Why can Microsoft never hit their release schedules. This was originally set for 1st April 2008
Microsoft has abandoned its attempt to make money from selling anti-virus software to consumers, two years after entering the cut-throat market. The Windows Live OneCare consumer security service will be discontinued from the end of June next year in favour of a free consumer product, codenamed Morro, currently under …
This is just a lame attempt to compete with Linux on the low-end segment.
One of the big cost advantages of Linux over Windows is that you don't really need an antivirus, so you don't need to pay a yearly fee to an antivirus provider. If this fee is not too significant compared to the cost of a $1000 PC, it is a major part of the cost of a $350 netbook or desktop.
With this Microsoft will try to convince consumers that they don't need to pay for virus and malware protection on Windows either, while still selling an insecure OS.
Never put 100% faith that only one software package can clean your system from an infection.
As of late I had to use 5 different software packages to make sure it was truly clean virus/malware/trojan free. But even then if you do not see the speed increase like it used to have then better to fdisk and reinstall the entire OS all over again.
Is this just a version of Windows Defender that also scans for viruses?
That would be a very easy version of Windows to make. You just shutdown the computer as soon as you turn it on.
It's impossible to protect an operating system from malware without affecting legitimate software as well. You can patch the holes that allow software to enter without the user's consent (this vector is made more difficult by UAC in Vista), but you can't stop a user running a random program that they just bought.
You could stop unsigned software from running, but this would mean that no legacy software would run (which may be something that Apple are happy to do, but most users prefer to be able to run the game five years ago).
Maybe we could also create a version of Linux that has no security holes whatsoever and compeletely stopes malware from running? But that would be impossible.
OneCare was a hilarious name, but Morro is just plain daft because it doesn't tell you anything about the product.
I know there are those who would slam MS for this, but then there are those who would slam MS for anything. I think that malware is a part of the internet landscape these days that decent anti malware software should be part of any OS.
And before all the Linux, Apple and other users get all smug, there is malware out there for other OSs, but not much. The amount of MS targetted malware has nothing to do with the vulnerability of the OS and everything to do with the popularity of Windows. If you want your malware to cause the maximum damage you target it at the majority of machines. Furthermore eejits tend to have Windows because it's what comes with most users computers you buy from Currys, Argos, Asda, PC World etc. and eejits are the best targets for malware. They are the ones who are going to open attachments and click on internet links without thinking.
Not an MS troll - I have Vista Ultimate x64 with Onecare - I tried trial versions of nearly all the major AV vendors, and Onecare was the least resource intensive, which is why i paid for the service that covered three PC's - works great on my mom-in-laws 512MB 1GHz athlon too, covered by the same license.
Like all SW, could've been improved and it had some annoying features, but it worked for me.
* Getting me coat and leaving, cuz I'm gonna get my ass flamed into Purgatory...
M$ has been trying to spoil the party for AV makers since that little embarrassing incident of piracy they were accused of back in the land of DOS.
M$ should join the rest oft the civilized world and shell on top of a UN*X, on a Linux or something like that. It would go a very long way to address much of the criticism of both Windows and Microsoft and would give Microsoft that geek shine that they have not had since 95.
Quote "and Onecare was the least resource intensive". Erm actually it's your OS that's the resource hog, you know, the one that's going to have lipstick put on it and be called W7. Ah and I've just noticed you actually paid for vista ultimate, can I introduce you to a Nigerian friends of mine that would like to offer you a once in a lifetime business opportunity, If you call Lagos 9090909 and ask for Mr Munigi Trollo he will make you a very wealthy person.
The OneCare free online scanner has saved my butt a couple of times. Probably why it failed. Why provide the free online scanner and try to sell you something else?
Kaspersky offers an online scanning service but does not fix all the problems it finds. They want to sell you the software. MS gave it all away for free so nobody needed the software.
"As of late I had to use 5 different software packages to make sure it was truly clean virus/malware/trojan free."
The only thing that springs to my mind is OMFG.
Either Microsoft's software must be some alien conspiracy to hamper humankind's technological progress or it's just plain human blind greed and lack of standards.
Don't know which would be worse...
Is it just me, or does the whole anti-virus industry smell a whole like fire-insurance scams?
"Nice PC you gots here, mister, be SHAME to catch a virus!"
Good on MS for providing AV for free; I hope they can keep it up to date to make it useful. Onecare really was pretty good, Symantec has only recently got a system that is not a total resource hog.
My memories on the how and when are shady, but if I recall properly Microsoft was trying to get user approval of its newest security thingamajig with a user beta.
I had installed the beta, and was not disappointed with it. As has been said elsewhere, one security product is never enough - although I won't go up to five, another free checker is generally a good thing for the market.
Then one thing happened that I will never forget : Microsoft acquired this shady company whose product was listed as a critical security risk in the beta - and in less than a week that company's product risk rating was elevated from Critical to something like Mildly Offensive.
Sorry, Microsoft, but that is NOT how you do security.
Conflict of interest and marketing concerns do not a security product make.
In my mind, that is the one point that buried OneCare for all eternity.
Because of that, I will never be able to trust OneCare or any other Microsoft offering concerning security.
Is that anyone would ever take MS seriously in the AV/Security Software market.
Come on.... What's it protecting against 99% of the time? That's right. The gaping holes MS let slip by anyway.
Seems they'd be better off just employing some security experts to check their working in the OS to start with.
MS capturing the anti-malware market and putting other companies out of business would be the best possible outcome, for authors of malware...
Currently a malware author has to test his malware against multiple vendors products to ensure it's not detected, and has to configure his malware to neuter multiple products that may be installed.
If MS dominate this market, then the malware author only needs to test against one product, and can have their malware hijack the av product and make it look like it's working when it really isn't.
Anonymous Coward said, "And before all the Linux, Apple and other users get all smug, there is malware out there for other OSs, but not much. The amount of MS targetted malware has nothing to do with the vulnerability of the OS and everything to do with the popularity of Windows."
What a load of bollocks. Of course the popularity of Windows is a factor, because malware writers want to achieve maximum exposure, however, to say that this is the one and only reason is complete pish.
*nix-based OSes have had a massive advantage over Microsoft's offering for many years, because even if you could get someone to run your code, you couldn't easily elevate your privilege, whereas essentially all Windows users in a non-corporate environment (and a large proportion of those in a corporate environment too!) are running under an administrative context. Microsoft finally cottoned-on to this fact and implemented UAC, but it's just a shame that they've implemented it in such a cock-handed way that leads to people to disable the damn thing.