Submitted by It’s not just Symantec that wants to call foul on Microsoft; McAfee got in on the action today with a full-page ad in the print edition of the Financial Times. The ad accuses Microsoft of engaging in dangerous practices that are creating ‘inherent weaknesses’ in Windows Vista. And by ‘inherent weaknesses’, McAfee means limitations on what their own products can do.
As soon as Microsoft Forefront it available, I plan to lobby our company to dump McAfee. If they aren’t competent enough to write anti-virus software that doesn’t modify the kernel, then I don’t want their product on my PC.
Isn’t kernel level access required to implement an anti-virus filter driver used to intercept low-level file I/O operations (ie. open, close, read, write, delete, etc)?
I am not exactly sure it’s possible to write an effective proactive anti-virus package without kernel access on Windows (or any OS, for that matter).
As far as I understand, an app to scan files for viruses doesn’t need kernel level file access, but a package that can prevent malicious file operations (ie. infection) does.
No, that is incorrect; you link to Defender, and Defender will sort out the rest.
All this is, is yet another bad marketing by the big two trying to scare users into submission and towards their solution before Microsoft pushes their product out the door.
Why are they scared? because they know that Microsoft will charge half the price of Symantec and McAfee products, and better yet, unlike their products, it won’t root the system, f*ckup third party installation programmes, and stop programmes from properly functioning.
The number of times I hear of end users having conflicts between Nortons and their favourite game is too many to mention; and quite frankly, the day these companies die off, will be the day I’ll dance the highland fling on their grave.
a firewall, or an anti-virus programm that can’t protect the kernel because it has no access. is completely senselessly.
but maybe this has a good site, too.
If vista doesn’t allow Firewalls to touch the kernel, maybe viruses and worms aren’t allow to do that, too!
They’re only getting pissy because their business model is threatened by MicroSoft actually doing what McAfee and other vendors have asked for year after year…
Namely making Windows more secure.
Now everyone can see how much they really meant what they said.
It’s a tough call. Do you let MS harden the OS and prevent 3rd party companies from working at a low level (and thereby, re-enforcing MS monopoly) or do you let 3rd party ISVs make a mess of what could be a stable kernel?
Nobody cares. What matters here is that Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop market, so they’re “special”. Because they’re the only major desktop OS vendor, they can bring a company down depending on what they do, even if what they do is a good thing.
If microsoft just owned 60% of the market, I wouldn’t care about what they do with their kernel.
Edited 2006-10-02 19:59
That’s true. But one has to ask himself; do you care more about those companies than making your life a little easier and cheaper?
Yes, people matter.
Nobody cares. What matters here is that Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop market, so they’re “special”. Because they’re the only major desktop OS vendor, they can bring a company down depending on what they do, even if what they do is a good thing.
And babe, 95% of the market uses Microsoft because the alternatives are so shit.
This is how the market works, gather around kids, its going to be the first time its been explained.
The market is full of buyers and sellers, and going by this model we assume that the purchaser is a rational purchaser, that is, they aren’t persuaded by mind alternating substances like drugs or alcohol, and that the product they’re purchasing isn’t feeding that habit.
Ok, the market so fcr says that 95% of computers purchased are running Windows – going by the logic above, one assumes that 95% of computer owners are quite happy with Windows, and if they’re happy with Windows, quite frankly, who gives a shit what the 5% think!
Why not Linux? easy, there are no applications; who gives a toss about the opensource stuff; end users want off the shelf applications that they purchase from their local computer software that comes in a box, from computer software companies they know.
They’ve used those applications, they like their Corel Photoshop, their like their MYOB which they use for tracking their business transactions, they like being able to download the ATO application at the end of each financial year – allow them to continue on, without changing their computer habits, and you’ll win them over and a good marketshare with in atleast 5 years.
The solution is a well integrated distribution, a feature complete wine, and focus on end user needs rather than geek intellectual masturbation pre-occupations.
You fail to realize that a very tiny amount of that 95% actually makes the purchasing choice of the OS. It is pre-installed on their computers when they buy it.
So it’s not a market, or not a very healthy one at least.
Edited 2006-10-03 05:52
You fail to realize that a very tiny amount of that 95% actually makes the purchasing choice of the OS. It is pre-installed on their computers when they buy it.
So it’s not a market, or not a very healthy one at least.
