Microsoft vs. anti-virus sellers

Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Oct 24, 2006 by James Derk Scripps Howard News Service

Microsoft, a company that rarely blinks, did the blinking in a battle with anti-virus vendors over Windows Vista, the next version of Windows.

This was a battle you may not have been paying attention to, but one that I found pretty fascinating.

Simply put, when Microsoft entered the security market in a big way a couple years ago, vendors such as Symantec and McAfee were in deep trouble. After all, when the owner of the operating system builds in the utility, there is little reason to buy a third-party utility.

When Microsoft was planning Windows Vista, it decided to lock down the core of the operating system. It claimed that would keep it the most secure. The other vendors, of course, threw down the anti- trust card and claimed the company was unfairly locking them out of the competition. After all, without access to the core, or kernel, the other companies claimed they could not effectively protect Windows Vista.

Here is what drives me nuts. I don't know whom to believe in this mess. I do know when McAfee is preinstalled on a new Dell and at first boot I decline the End-User License Agreement, it installs anyway.

I know it then is nearly impossible for normal users to uninstall because the virus product is running.

(More than one client has hired my computer repair company just to uninstall this product and the other junk Dell pre-installs.)

My favorite trick that both Symantec and McAfee offer helpfully is to "disable duplicate alerts" from Windows, but what that really means is they disable Windows Security Center.

My opinion is just that, my opinion, but as these anti-virus products became what I call "bloat-ware" they became less valuable to consumers. They are now these large suites containing a half- dozen applications, some of which people don't want or need.

I think especially dangerous are consumer-level firewalls, which are pretty troublesome for the average consumer to use and configure when compared with the one built in to Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Yes, I know the after-market ones are more powerful, but for an average consumer they also are very troublesome if you answer incorrectly on one of those pop-ups.

On the other hand, I see the point that Microsoft should not both own the operating system and the security system that controls it. Instead there is something to be said to having Microsoft focus on making its OS better and then having the folks at Kapersky, Symantec and other third parties making tools to secure the perimeter. That way there are more people focused on the issue, a better chance that security will be a priority and that holes will be filled faster.

Of course, Microsoft didn't make this decision out of the goodness of its corporate heart. It was possible that the sale of Vista would have been blocked in Europe under anti-trust had it not been opened.

So we shall see in January when Vista goes on retail sale how virus protection will finally work. I would expect Microsoft to offer a year of protection for less than $10 if not free.

WEEKLY WEB WONDER: Remember when radio was cool? Me too. Relive it at Radio Free Phoenix, www.radiofreephoenix.com.

James Derk is co-owner of CyberDads, a computer repair company, and a computer columnist for Scripps Howard News Service. His e- mail address is jim@cyberdads.com.