successful as other "updates"? (See also Windows ME) Dont get me wrong, i dont think Vista deserves success, but lets not kid ourselves - compared to the sales of open source OS's up until now (assuming as this comment does that sales are the defining factor), it will be a 'hit'.

Re:Vista won't work (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601545)

Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.

Kind of like XP was, right?

Vista won't be instantly adopted. Neither was XP. It was six months before I had a copy of it, and a lot of large organizations waited two years to migrate from 2000 to XP. I migrated one company in late 2004.

Microsoft knows that companies will eventually migrate as their budgets and systems are able. They know that more technical users will want to upgrade for the new features and (supposed) security. And they know that the average user will make the switch whenever they start running into software that requires it or they buy a new computer.

When it's all said and done, if Vista lasts as long as XP (5+ years) then the vast majority of Microsoft PCs will be running it by the end of its life.

security != virus protection (5, Insightful)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601412)

Security does not have to come in the form of virus protection as the post has implied. This is a common misconception. BSD is considered a very secure OS, but it's not because it has a lot of virus protection software.

Hold on bucko! (5, Funny)

mistergin.net (697847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601577)

You're moving too fast here...

You're just yelling slower and louder to someone who already has no idea what you're truly trying to say...

Unspecified Reasons = $$$ (0, Troll)

ff1324 (783953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601420)

The DoJ argument for "unspecified reasons" is quite nice and profound, but lets keep it simple.

Microsoft aims to make more money by selling AV software separately. Period.

RealPlayer Backfired (0, Offtopic)

c0d3r (156687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601433)

Now M$ is making money so the small guys like realplayer can't cry.

Keep it up, Microsoft! (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601445)

Microsoft never fails... To give me reasons to stick with XP.

I have yet to read or see anything to make me want to jump ship to Vista when it comes out.

Re:Keep it up, Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601531)

Not even the fancy eye candy?

Redundancy and Anti-Monopoly? (2, Insightful)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601446)

I don't see whats the problems. An anti virus is like rust-proofing your car. Its needed and its your own damn fault if you never had it made. And you can't accuse the manufacturer of not doing it for you either
Microsoft claim that Vista is so secure, wouldn't it seem redundant to include an antivirus? You know, just like people (some of them, no one on /. of course) laugh at the built-in firewall?
And beside, wouldn't they expose themselve to Anti-Monopoly law if they were to include an antivirus?

(not that it dether MS usually but still...)

A good thing (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601455)

So I am happy to see that Vista will not be coming with Microsoft AntiVirus software. The last thing anyone needs is Vista being shipped with an AntiVirus suite that won't you install Norton's AntiVirus because Vista doesn't like it. But I am wondering how long it will be before Vista gets hammered with viruses after it gets released. I am not holding my breath for M$ to actually code up an OS that has no obvious flaws.

No Antivirus (5, Funny)

db32 (862117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601473)

Why would they ship a product that is likely to erase their own .dlls? What if it removed IE?!

Looks like Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601474)

...is doing the right thing. This way the user can choose wich anti-virus he wants to invest in without having one chosen for him by default.

[cheapshot]Looks like there is no way to lock in users with an anti-virus! If other OS's had windows' number of viruses I'm sure windows would have an anti-virus integrated firmly to the OS...[/cheapshot]

So, what does that leave in VISTA?!?! (1)

Warlock7 (531656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601480)

It seems that virtually every new feature has been removed. So, what's Vista going to have in it?

Been running without protection for 10 years now (1)

defile (1059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601499)

and I've never once contracted a disease. I find that they spoil the experience too much.

Migrate to Linux, not Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14601502)

Migrate to Linux, not Vista

Our company did last year, city of Vienna did, it should work out very nicely for you too. Our former XP users love KDE.

No need to put yourself through pains when you can improve security, save money and achieve some level of vendor independence all at the same time.

Charge for the cow... and for the milk. (5, Insightful)

JTorres176 (842422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601511)

I know no OS is perfect, but why charge for a solution to end a problem that your OS causes in the first place? Hell, you have to be a "root" user to install anything on windows giving everything you install full permissions over the OS during installation of anything.

