Caveat Emptor: Microsoft Co-President Says Vista Won't Need Extra Security Software

from the that's-a-first dept

Fri, Nov 10th 2006 9:04am — Joseph Weisenthal

For a long time, Microsoft had a symbiotic relationship with the makers of anti-virus software. Microsoft would release a new version of Windows that had plenty of security flaws, creating a market for these third parties. But all that's started to change of late. When it got into the security space itself, its one-time partners started up the argument that the company was a monopolist. And as Vista's drawn near, many have accused the company of unfairly locking them out of the Vista Kernel, which they claim denies them the ability to make their software work. And now it seems Microsoft is ratcheting up the war of words again, as co-President Jim Allchin said to reporters that Vista wouldn't need anti-virus software, and that he'd let his young son surf the web without it. Obviously, this isn't the kind of thing that the third-party security vendors want Microsoft to say, but can we now expect Microsoft to not sell its own anti-virus software to Vista users, since it must be a waste of money?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Johan, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:21am

Just like defrag?
So Windows doesn't need Anti-Virus software just like it didn't need Defrag software?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:38am

Doesn't need anti-viral software...?
Thats just plain arrogance. I can hear the hackers and virus writers laughing now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 10 Nov 2006 @ 9:58am

I'd like it to be true, though
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ramowl, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:06am

Doesn't need anti-viral software???
Jim Allchin's statement is a VERY foolish one! There is not an operating system platform in existence that is not vuneralble to infection. Allchin has succeeded in displaying his ignorance to Microsoft's customers. This bodes ill for Vista users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixel Rider, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:10am

After the first virus
This could be fun..............wonder how many false advertising lawsuits try to pop up after the first virus hits all the people that assumed this to be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:15am

Actually, I just read the article, and what he actually says is that his son is currently running vista with no antivirus software. Which sort of makes sense since as far as I'm aware, there isn't any available.

This isn't exactly the same as saying you won't need antivirus software when vista is actually released.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Saboteur, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:27am

Windows
The focus on Windows XP was for collaboration, shared resources and managing data over different software products. This started by allowing holes for hackers. If Vista can eliminate 95% of the vulnerabilities that would save corporations an enormous amount of man hours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ITGuyfromHELL, 10 Nov 2006 @ 11:28am

From Microsoft's Vista Site
"In addition to using these built-in Windows Vista features, you should help keep your computer healthy by using antivirus software such as Windows OneCare or an antivirus solution from one of Microsoft's partners. Whichever option you choose, remember to update your antivirus software regularly. These updates are generally available through a subscription from your antivirus vendor.

Together, these tools can help you protect your PC from malicious software."

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/security.mspx#more

Seems Jim Allchin's comments and what Microsoft advertises are two different things. I would think the programmers for Vista need to take Jim aside and let him in on how the REAL WORLD works...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jess, 10 Nov 2006 @ 12:47pm

Re:
i've been running vista for about two months almost and i've been using trend micro's pc-cillin beta with it and i haven't had a problem with it. kinda puts the lie that security software needs access to the kernel though doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Windows_, 10 Nov 2006 @ 3:43pm

Windows DCMA oops, er..umm. Vista
Someone should inform him that Vista comes with Windows Defender, which is Anti-Virus software.

But... the MS feeb said it didn't need it!? Now, I'm confused maybe I just stick with XP or switch to Linux.

Vista is a joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the accountability dept, 11 Nov 2006 @ 6:04am

What's with the
This is what was said (swiped from http://www.betanews.com/article/Allchin_Suggests_Vista_Wont_Need_Antivirus/1163104965):

"I'll give you an example: My son, seven years old, runs Windows Vista, and, honestly, he doesn't have an antivirus system on his machine. His machine is locked down with parental controls, he can't download things unless it's to the places that I've said that he could do, and I'm feeling totally confident about that," he added. "That is quite a statement. I couldn't say that in Windows XP SP2."

He's not saying Vista *wont* need AV software; all he's saying is that, with his lockdown scheme and the new vista security features, he is *comfortable* with his son not having av installed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben Watson, 12 Nov 2006 @ 1:25pm

The quote is grossly misrepresented
Please read this: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061111-8199.html

for a discussion of what he actually he said. He never said or even implied that Vista wouldn't need anti-virus. All he said was that his son is so locked down and can't download or install anything, that he doesn't need anti-virus in that instance. It's a comment on PARENTAL CONTROLS, not the general case for anti-virus. Please read the full quote in context, not just the regurgitated drivel that passes for news elsewhere. I expected better from TechDirt.

BTW, I have run XP for the last year without anti-virus without a single problem. Most of those programs caused way more problems than they solved. However, I know I'm the exceptional case: I don't do stupid things on the Internet to invite problems in the first place. Maybe someday, when somebody invents the next great virus, I'll regret it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]