Bull, there are local computer companies which make up over 40% of the computer sales – most of them will install anything you want on their computer; I don’t exactly seeing massive turn over in regards to people migrating via that angle.
Going from the other angle; if people *hate* running Windows, then why don’t they go out, purchase their Dell or HP as they do, and purchase a copy of Linux (ors some other operating system) from their local software store.
Sorry, customers DO have choice, they have the choice to purchase a “alternative operating system equipped computer’ from their local retailer or purchase a computer from a big name company and install their alternative operating system of choice on that said computer.
People have the choice, they’ve chosen Windows – want to solve that problem, how about correcting those deficiencies in your favourite operating system, then people like me might actually consider installing it.
I’m not saying that customers don’t have a choice, I’m saying that a majority of them prefer not to make any choice in this matter.
In Soviet Russia, Windows chooses YOU!
I’m not saying that customers don’t have a choice, I’m saying that a majority of them prefer not to make any choice in this matter.
And you know, they’ve made the choice not to make a choice.
Sorry, you’re as bad as ‘Soviet Russia’ – the typical condescending socialist of ‘I know what’s best for you’ attitude; sorry, you don’t know what is best for them, the OEM vendor has chosen decided that Windows is best for the customer, the customer has looked at the computer, happy that it comes with Windows, so he or she is happy.
All is happy in the process; the OEM is happy that it installed and operating system that customers want, Microsoft is happy because it has made a sale, and the consumer is happy be he or she can go down to the local Dick Smiths and purchase a game or application off the shelf, and it’ll install without a problem.
The only person with a problem is you; explain to me why I should give up quality applications like Microsoft Office 2003, Windows Media Player, Civilization IV, Windows Live Messenger, WinDVD player, Nero Burning Rom 7.5 and loads of others simply to have the nice fuzzy feel good factor of running Linux?
The day that all those applications and more come to Linux, then I’ll consider switching, until then, Linux will remain a niche operating system for those hell bent on ‘sticking it to the man’.
“the OEM vendor has chosen decided that Windows is best for the customer, the customer has looked at the computer, happy that it comes with Windows, so he or she is happy.”
So it’s ok if the vendor has an “I knows whats best for you” attitude?
“Microsoft Office 2003, Windows Media Player, Civilization IV, Windows Live Messenger, WinDVD player, Nero Burning Rom 7.5”
Of these only Civilization IV has any actual quality.
WMA veriable bit recording superior audio quality to 320kbps mp3, custom emoticons actually work in Windows Live Messenger, along with video and audio capabilities; Nero, every Linux burning application seems to suffer from permission problems, bugginess and other stuff.
As for Microsoft Office, OpenOffice.org doesn’t hold a candle to it; from the bloated interface to the memory bloated way it loads, to the crapy and buginess of the presentation tool. Its crap all over. Mark me down, but for every point you take off me, its another valid point I’ve made.
And babe, 95% of the market uses Microsoft because the alternatives are so shit.
Well… 95% of the market hardly knows the existence of alternatives. And those who do, are scared away due to fud about how hard the alternatives are.
Fact is, that a mainstream linux distribution, or PC-BSD / DesktopBSD are no more difficult than Windows XP.
kaiwai… spreading lies doesn’t help you.
Linux/*BSD do not lack applications – they may lack games, but they do not lack applications.
The solution is a well integrated distribution, a feature complete wine, and focus on end user needs rather than geek intellectual masturbation pre-occupations.
This is already what mainstream distributions are aiming at. The feature complete Wine is missing but that’s the only thing. And for each day it hecomes increasingly irrelevant, as substitutes for windows apps are born.
But that of course won’t stop you from spreading fud about linux and bsd.
There is a distinction here, it’s not doing what they say (making the OS more secure), it is a targetted response to these companies that exploit the holes in Windows for their own profits.
Making the OS more secure would be preventing the problems of viruses/malware/etc. in the firstplace. Security patches provide the update framework for fixing errors as discovered. The firewall provides an interface for immediate response to ‘fishyness’.
I fully understand why these companies feel threatened, this looks like it’s brewing to be as targetted a campaign as the Netscape fiasco, though we’ll only really know when the final version is shrinkwrapped.
