×

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!

MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the protection-money dept.

359

user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks. Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.' From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

359 comments

Instead of competing with Symantec, (5, Insightful)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441754)

Try fixing your operating system first.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441816)

Another rolodex entry for the current crop of windows "sysadmins".

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (5, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441967)

Try fixing your operating system first.

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442009)

Unfortunately, users can't be patched.

There are Nicotine patches to stop smoking,
Birth Control patches for unwanted pregnancies,
so why not Microsoft patches to quit Windows?

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (3, Funny)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441986)

But you see if Microsoft fixed everything, they would be sued for unfair buisness practices by putting companies like Symantec out of buisness in the Windows world.

Re:Instead of competing with Symantec, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442006)

Try fixing your operating system first.

Microsoft excuses -

1: We can't, we just have too much legacy code to support.

2: Nobody understands that it's impossible to create a safe and secure operating system and retain the market share we do.

3: It's all the malware writers fault, why are people so evil?

4: We are making over a billion dollars a month in profit, why should we listen to you?

5: Where would all the IT support jobs and businesses go if we suddenly put out a OS as secure as Mac OS X? Do you think we want to end up with market share like Apple?

6: Windows insecurity was all part of a master plan to gain more control over your computers using EFI.

7: People need to suffer.

8: Windows insecurity is part of another master plan to turn X-Boxes into consumer PC's.

9: We are stupid, feel sorry for us.

10: Geeks complain online, but then when they get a call from the local business to fix their virus infected machines, they secretly praise us.

11: Too bad.

12: Get a fruit machine.

Obligatory (5, Insightful)

MrNonchalant (767683) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441760)

They've found the second step!

1. Build buggy OS full of security holes
2. Charge 50 dollars a year to fix said bugs
3. Profit!

We've known the second step for ages. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441880)

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: don't have your business rely on Microsoft products.

What do we do? We use Linux. We use Solaris. We use BSD. We use Mac OS X. We use AiX. We use HP-UX.

How does it benefit us financially? What we spend on our UNIX licenses pales in comparison to what we would have paid for Windows licenses, plus this sort of nonsense (all which "fixes" problems that just don't exist when using UNIX). Of course, our Linux and BSD systems don't have such fees at all.

This isn't a matter of Microsoft figuring out the second step. This is a matter of the vast majority of companies not understanding it.

While many companies and individuals waste their time and money on this sort of junk, we just use systems that work, and doing so allows us to vastly improve our productivity. Our productivity improvements easily allow our products and services to succeed. Our corporate networks aren't infected by the Windows worm-of-the-week. Our servers are not easily compromised by script kiddies. We succeed because we know the second step: avoid Microsoft products.

Re:We've known the second step for ages. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442122)

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: What do we do? We use Linux.

Spent the entire day dealing with the CFO's laptop - one of those that happens in a Fortune 100 company on occasion. XP on a Dell decided to stop handling IP - Outlook would seize, IE and Firefox were hosed. Other than a rebuild, the system was screwed. Whole damn thing was tired. Typical fscking Microsoft "This system is more than 2 years old - I'm ready to die" crap. As if SOX regulators thought that way.

Interestingly, the CFO asked about my teams laptops and what we use in the security dept. to make sure things run, Sarbanes Oxley auditors stay off our asses, etc. "Ah... that Linux stuff again, huh?"

Yea. Linux made the auditors go away happy, in spite of all the Windows nightmares. Tell me Microsoft isn't ready to fall and I'll invite you into any SOX-regulated shop that knows better. Run, don't walk.

The moment Linux can handle desktop apps, Microsoft is the next Osborne.

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441984)

Hrm...

1. Build an OS that's so hard to use only geeks can use it
2. Charge 50 dollars for documentation/support
3. Profit!

Oh wait, that's Redhat ;)

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

cyanyde (976442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442061)

I think, this isn't the move you all think it seems to be. It appears what this move is designed to do is move into the software as service industry. You lay the ground work with an old beat up OS, release vista to the masses after it's initial 2-3 year pay-for software. Then you just throw it out there, and start charging people for upkeep and all those other things that happen. Microsoft is trying to remove liability from the actual software, to the maintence of something akin to free ware. Thats where the monies at because once they give you the drug, they just have to charge you rent on your house. Plus, it gives them license to keep up the whole DRM schitick, because they'll have the always on connectivity required for this sort of crap, which means they can constantly become the software police of the IP age. So, once again, i think ya'll being a bit near sighted, and I have to be all conspiratorial with my foresight.

