News - Microsoft offering Security Essentials via Windows Update

Quote:

---

Security companies cry foul over software-giant’s decision to automatically offer antivirus software.

---

Read more.

The way I see it; Windows' reputation has long been tarred with security issues and how prone it is to viral infection compared to Linux and Macs, and the greed of most of the major security players is such that proper protection is out of the budget range of most people.

I'm aware there are some good freeware suites out there, but I don't blame Microsoft for doing this. They have their platform reputation to maintain.

This REALLY angers me when companies do stuff like this.

How can these companies dictate what MS do with THEIR operating system? It's just IE all over again, it's their OS, let them do whatever the hell they like with it.

If your AV or internet browser isn't good enough to attract the vast majority of "customers", then redesign it until it is.

You don't see Recaro twining at Ford or Toyota or anyone for providing seats with their cars.... It's exactly the same thing.

TBH it's pretty hard as a consumer to feel sorry for the major AV players - most of their products are crap and cost a fortune. Of course MSE isn't licenced for anything above small companies so their fat corporate markets are safe (well that and the fact that IT departments 'stick with wot they know' - i.e. not-a-lot).

Matty - car seats? really? lol!

Why would you rely on Microsoft solution to protect you against flaws in its own product in the first place?

Seems odd a bit, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon_

Why would you rely on Microsoft solution to protect you against flaws in its own product in the first place?

Seems odd a bit, no?

---

The biggest flaw is usually the user - who clicks 'OK' to 'install malware'. Given MS wrote the OS they also have the benefit of insight and knowledge beyond that of 3rd parties so it's not necessarily a bad thing and you may of missed how completely security-mental MS have gotten in the past few years from the sounds of it!

What seems 'odd' to me is installing Norton or McAffee products because their utter ****e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dangel

Matty - car seats? really? lol!

---

In this day and age, what use is a computer without an internet browser?

In the exact same way that a car is no use without car seats.

Firefox and Recaro are both 3rd party manufacturers designing browsers and seats, to use inside something they didn't design, now why, like seriously, WHY should they have any say on what is already there for them to replace?

I just think it's absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoon_

Why would you rely on Microsoft solution to protect you against flaws in its own product in the first place?

Seems odd a bit, no?

---

Why rely on BMW for seatbelts.

Its a bit like saying you should get a lambo, as far fewer of them are ever crashed.

I have no problems as long as you have an option not to use MSE. And consumers have that choice. They don't need to download this. It's optional software.

But given a lot of 3rd party anti-virus programs are crap and MSE is pretty decent, I don't really care.


AND Microsoft isn't blocking 3rd party anti-virus programs at all. So this really is just trying to "clutch at the straws" for the crappying 3rd party providers.

I think it's a good move myself, I think it should disable itself automatically if the user decides to install another AV (like Windows Defender does) but it would be ideal for people who just don't care about what's on their computer or what they click. It would at least prevent the spread of some nasty yet easily preventable malware e.g. Conficker. AV isn't really optional software for the average user now. I also think updates should be more silent by default, as I'm forever hearing of people either clicking no to shut it up or Googling for how to disable it completely, with most of these 'expert' guides saying it's a good idea.

I was under the impression that it was being offered as a part of Microsoft update, not Windows update.
The difference clearly being that the former is an opt-in choice offering / covering a variety of MS products, the latter (as far as I understand it) being the default update process for the OS.

If Microsoft waited 30 days after activation, and then put MSSE down as a recommended update if you hadn't installed an anti-virus solution, I think that would be a great move.

Give people the opportunity to install their own solution, and if they can't be bothered, at least attempt to force it down their throats. Ideally we wouldn't have to at all, but some people are thick.

I wonder what percentage of people install a virus, and lets be clear in the post vista world they almost always have to click yes, do this in the first few days of ownership?