Tell me, CowMan, what exactly is stopping Symantec and McAfee from doing what numerous other well-known antivirus companies have been doing? That is, updating their software to work with the new system? Nobody is being locked out, the issue here is that Symantec and McAfee are simply too rigid to want to exert the effort to actually make their products compatible. Instead, they cry foul and demand the ability to disable core functionality that they have no business disabling, they are demanding the ability to modify the core system in ways that are simply not necessary, but the media and more importantly uninformed users are unfortunately buying in to their rhetoric.
The Netscape fiasco was a far different beast, and to think these are similar in any way other than now Symantec and McAfee are trying to play victim here is absurd at best. Preventing the problems of viruses/malware/etc? The only way that’s ever going to happen on a significant scale is if something like Trusted Computing becomes a large-scale reality, and I for one hope it doesn’t.
What I see here is these despicable companies hijacking the greater message that Microsoft is indeed a company that warrants concern in most everything it does, if only because it’s the most influential software company in the world right now, and crying foul when they could instead shut up and fix their software. I can’t believe that all these people are under the impression that Microsoft is locking everyone out in a bid to take over the very large computer security software industry when it’s plain to see it’s still very possible to create one of these products that function fine in Vista. For the record, my copy of Avast! is still chugging along wonderfully in RC1, thank goodness they spend time writing code rather than crying. QQ.
I’m new here, just had a giddy happy moment over a reply.
Agree’d, Symantec and McAfee’s position is blantant fear mongering, and the focus on the trivial issues (installation, notification, etc.). Locked-down kernels kinda suck, but I guess they’re not about to ship the source code either, lol.
But, yes, as-of-yet poorly documented changes to the ‘security regieme’ and integration of their bundled software into the OS is, in my mind, akin to the changing API’s and IE integration that MS pulled with Netscape. I suspect whence we see the “finalesque” version, there will be atleast adequate info for those programmy people to work with. The bundling is the problem.
I believe this is a philosophy of failure on the part of Microsoft. They’re not fixing the leaky dam, they’re trying to take over the plugging business. Good news: they’ve taken away default admin/root access for users, hey, that’s a step. There still remains a reason why MacOS & the *nix’s aren’t near so bad, by spades, as the entire Windows line in terms of security (Active X?!) – ubiquity in the market is not an excuse. That, not in ‘security center’, is where they should be putting their effort.
I predict that Vista will not be much more secure, but will seem so to users. I believe there will be Vista compatible versions of McAfee and Symantec’s products when Vista ships, and they’ll will still be so attrocious.
But it’s bundled software that looks like aftermarket software on an OS that is expected to take it’s place in a near-monopoly market. By choosing this route, as opposed to working on the system itself, it seems to me a directed first-step against “security” firms. Sensible steps will probably continue to make it slightly more difficult for other firms to operate until some huge boring anti-trust suit is launched and the user will continue to lose out.
I’m not sure if I’m articulating my point here, for I don’t care for any of the players here, and the locking out is not a concern for me – but the bundling, format, and level at which this is being applied is; and, I expect there to be a path of continuing difficulty for security-center-like programs. It’s the MS-Way.
Oh, and TC has it’s place on the desktop: for virtualization, for example. It’s too bad it’ll be wasted for things like DRM; as I join you in the fear of it’s widespread use.
I LOVE “finalesque”. Can I use it or is it copyrighted?!
Take that copywrite, ASAP. Isn’t adding ‘-esque’ to words a bit of an internet meme these days?
Is it? Maybe I’m sheltered.
McAfee and Symantec, where the world of Windows users for the last 15 years have to put up or shut up. I guess you can join the ranks of Netscape and Real networks who have been screwed over, next!
Symantec products are rubbish, maybe Microsoft realized that and stopped them from slowing down their OS and destroying it :p
Edited 2006-10-02 19:51
Both McAfee and Symantec are the most trusted worldwide solutions for virus protection although perosnally I have been an fan of McAfee’s Virusscan Enterprise Edition.
MS’s problem is that when they add security applications to windows, they either don’t provide ways of removing them, or not enough documentation on how to do that.
Personally, I would trust McAfee or Symantec’s enterprise solutions over whatever MS can pull out.
That’s the beauty of Windows. You can turn off Microsoft’s anti-virus and install whatever you want. The power of choice is in your hands…
MS’s problem is that when they add security applications to windows, they either don’t provide ways of removing them, or not enough documentation on how to do that.