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442128)

"So you want this car? Well it's only $20 000, but we need $10 000 per year to install locks and alarm systems."

What I want to know is if this perhaps has any guarantee that doesn't include anything along the lines of "it's totally your fault if our security fails. If someone breaks past our security then sorry but you're fucked".

Perhaps that's too much to ask.

In search of the almighty $ (5, Insightful)

Admiral Justin (628358) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441766)

I gotta commend Microsoft, planning to make money of things that should be integrated into the system so that the threats never happen in the first place.

Prevention is less profitable than response, thus, they'll never try making a secure system now.

Re:In search of the almighty $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441800)

Sure. Include OneCare as a part of Vista.

Then you'll be the first to cry foul of antitrust, right?

Re:In search of the almighty $ (1, Insightful)

Kahless2k (799262) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441845)

The problem is (as proven by Webroots suite against MS about Windows Defender being integrated into Vista) that if they DID integrate it, all the AV vendors (and a number of Slashdotters) would scream ANTITRUST!

Anyways; how many virus infections are caused by user stupidity and not necesarilly flaws in the OS? As long as users put their computers online and click YES to everything that pops up, there will be people who exploit that.

Agreed, users running as Admin all the time is not well thought out; But as people have stated before this is somthing that has been going on since before Viruses were a real threat and had to be grandfathered in so as not to break all the users software (also, admittedly lazy programming on the s/w vender's parts). Since MS is changing that model in Vista (if and when it ships), I'd say they're at least working towards a tighter security model.

Re:In search of the almighty $ (2, Insightful)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441888)

Can you say "double standard." If MSFT integrated this stuff into Windows and gave it away for free many people (but not you I'm sure!) would pull their hair out and complain that they're using their monopoly power to edge out competitors. In this case they're doing the right thing - offering a service that many people need and want and charging what (to this one person) seems a petty reasonable price. What's to bitch about?

Re:In search of the almighty $ (4, Interesting)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442055)

No double standard at all. Symantec et. al. exist only because of Microsoft's design/implimentation errors - they should not exist at all - there should be no market for microsoft to push them OUT of.

If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.

In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.

When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

Re:In search of the almighty $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441921)

It's like the guy trying to sell you his house recommend you hire his agent as your agent.

Incredible (4, Insightful)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441769)

Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.

Re:Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441867)

Microsoft didn't invent that. Just as a political side note: that's exactly what's happening in Iraq right now. First we bombed the infrastructure and now they pay with their oil to have us (esp. Honeywell) build it again.

Apparently businesses can do that now, too. What an irony!

Re:Incredible (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441927)

Only in the software industry, folks, can you buy a product and then buy another product to make the first product work. I suppose if you are making a bomb that could apply too.

Batteries not included.

Re:Incredible (1)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441937)

Fod sells car repair services, doesn't it? Maytag washers and dryers? Air conditioners?

I know it seems like nitpicking, but this is a real point. Plenty of people complain about computer software companies, especially Microsoft, selling "maintenance" products -- they act like they're snake oil.

The real thing is: why wouldn't you expect this industry to have maintenance? Pretty much every other industry does, and many product companies also sell a 'verified' maintenance service.

Re:Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441985)

Does the car company charge you for a recall?

Paying for maintance on wear and tear items is to be expected (not liked but expected). Paying for fixing of flaws is quite another story.

(I have never had a recall on a vehicle so I don't know what happens.)

Wrong analogy (3, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442001)

Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners). It is much more analogous to selling a car with a faulty brake system. Then you buy a separate braking system from another company. The problem with that is that this secondary braking system is not built into the fabric of the car. Thus, it leads to handling problems, will sometimes conflict with the original faulty braking system, and will occasionally even fail to stop the car when needed. The solution is to produce a car that has a properly designed braking system in the first place.

Re:Wrong analogy (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442074)

Microsoft releasing operating systems with inadequate security is not comparable to repair of products that deteriorate through wear and tear (the software equivalent for that is such tools as defragmenters or registry cleaners).

Except anti-spyware and anti-virrus software isn't protecting you against "inadequate security", it's protecting you against user error - the stuff OS-level "security" can't.