  • Make users able to install something in the C:\Documents and Settings\Foobar\ directory without affecting the entire system.
  • Take away user ability to affect the entire system. (such as connectivity/interfaces)
  • Allow a sudo type system to stop forcing people to sign in the system as admin every day.
  • Force the creation of at least one non-admin account for every day use during install.

I know viruses/adware/spyware will still be able to be installed, but why not make it just a little bit harder. Hell, if a burglar wants to get in my house, he can kick the door in... that doesn't stop me from locking and bolting the door every night just to make it a little more inconvenient for Johnny Break-in to steal my stuff.

Re:Charge for the cow... and for the milk. (1)

Keeper (56691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601636)

Read up on LUA in Vista. I think you'll be pleasantly suprirsed.

This is all about money (1)

size1one (630807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601523)

Sure there might be good reasoning behind not wanting pottential antitrust charges but they could easily give the product away for free. There is a serious conflict of interest when the same company is selling both the OS and applications to protect the OS. What they should be doing is ensuring that the OS is safe from virii in the first place, you shouldn't have to pay extra for that.

Whats worse is M$ actually has the incentive to create and allow virii. Everytime a virus gets a headline people have a reason to go buy thier product.

Anti-Virus industry (1)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601535)

MS makes a product that due to its nature, has led to a huge industry. There are ant-virus companies, but also admins, security experts, network gear - all produced and sold on the premise of keeping Windows secure. If MS produced a much more secure version of the OS, all these folks would have to work harder or find other sources of income.

It is like Income Tax reform in the US - we all want it, but if it were to happen, accountants, lawyers, software companies and IRS agents would suddenly be out of work...

Thank GOODNESS! (1)

mistergin.net (697847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601547)

Not that I don't have that much faith in MS *snicker*, but seriously, who wants another thing to un-install when dealing with Windows? I have a CD full of up-to-date programs to help do my work when needed, don't make me work around one you put on the system, especially if it sucks...

This Roffles My Waffles. (2, Insightful)

RoffleTheWaffle (916980) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601623)

Okay, so first I'm going to have to choose between some seven versions of what amounts to a Mac-skinned Windows Server 2003... and then I'm going to have to pay to keep other people from screwing it up, when I can get FREE virus protection on my current XP box? Yeah, just keep piling on the upgrade costs. I LOVE IT.

I don't think I'm going to be switching to Vista any time soon, that's for fucking sure.

Too close terms (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601654)

Saying at the same time that will not bundle antivirus and that is more secure could imply people that will not need antivirus, or that be far safer than before to virus threats. While i'm not opposed to MS not bundling its own antivirus with it, i dont think the "improved security" will make Vista safe to virus, even maybe to old ones (think in the amount that is application related, even if that application if outlook or the user behind). Antivirus is still needed, and there are very good ones around, even if they are not from Microsoft itself.

But it's already there in most cases (1)

ezratrumpet (937206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601681)

Another reason may be that Microsoft's hardware partners - Dell, HP, and so forth - already have contracts with existing AV software providers to issue "six month protection" with every new computer purchase. If those contracts are long-term, it doesn't make sense for MS to add a component to Vista that their hardware partners can't contractually let them load on the machines.

As for me, I'll stick with AVG, thanks. http://www.grisoft.com/ [grisoft.com]

At this rate.... (1)

canning (228134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601684)

Redmond is promoting Vista as a landmark improvement in Windows security. Yet Jim Allchin also told CRN in a recent interview that there will be no anti-virus software.

I wonder if their anti-virus software will come with anti-virus software?

Right decision (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14601710)

I think MS has made the right decision here. TGhere are several reasons for that. One is to avoid those pesky Europeans that keep an eye on the monopolistic practices MS keeps. Another reason is that some people don't need virus protection. Yes, there are people like that, although not many I'll admit. The third reason is the fact that it may be handy for MS to make a separate antivirus program. What if their OS-tied antivirus program is compromised by a virus? That may be hard to correct without breaking other things. Better to keep a separate program that's easy to upgrade.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account