Malware writers don’t seem to have a problem finding ways to disable microsoft’s “security” software. McAfee and Symantec pretty much are experts at malware exploits, so they probably have all the knowledge in house on “how to circumvent Microsoft’s security”
Of course, I despise all parties involved here, so the above is mostly just sarcasm…
From Symantec and McAfee. By Micosoft locking them out, it means that Microsoft might really be serious about desktop security. At all costs, they will try and maintain system integrity and at that time, Microsoft will be more accountable for viruses and worms.
McAfee’s logic has many holes:
“Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97% of the world’s desktops.”
Antivirus software is not technically madatory on any Windows OS. They make it seem like it would be a better world if Microsoft did not harden its system, leaving 100% of them open by default as we have today.
Consumer wins.
…any company that does NOT have it in for Microsoft.
One might almost feel sorry for them.
Almost.
I hate to appear to be pro-Microsoft, because they are a monopoly let’s face it, but I think these companies that have said they will only write software for Windows and only support Windows need to get a reality check.
These companies need to understand that they are not on a level playing field in Windows if Microsoft decides that they want to own their revenue. If you’re an ISV on Windows, don’t get big or noticeable. If they want to be on a level playing field then they’re going to have to start supporting and investing in alternative operating systems – rapidly – if they want to survive.
Additionally, there’s an argument that says why shouldn’t Microsoft lock down their OS and secure it, and take the responsibility for that on behalf of customers? I know Microsoft may have alterior motives, and it will get most amusing with the Trusted Computing stuff ;-), but are McAffee and others going to argue that Microsoft should make their OS less secure?
I agree with the alternative operating systems; Adobe was whining about Microsoft including a free doc to pdf exporter – how about instead of bitching, firstly work with wine to get all Adobe Windows products to work out of the box THEN spend the next 3 years porting it to the alternative operating system of choice (personally I’d like to see GnuSolaris being the one).
These third parties COULD level the playing field by working together on with Sun, for example, get their operating system up to ‘enterprise quality’, and you’ll end up with another market that they can focus on.
The fact is, what is easier, grandstanding and whining, or knuckling down and using ones smarts?
These companies need to understand that they are not on a level playing field in Windows if Microsoft decides that they want to own their revenue. If you’re an ISV on Windows, don’t get big or noticeable.
This only applies if you happen to write shitty apps. Except in cases like iTunes, if you write shitty apps but are able to convince people it’s top-quality stuff
If they want to be on a level playing field then they’re going to have to start supporting and investing in alternative operating systems – rapidly – if they want to survive.
This doesn’t make much sense to me. If you’re writing software for Windows (at least on the desktop), you do so because that’s what 95% of the world uses. If you ditch Windows in favor of alternative OS’s, you’ve just narrowed down your target audience by leaps and bounds. And in the case of Linux, nobody’s going to pay attention to you unless you offer your product for $0 and hand over the source code along with it.
Edited 2006-10-03 05:19
On the one hand, McAfee is coming across all whiney ’cause Microsoft won’t let them use their ball & bat anymore.
On the other hand, anyone who doesn’t like Microsoft’s way of doing business is free to switch to — or develop applications for — whatever alternative operating system they like.
band-aid company sues skateboard company for recommending that skaters where knee pads…
I think McAfee is just pissed that they’re not going to get a piece of the revenues from Vista. McAfee was hoping to strike a deal with MS, so that McAfee could be included with the OS.
I also believe they are scared that Microsoft will do a better job with virus protection.
I’ve used both OneCare and McAfee and they are both good, but OneCare seems to use fewer resources and is less intrusive (just like the firewall and ZoneAlarm).
Trend Micro’s “PC-cillin” security product (anti-virus/trojan/worm, firewall, etc) seems to work fine with Vista:
https://www.trendbeta.com/index.php?get=80
Avast! also works with Vista:
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-antivirus-and-windows-vista.html
And another security vendor, Sophos, also has no problems with Vista and has criticized Symantec for claiming that Vista is locking out security vendors. Sophos says that Vista provides ways for security vendors to make their wares work without having to muck directly with the Vista kernel (and that MS’s own A/V programs have to use the provided mechanisms as well, rather than mucking with the kernel):
http://www.betanews.com/article/Sophos_on_Symantecs_Vista_C%20o…
Why are the above able to work on Vista without whining but Symantec and McAfee aren’t able to? I’ve read (but not confirmed) that, unlike other security vendors, Symantec and McAfee implement their wares by mucking directly with the kernel, something Vista doesn’t allow.