Re:Incredible (4, Interesting)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442031)

There is a very major difference between a 10 year old washing machine needing repairs and parts replacements after good, solid service and use over a period of time, and having to have the Maytag Man show up on your doorstep once a week if you want to be able to do more than one load a month without having your clothes get caught in the gears.

The Steps (-1, Redundant)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441770)

1. Create a monopoly with an OS so insecure that it's virtually useless.
2. Offer a paid service to provide improved security.
3. Profit!

We should have seen this coming.

Protection racket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441774)

Paid protection.. by their programmers from their programmers.

do they break kneecaps if you don't join?

I for one welcome ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441775)

... our new security overlords. Trust us, we're Microsoft.

....A little late? (3, Informative)

Kahless2k (799262) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441777)

I used the OneCare beta for quite a while (actually a good product IMHO).. But the subscription service started at the beginning of the month... Slashdot is a little late in reporting it.. On a side note; I did stop using OneCare when I tried to pay for the subscription (reduced rate for beta users) only to see (for the first time) U.S. Only, with international support at some point in the future (a year?). Anyways.. my $0.02

You can get it for free (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441778)

Here [debian.org]

New marketing slogan... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441782)

OneCare: because we couldn't be arsed to write secure software in the first place, and you're morons with no concept of security.TM

Protection Racket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441783)

"We wouldn't want any 'problems' on your computer, now would we?"

Microsofts business strategy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441785)

We now have step 2 in:

Step 1: Make shitty and security hole filled OS
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!!!

protection money? (1, Flamebait)

fair use (948368) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441786)

MS makes a dangerous OS and then they drag more money out of you to protect you from it. Sounds like the mafia to me.

Re:protection money? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442054)

That's why they named it OneCare. Their OneCare is to get more money out of you.

What's wrong with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442084)

Hey, give us some insurance money or your house might burn down...

Should have been no surprise.... (1)

zaal (29646) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441794)

... to anyone that heard about a product called MS Windows Defender. Seriously, did people think that was going to be a stand-alone free product for people to use? From Microsoft?

Odd, isn't it? (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441795)

How MS can sell you a product that they admit is broken, then sell you a subscription service to fix it? Those guys are marketing wizards.

If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.

Re:Odd, isn't it? (2, Funny)

SnotBob (970745) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441821)

It's a little like Apple trapping you in their shiny new glass elevator and then trying to sell you an iPod so they will let you leave the store in under two hours. Wait...that would never happen.

Re:Odd, isn't it? (1)

bl00d6789 (714958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442108)

If this was any other product in the world people would scream bloody murder.


Maybe they will. Maybe this isn't the stroke of marketing genius that everyone here seems to be suggesting it is. The public is pretty dumb when it comes to computers, but they tend to recognize when they're being ripped off. The real question is whether or not they'll decide to do anything about it.

Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD bnr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441807)

Use this PC to go online and download content, Burn it to CD's and sneakernet it to trusted 100% offline computers. Should the throwaway PC get pwned, just format the hard disk and reload the OS or restore a HD disk image of the PC before it went online for the first time.

A pain in the neck, but more effective (and cheaper) than M$'s solution.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441839)

Another good way of doing this is to use Ghost, and then physically disconnect the drive you back up to. SATA is good for that.

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441947)

Is this honestly cheaper/easier than switching from MS solutions?

How much of a pain in the ass does Windows have to get for people to ditch it?

Re:Cheap solution: Throwaway PC with AV and a CD b (1)

douggmc (571729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442041)

Use this PC to go online and download content, Burn it to CD's and sneakernet it to trusted 100% offline computers. Should the throwaway PC get pwned, just format the hard disk and reload the OS or restore a HD disk image of the PC before it went online for the first time. A pain in the neck, but more effective (and cheaper) than M$'s solution.
Well now ... aren't you a fucking wizard. I bet you went to ITT Tech or Univ. of Phoenix. I have a better idea. Use an OS that doesn't suck (I prefer OS X .. but to each his own. There are other options).

whoever said businesses weren't like the mob... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441809)

I wonder if anyone is going to sue them under the raqueteering laws since they're essentially now in the protection raquet.

The Microsoft Car (2, Insightful)

elwin_windleaf (643442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441812)

In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides seatbelts, a windshield, and doors.

Re:The Microsoft Car (0)

smokeslikeapoet (598750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441850)

No it's like charging $30,000 for a car, then charging you $500 for a anti-theft system... wait I think they do that. It's like charging you $30,000 for a car and then charging you $50 a month to park it in a secure garage... wait no, that makes sense too. My analogies suck today. DIE MICROSOFT DIE!

