Microsoft’s Great Values

Unable to make enough money selling XP at $100 to $300 a pop to figure out how to secure their OS, Microsoft Company introduces virus protection software at only another $50. cheapodrugs.com

Companies like Symantec and McAfee have built successful businesses on the proposition that Microsoft is unable to write a secure OS. Today, Microsoft has agreed with them and entered the band-aid market themselves. The cluelessness in Redmond is astounding.

“Sarah Hicks, Symantec’s vice president of product management for consumer products, said Microsoft’s entry will help shine a light” on the technical weaknesses of the OS product.

“Bill Kerrigan, executive vice president for McAfee, said Microsoft, in fashioning a broad solution, fails to address new and evolving Internet threats. He said OneCare may give consumers a false sense of security. “Microsoft’s traditional approach is, it’s good enough. But good isn’t good enough in security,” Kerrigan said. “OneCare is not a comprehensive security offering in the classic sense”.

So, it’s a virus package with holes in it for an OS famous for it’s holes.

The best part, in my opinion, is the interesting relationship this sets up. Now if MS ever succeeds in closing the security holes, they’ll be losing money. Redmond has publicly created a $50 per year per PC incentive to produce crappy, insecure products for the forseeable future.

Would you buy any other product from somebody who told you you’d have to pay them more if it didn’t work?


1 Comment »

  1. mnmus said,

    June 3, 2006 @ 12:30 pm

    Oh, yeh. *sigh* I just had to try the beta of OneCare. Used a machine I could afford to trash, if necessary, running Win2K.

    The software took nearly three days to scan my computer and NOTHING it identified as security concerns… were. Biggest security threat (labeled as a “virus”) was RealVNC. Yeh, right, pull the other one, Micro$oft.

    I use Win2K on most of my comps, Win98 on one, WinXP on another and a couple of different flavors of Linux on a couple more. The Windows machines are there for 1.) ONE piece of software that will run ONLY in a real Windows box (so why use a virtual box under Linux or some other OS?) 2.) familiarity with the different flavors currently in use so I can deal with client issues effectively and 3.) for family and visitors’ use. The Linux boxes are for network security (firewall/router/server) and for fun. I am still waiting for a mature, secure and user-friendly Windows.

    But… OTOH, I kinda like playing with its innards (one of the reasons I also like Linux) and I enjoy making MY Windows boxes far more secure, user-friendly and productive than they’d be if I left them to Micro$oft alone. I never could make myself surrender to the Mac Borg, so Linux is still my best hope for a mmature, secure, user-fiendly (and fun to play with) OS…

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Your first comment is human moderated to reduce spam. It can take us a while (hours) to do that. Subsequent comments will appear much faster. We greatly sympathize with any frustration this causes, but given the amount of spam we have to deal with already we're not likely to change things soon.

You must be logged in to post a comment.