Why are the above able to work on Vista without whining but Symantec and McAfee aren’t able to? I’ve read (but not confirmed) that, unlike other security vendors, Symantec and McAfee implement their wares by mucking directly with the kernel, something Vista doesn’t allow.
Symantec and McAfee have grown too accustomed to modifying low-level operating system components. Microsoft, understandably, wants to limit the damage that can be done by rootkits — and seriously, it’s hard to distinguish between what Symantec/McAfee want to do … and what a rootkit would want to do.
“Why are the above able to work on Vista without whining but Symantec and McAfee aren’t able to? I’ve read (but not confirmed) that, unlike other security vendors, Symantec and McAfee implement their wares by mucking directly with the kernel, something Vista doesn’t allow.”
Maybe because Symantec and McAfee will no longer be able to spread the virus that keep them in business without access to the kernel??
Sorry..no facts to back it up..just couldn’t resist it
Both Symantec and McAfee lost my vote years ago. There are plenty of solutions that do their job competently unlike the offerings from these two companies.
People are amazed at how well their PC’s can run when a decent alternative that actually protects them from viri is loaded in Symantecs/McAfee’s stead. Either these 2 companies learn how to do their job properly or they can F-Off!
Sick of crap software.
when microsoft is the only antivirus program maker they will demand that you pay for the program and updates or they just do what they did to msie (hint: no development for many years)
Well then, it will be open-source to the rescue right? Oh that’s right there already is an open-source anti-virus called ClamAV.
Are you suggesting ClamAV doesn’t work or isn’t effective?
ClamAV isn’t effective NOW. It’s one of the worst antivirus products out there. I certainly hope you aren’t relying on it.
ClamWin is actually really good. It’s usually the first one to recognize new viruses, worms and trojans.
It doesn’t know so many of the viruses from the 80’es and the early 90’es, but they are however irrelevant.
ClamWin (based on ClamAV) is usually a better choice than Kapersky.
ClamWin do not have on-access scanning, but that is irrelevant. On-access scanning tend to not work anyway.
I’ve seen Winpooch mentioned before if you do want on-access scanning with ClamWin. Haven’t tried it myself though.
http://winpooch.free.fr/page/home.php?lang=en&page=home
Niiice. I’ve got to check that one out, when I switch back to Win2K3 (AntiVir PE doesn’t work with Win2K3).
That is not true.
Which part of it isn’t true?
That ClamWin has received great reviews?
Or that it isamong the fastest AV-products to recognize new threats?
Or that it doesn’t have on-access scanning?
Or that it doesn’t know much about viruses from the 80’es and early 90’es?
Or what?
Clamav is NOT an on demand scanner. Clamav is primarliy used in mail servers. Clamav definitely is not the best thing for a desktop machine because it can only get rid of viruses, it cannot prevent infections.
Except that unlike the Web, the malware industry is fast moving, determined and motivated. MS or any other security company is forced to update their software continuously, not because consumers want new features (like the web), but because malware writers will keep them on their toes. So what happened with IE cannot happen here
From what I gather, at least in Symantec’s case what they wanted wasn’t so much kernel access (though possibly that as well) as the ability to disable Windows Defender and presumably replace it with their own branded thing a la Systemworks. Correct me if I’m wrong n4cer or anyone else in the know.
From what I gather, at least in Symantec’s case what they wanted wasn’t so much kernel access (though possibly that as well) as the ability to disable Windows Defender and presumably replace it with their own branded thing a la Systemworks. Correct me if I’m wrong n4cer or anyone else in the know.
Symantec wanted both. Their latest attack focused on Windows Defender (according to MS, the necessary API has been present since RC 1), but in the past they’ve also attacked PatchGuard, Security Center (where were their complaints about SC before XP SP2 was released, or PG before XP x64 was released?) and other MS technologies. The part-research-mostly-FUD whitepapers Symantec distributed to the media focused on the code in Vista being buggy simply because it was new (even though the build they tested was months old and MS’ processes had already found and fixed the bugs they highlighted) and their need for kernel access to protect users.
I think MS’ Jeff Jones described Symantec’s (and now McAffee’s) motives pretty well as trying to maintain a protection racket.
http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2006/09/29/459749.aspx
first time Microsoft will be promoting their own antivirus service in Windows OneCare.
I understand, antivirus companies like symantec and mcafee are starting to spread FUD because MS is offering OneCare.