No no no - Think SECURITY (1)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441870)

In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides


door and boot locks.

Well, close enough. The software to cars analogies never really work. I wonder how much power locks and a zapper would cost?

Non-Conformist post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441813)

This post has no 3 steps.

If it works, I'll pay for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441837)

Simple as that.

Vista won't be better (2, Insightful)

mincognito (839071) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441875)


As you can see from the site http://www.windowsonecare.com/ [windowsonecare.com] they are offering antivirus, antispyware, firewall, performance tune-ups, and data backup and restore. At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

It's obvious that they wouldn't be launching this service now if it won't also be needed for Vista. This was basically the last reason i needed to switch over to a Mac.


Re:Vista won't be better (1)

Kahless2k (799262) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441961)

Your not honestly going to say that you don't think that antivirus / antispyware is a good thing to have on a machine used by the type of person who will click OK to everything they see?

A firewall is useful on any system (not just Windows), and anyone storing data on their machine and NOT doing some kind of data backup (at least for the important data) is crazy.

As for the performance tune-ups, it really just puts the common tools into one place (defrag, clear temp files, etc)

Re:Vista won't be better (4, Insightful)

mincognito (839071) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442097)

Your not honestly going to say that you don't think that antivirus / antispyware is a good thing to have on a machine used by the type of person who will click OK to everything they see?
The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.
A firewall is useful on any system (not just Windows)
But why should i pay extra when other OSs offer full-fledged firewalls built-in?
anyone storing data on their machine and NOT doing some kind of data backup (at least for the important data) is crazy
Yes. But that doesn't explain why sane people should pay $50 a year for onecare.
As for the performance tune-ups, it really just puts the common tools into one place (defrag, clear temp files, etc)
According to the site 'permance plus' automatically runs defrag, etc. for the user once a month. Not sure how this improves on a simple "scheduled task" either...

My original point was that most of what is being offered are dependent on OS deficiencies (i.e. of no value to linux/os x users even if written for those platforms) and the features not dependent on those deficiencies (e.g. automated backup) certainly aren't worth $50 a year.

Re:Vista won't be better (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441994)

Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.

Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected.

Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you have a rule setup)

Performance tune-up - with NTFS?, ha. The page file will be bloated being that you'll need 1 gig to run the OS (512 is the minimum as we know how that goes). I read that as "let me check to see if your installed software meets our license requirements." How much you want to bet that defrag isn't included in the tune-up? Dies Windows still require defragging?

Data backup and restore - where is it going to backup to? Are there going to be systems uploading gigs of videos, pictures, and music to a Microsoft remote location hogging the bandwidth of the internet or will the backup be local so that when the hard drive crashes, the backup protection the customers are paying for doesn't work?

Re:Vista won't be better (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442086)

At least 3 of those are dependant on their windows OS deficiencies.

Which three ?

Where's the Justice Department when you need them. (3, Insightful)

FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441878)

When auto companies sell defective cars that will injure or kill or even just break down, they are REQUIRED to do a recall and fix them for FREE. When Microsoft sells a completely defective operating system that allows data theft, invasion of privacy, extortion and wholesale hijacking of the internet, at a cost of billions of dollars, they get to charge more money for the fix. The arrogance and irresponsible behavior toward the customer is breathtaking. Why are lawyers not lining up for the class action suits?

More automated windows processes? (1)

bcarl314 (804900) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441891)

So let me get this straight. Microsoft Windows, already running (by default) background processes that hackers contantly exploit, comes up with an idea to add another automatic process to "increase" security?

And to top it off, Windows users have to PAY for that?

Isn't that like having a bank having to pay to have their security system installed by the mafia?

OneCare already offered for free (1)

llZENll (545605) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441892)

Before everyone gets all excited and thinks this will fix any MS bugs on your machine, stop right there, and read the first page of the onecare website.

This ISN'T paying for updates and patches. This IS paying for an antivirus and antispyware tools that several other companies already offer. So basically MS is trying to protect you from not only their mistakes, but other software's as well.

You can already get everything offered in the OneCare package for free from other utilities, but for huge companies that push out 1000's of licenses this is probably a cash cow for MS.

