Microsoft AntiSpyware beta
Try it!
Friday, July 1, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Reply #22 Monday, July 4, 2005 3:14 PM
Of course if I'm wrong I'll glady admit to it.

Reply #23 Monday, July 4, 2005 3:41 PM

The rest of us grew up from command-line and 1970's unix-based computing a long time ago. You might want to join us. The water's fine.
Reply #24 Monday, July 4, 2005 3:42 PM
Reply #25 Monday, July 4, 2005 4:54 PM
Maybe you haven't been around WC enough to get to know me. Judging by your user ID you are realitivly new here.
Reply #26 Monday, July 4, 2005 7:59 PM
More on topic, we've deployed MS Anti-spyware across our network at work. While none of the AS progies out there catch everything, the MS-AS seems to catch the most, including "Search 180 Assistant" (if you've tried to remove this one, you know almost nothing else will get rid of it) it also incorporates a BHO watcher, that can take the place of other such programs (SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, BHODemon) so you don't have to have so many programs loading on startup.
Reply #27 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 1:08 AM
| Hmm... I thought that MS AS looked like GIANT AS It does - because Microsoft bought the Anti-spyware program from Giant. |
My point exactly

Reply #28 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 12:39 PM
Still, MS Anti-Spyware, or the MS antivirus program that has been rumored about, is only fine unless they charge money for the service. How would it make sense for the consumer if a company that sells products with security vulnerabilities while claiming they're secure charges money for protection from their own program holes? Granted not every piece of spyware or virus/worm exploits a programming flaw (such as when users click installer boxes on the Internet or ports that are open by default are targeted) but still, that's awfully scummy. And no, this is in no way comparable to dealers who charge for repairs to cars, so don't bring it up.
Reply #29 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 2:13 PM
I would expect this to be the best because noone knows how to protect windows, better than microsoft. It all depends on much resources they spend on protecting windows rather then putting in new features.
Reply #30 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 3:37 PM
Reply #31 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 7:33 PM
| I've tried it out, but I prefer not to have a program like it running all the time. Through a combination of using Firefox and being an intelligent person while using IE, I haven't gotten any spyware in well over a year and a half. Still, MS Anti-Spyware, or the MS antivirus program that has been rumored about, is only fine unless they charge money for the service. How would it make sense for the consumer if a company that sells products with security vulnerabilities while claiming they're secure charges money for protection from their own program holes? Granted not every piece of spyware or virus/worm exploits a programming flaw (such as when users click installer boxes on the Internet or ports that are open by default are targeted) but still, that's awfully scummy. And no, this is in no way comparable to dealers who charge for repairs to cars, so don't bring it up. |
If MS does come out with an AV product, I hope that Longhorn has both the AV and AS programs included with the system, or on the cd. Unfortunately, MS will probably be sued for Anti-competitive behaveior, so it's most likely out of the question.
Reply #32 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 7:39 PM
| Unfortunately, MS will probably be sued for Anti-competitive behaveior, so it's most likely out of the question. |
Arguably if they are included it's to repair the 'holes' in the OS and not competitive at all.
Afterall, all those AV companies out there are simply profitting on the MS OS failings.....so what 'IF' MS were to produce a virus-proof OS? Would likely kill Symantec, etc, but anti-competitive? No.
Having car tyres that last the life of the car would likely kill the after-market Tyre companies too...but that's life....
Reply #33 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:38 PM
| Arguably if they are included it's to repair the 'holes' in the OS and not competitive at all. Afterall, all those AV companies out there are simply profitting on the MS OS failings.....so what 'IF' MS were to produce a virus-proof OS? Would likely kill Symantec, etc, but anti-competitive? No. Having car tyres that last the life of the car would likely kill the after-market Tyre companies too...but that's life.... |
Very true. Otherwise, MS wouldnt be able to fix their OS without being sued =P
Reply #34 Tuesday, July 5, 2005 10:41 PM
On another note.. "Tyres" ?? Jafo, a purposely misspelled word?? Im astonished!!..LoL
Reply #37 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:30 AM
Tyres-Tires..guess it's what your used to - or proper in your part of the world.... I need some right now by the way and I bet they are still expensive no matter what the spelling!
Reply #38 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:26 PM
Producing a virus-proof OS,
is about as likely as,
having car tyres that last the life of the car.
I am saving the address to this thread for future reference.
~
Reply #39 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 9:35 PM
| Producing a virus-proof OS, is about as likely as, having car tyres that last the life of the car. |
Easy..... just make the life of the car shorter....
Reply #40 Wednesday, July 6, 2005 10:19 PM
| Easy..... just make the life of the car shorter.... |
They all ready did...

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!







Reply #21 Monday, July 4, 2005 12:26 PM
Not...