Edited 2006-10-02 21:42
Geez, talk about whining. The mere fact that such a market exists in this day and age is amazing, so McAfee should be happy it’s made some money. It’s time to move on, guys, don’t expect viruses and crappy OSes to be around for ever.
This is tough one. One one hand I do want both Symantec and McAfee to die slow and painfull death, but on the other, I don’t want Microsoft to have their way with the market and streangthen their monopoly.
I guess we’ll just let the 3 wolves fight over what used to be a Windows security market. While I will let Linux with its numerous and high quality security tools provide the security features for my computers and networks.
As for the rest of Windows users try AVG antivirus. I wish success to AVG as their free antivirus is an example of quality security software.
And as for Symantec and McAfee, the last good thing that came out from Symantec was PCTools in very early ’90s before they started gobbling up other companies like Norton and lately Ghost and Partitionmagic.
And I don’t recall ever anything worth paying for from McAfee. As a matter of fact, I consider McAfee security software the worst threat to a computer, much more damaging than any virus. Even the recent versions are not meant to be uninstalled and never uninstall cleanly, always leaving crap behind and sometime causing damage to the system. And it’s a voodoo magic to correctly uninstall in the right sequence and with the right timing of reboots.
Am I the only one here who views antivirus and antispyware programs as over-hyped and unnecessary? I use Windows XP SP2, and I use many obscure programs from 3rd parties who aren’t necessarily reputable. I am almost constantly connected to the internet via DSL. The only security system I use is the Windows XP SP2 firewall, and do not use any anti-anything programs. Yet, my computer has never been infected with a virus, and I have no spyware or adware. I favor a common sense approach to computer security, instead of installing two or three security programs. It’s really quite simple: never open an email attachment unless you were expecting it and the sender mentions it in his message. If you download a new program, download it from the official site and do a google search to make sure it isn’t malware. Use a web browser that isn’t Internet Explorer. People seem to think that computer viruses are transmissible like human viruses, whereas in reality, it requires user error to contract a computer virus. They’re entirely preventable.
Just curious, have you actually verified that you don’t have any malware on your machine?
Not all malware flashes huge cocks in your face, or zaps all memory and cpu time.
Not all malware flashes huge cocks in your face
Only the good ones.
Once microsoft is the monopoly for providing its own security antivirus/antispyware etc etc then ofcourse govt trojans or microsofts own rootkits will go undetected
enjoy your new found “freedom” I for one embrace our new overlords!
If microsoft wanted to make a rootkit, they could just distribute it with Windows Update… if you’re running Windows, you implicitly trust just about any code coming from Microsoft. If you think they’d rootkit you, you better start running Linux or BSD.
Microsoft has always integrated functionality in Windows over the years that makes sense to the end-user. TrueType fonts almost put Adobe Postscript fonts out of business to the consumer (Pros still use it). Then it was Stacker and a defrag prog being included in DOS 6. Memory management was included in DOS 5 and higher, although not as good as QEMM or 386MAX, was sufficient for almost everyone but hardcore gamers. And later versions of Windows (95 and better) included many other features like Networking. Yes, I said Networking. The basic peer-to-peer Networking we’re all used to wasn’t in Windows 3.1. They put Lantastic out of business. Novell NetWare just bit the dust recently too, and that was no small feat. Though it was ten years in the making since NT came out.
Let’s face it, Antivirus and Utility companies have been riding the coat-tails of Microsoft’s flaws for years. That’s hardly a long term business strategy. Sooner or later you will go out of business. Just ask Stacker…
-Robert
Hmm.. consumers never bought postscript fonts. They were too expensive.
And putting Adobe Postscript out of business? Hmm.. the pros still use it, as you write, and nobody but pros have ever bought postscript fonts or other postscript technologies (besides in OS/2).
I wonder how you think they could lose a market they never had (despite the fact that TrueType was and is and always will be a primitive and irrelevant technology).
The primary reason for Stacker to die, was the fact that harddisks exploded in size. Disk compression was merely a temporary solution back in the days when a CD-ROM could hold the content of several hard disks.
QEMM was great. It could free up as much as 634 KB of conventional memory – that was nice
.. not just for gamers.
Most competitors to Microsoft died from advances in technology rather than MS-behaviour, with the exception of a few companies in the mid- and end-90’es.