Geeze Mistah (3, Funny)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441896)

Dat's some awful pretty data youse got dere. Me an' Lefty would be heartbroken if sumthin wuz to happpen to it, huh Lefty? Maybe youse is need some prtection insurance?

Extortion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441903)

'Nuff said.

Prior Art and Improvements. (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441904)

Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive.

I've seen this before ... oh yes, the off button. It is very quiet and just what Vista needs to be save and secure.

Of course, you could just use an OS [debian.org] that requires neither "protection" nor subscription fees.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441911)

that is freaking funny, and even more there's many suckers who will pay...LOL

This is insane! (1, Interesting)

rindeee (530084) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441917)

Everyone has pointed out WHY this is insane, so I really feel that the best use of my time and talent is simply to reiterate the insanity of this whole thing. Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class, I would have if I had thought this up, if only to frustrate the professor with my very, very stupid and unmarketable idea (that Microsoft is now making money with). It's like they've found a way to profit from hypocrisy.

You know. (-1, Offtopic)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441924)

What a good time to buy Apple.

Re:You know. (1)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442020)

Or in your case, to sucker people into a scam with the promise of a free Mac.

The design and overall vibe of the website linked in your sig fucking stinks of the PC mentality. Never trust a PC user, I say; even less a PC user hawking "FreeMacs4Me."

Re:You know. (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442077)

Not to be nitpicky and flamebait-ey, but Apple's got holes too, hackers just don't care about them. If it's 50/50 between MS and Apple (yeah, yeah, Linux, I know), you can expect that Macs will be targets too. Something tells me that the [generic mean people] aren't out to prove a point about Microsoft and Apple/*nix, they just go after whatever's easiest. As OSX is Unix-based, I'd imagine finding security holes would be considerably easier should one be looking to do so.

Good news (1)

debilo (612116) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441934)

This is actually good news, and I thank Microsoft for driving yet more people to Linux and BSD and other excellent alternatives.

Security??? (0, Troll)

ment0r (978406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441944)

What I want to know is what kind of security they are talking about? They haven't been able to demonstrate a 'secure' OS so far. I guess they going to downgrade current state of it and then charge money to make existing fixes available.

Protection racket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441956)

"Nice computer you got there.

Shame if something were to happen to it..."

It is quiet, but does it actually do anything? (1)

CompotatoJ (848808) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441959)

"Windows Live OneCare [CC] works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive" If it is closed source and never alerts us, how are we supposed to know if it is actually doing anything? The program could just be filled with random code and gibberish to make it seem like it is imporant. At least it doesn't pop up asking you to restart every five minutes!

Who owns the software? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441970)

From my understanding, Microsoft owns the Windows OS and I only have a license to use that software.

Why should I pay to fix their software??

Now if they want to allow me to become the owner of the software, rather than just a licensed user, then I can see paying for fixes. But I will not pay to fix someone elses software.

If M$ can get away with this then maybe local stores will start charging customers extra for maintaining a computerized inventory of their goods, after all, that is what they use to make sure they have the products on hand for the customers.

Re:Who owns the software? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442098)

From my understanding, Microsoft owns the Windows OS and I only have a license to use that software.

Yes. Just like every other bit of non-Public Domain software you didn't write yourself.

Why should I pay to fix their software??

You shouldn't.

People who use MS Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15441972)

deserve everything they get. Call it a stupid tax.

Seriously, who would still use Windows? I quit it 5 years ago now.
(Yeah -1 redundant I know, but there is are so many alternatives, and it needs saying over and over again)

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

mike518 (869465) | more than 7 years ago | (#15441982)

ill be trusting a company (and forking out more dough) for security fix software from the same company that released the unsecure software in the first place?

Quite simply, they are nuts.

We should all sue them (1)

Susceptor (559115) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442017)

major conflict of interest don't you think? I mean MS builds a platform full of holes, and then asks for more money to fix the holes. Thats like if GM built a truck with no engine, and once you took delivery asked for a seperate additional check for the engine.

Fine with Me (1)

bob65 (590395) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442023)

Don't really know why anybody care about this or is complaining about this. They can sell whatever they want, and as others have pointed out, they're not including it as part of the OS. This might mean they can purposely introduce bugs into Windows to continue the sales of such a service, but hey, that's up to them. It's a business decision - they have to balance how good Windows is vs. potential sales of maintenance services to maximize profit. And maximizing profit at the expense of product quality is certainly something every company has the right to do.