But operating system companies Postscript licences, the eventual kill off was PDF.
Truetype once it reached good enough status was perfectly fine for most people, and OpenType was the eventual final nail in the coffin.
Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3, DB IV and Harvard Graphics died against Microsoft Office because the companies stuck to their DOS guns when Windows was becoming a dominant force and replacing DOS as the main user interface.
All of what has happened have been caused by competitors making stupid decisions – Joel on Software showed a *prime* example of this, Borland re-wrote the WHOLE Paradox code base in C++, from scratch, no real purpose other than to simply say, “its written in C++” the net result, by the time it was released, it was buggy and couldn’t hold a candle to Access.
Netscape Communicator was a complete and absolute disaster when compared to Internet Explorer; sure, Internet Explorer took over your desktop, but at the same time, it was a damn site more stable than the hang and crash prone Netscape Communicator 4.x which was coded by arrogant programmers who were adamant till the day Netscape died, that it was everyone elses fault for Netscape Communicators bad stability.
Are you.. are you.. defending microsoft? :O!
You could say that
– at least in this particular situation.
If anybody claims MS killed of Stacker, I’m going to hurl, because they cheated each other. DoubleSpace and DriveSpace and Stacker’s own variation on the same theme simply died out due to larger harddisks.
Some of the same was true for many MS competitors in the 80’es and early 90’es. We have to reach the mid- and end-90’es before MS gets nasty.
(Remember – back then Gates was against software patents – while MS was still small
Considering Truetype is the defacto font standard on 97% of the world’s computers, it certainly is not irrelevant. primitive? sure, irrelevant? never.
It is irrelevant. Most computers are not using TrueType. They are using OpenType, which can either be TrueType or PostScript.
From a technological point of view, TrueType is irrelevant, just like MS-DOS v.1.00 or Windows 1.01
Supporting TrueType is however relevant (due to numbers of users with TrueType fonts), but so is support of PostScript. And support for both is easy to get.
It’s absurd that Microsoft–historically speaking– hasn’t provided adequate security for a system that they designed themselves. Instead, 3rd party developers have had to provide much of what Microsoft should have done from the beginning with respect to their OS.
How a software company can produce a product that is so security deficient out of the box (according to many security experts) and yet still thrive is beyond me.
Now, Microsoft wants to to “get into the game” and start managing their own security apparatus for their new operating system–Vista.
I say let them.
This way, they will be the only ones to blame when their product falls face down into a mud of viruses, worms, trojans, and other electronic vermin.
I have used both companies antivirus and other softwares for years, and I didn’t like them at all, but I felt it is mandatory for customers out of control on an OS out of protection.
What MS is trying to do to current AV software companies is really locking; not full locking but middle level locking, leaving them the high level playground available (low level is already locked for all but MS employee). By doing this MS could produce more powerful, and faster antivirus software than any other competitor. But lets not forget that those specially 2 companies (symantec and McAfee) took their time with middle/high levels unlocked for a very long time without being able to produce a real nice software to be nominated fast and lean.
And again any buisness that depends on another buisness must expect one day that this buisness will be in danger if the first one cease to exist (or locked). It is like Diabetic patients who might have a new treatment that will heal them from the disease then all the companies that produce current drugs will go bankrupt (this buisness is a multi-billion dollar worth one owned by companies with powers beyond those of mafya), so you cannot fight the new successful company or fight patients by infecting them to produce the disease (Diabetes is thought to be of viral origin).
I advice those companies to start programming for other platforms if they don’t like to change their type of buisness, or change the type of their buisness to not depend MS or others!
I really feel sorry for the families of those who work with those 2 companies and others which MS affected them!
I’m glad I don’t live in the Windows world.
Somehow i get the impression MacAffee/Symantec want to cut on development costs.In the past they have earned a lot of money by providing (perceived?) security to a lot of concerned computer users.So now the OS gets more secure by limiting kernel access they should restrain themselves and keep their mouth shut.
McAfee can take out as many ads as they want, but their consumer level products are still bloatware. Not nearly as bad as Norton though.
At a glance but if you couple this with the analysis of our national security itself could be a risk from insecurities in windows… the picture is not pretty. Microsoft now wants to clean up their own yard, which could be very commendable if their track record wasn’t so miserable. Yes, let’s put your national security in MS’s capable hands, sleep tight children.
I just assumed the headline was about the delivery date or hardware requirements.