Microsoft got where they are today by playing the business game right, so they deserve to exploit whatever advantages the free market gives them in their position. If you want to blame anything, blame the way our market works. I certainly don't blame Microsoft for trying to make money.

I've said it before (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442032)

You don't pay the wolves to guard the sheep!

The amusing thing is that this tells you something about the average intelligence of MS users--they know that Windows products (created by Microsoft) are buggy and prone to spyware, viruses, and other threats, yet somehow believe the the same Microsoft who couldn't write a secure OS can somehow write software to "fix" the holes they couldn't be bothered to close when the OS shipped. Sheesh.

Wow COOL! (0, Troll)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442036)

I wish they would launch a service like this for Ubuntu, so I could at least pay money to someone....

McAfee's zero-day response (1)

texaport (600120) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442039)

May 30, 2006 (12:35 PM EST) - PRNewswire
SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall

http://www.techweb.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?arti cleID=X482225 [techweb.com]

"McAfee first delivered security as a service in 1999,
setting the industry standard with seamless, integrated
protection and transforming the way consumers use ..."

Always keep in mind, just who first delivered this plague of completely-expiring software upon users who already knew there was no need to buy this-years-model every 12 months.

Its Microsoft Update infused with .Mac (2, Insightful)

tecker (793737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442047)

I figured out what OneCare is (aside from a really bad name). Take Spybot Imunize function combied with Microsoft Updates packages, add Rebranded Antispyware and Antivirus, and clone in .Mac [mac.com].

If you look at the features most of those come standard with OneCare and the windows equal.
  • "Two Way" Firewall == Windows Firewall
  • Deframent == Disk Deframenter
  • Frees up hard disk space == Disk Cleanup
  • Tracks updates for Windows XP and other Microsoft programs == Microsoft Update

50$ a year for a Fancy All-In-One gui to your basic windows programs sound like a lot to me. Doesnt even backup to an remote backup server. Sadly Mac suckers (em, users) have been paying for years, Redmond is catching up and getting in on the action.

Microsoft, Linux, Apple and Unix are all good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442065)

Why are linux people so angry about Microsoft, you have your linux, you have your free stuff so just enjoy it. Just be glad that you have what you have! Be glad it is not popular and therefore does not attract the attention of virus writers, spyware etc. If you make enough noise and bring enough people on board then you too will enjoy the pitfalls of being at the top of the heap! Maybe they need to release a version of linux called Chillout or Mello!

$50 per year is not a problem for me but I dont need it as I just dont get these infections as i am aware of how to protect myself. If you are competent enough to setup secure linux then you can do the same for windows if you try.

What's really sad is... (1)

woohootoo (904621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442066)

...a jillion and a half fools are going to sign up for this. And ol' Billy G. will just keep getting richer and richer. Whatever happened to buying quality products instead of being satisfied with crap? Pathetic.

sell a car, charge extra for the breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442080)

Now they sell us a producte and them charge extra to make it usable?!
How can we end this monopoly? I have no hope.

I never could figure how people put up with windows until 2000
and I never figure out how people put up with window after 2000.

Someone wise once said (1)

melted (227442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442102)

If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.

That's a classic move by MSFT. Writte buggy, insecure software. Charge money for it. Sell band-aids that need maintenance. Sell maintenance. Thanks, but no, thanks.

Two Quotes (2, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442106)

"There's a sucker born every minute." Widely and falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum.

"A fool and his money are soon parted." Thomas Tusser.

MS is apparently hoping that lightning will strike twice in millions of places.

They've said repeatedly that Vista will be the most secure Windows ever, so why would Vista need any additional security software, from the creator of the OS or a third party? Obviously, the answer is that Vista isn't secure, and MS already knows it. They've even thought of a way to turn Vista's lackluster security into a secondary revenue stream.

To which the suckers and fools will gladly contribute.

Classic Moral Hazard (1)

The Mutant (167716) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442110)

What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?

Have you noticed something funny about the name? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442132)

Try saying it real fast... With an Indian accent...

OMGfather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15442134)

They want us to pay protection.

AYFN??? (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 7 years ago | (#15442146)

Are You Fucking Nuts??? They can't get it right for US$300.00 a copy for XP Pro and gods above and below know what for Vista; and they want me to pay another US$50.00 a year for fucking "security" ? Jesus Wept!
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

Loading...