S
Seth Brundle
When completing my install of Service Pack 2, I was happy to see the
firewall preconfigured and up-front to the user, which was an
excellent step forward in security for Windows.
However, I was shocked to see a balloon suggesting I purchase a
third-party antivirus program (!!!)
Microsoft, as a non open-source operating system company, needs to
accept responsibility for anti-virus products, or open up its source
code. Only those in possesion of the source code itself are best able
to manage a comprehensive and fast-response antivirus system.
To both acknowledge that your operating system is virus-prone and
suggest you pay someone else to protect you from Microsoft's insecure
software is very ironic.
Rather then promoting the anti-virus market by advertising third-party
products, why isnt Microsoft simply accepting the reponsibility of its
operating system security from end to end with an anti-virus
product??? As the owner of the OS, source code, and Windows
developers, and as one of the most cash-laden companies in the world,
they alone are best equipped to undertake this task, yet they seem
fine with simply letting their lack of security support a third-party
software market.
I dont want to pay $80 for my operating system, then pay another 50%
of the cost of the netire operating system to a third party to protect
me from its vulnerabilities - having the OS reccommend this is
insulting.
????
firewall preconfigured and up-front to the user, which was an
excellent step forward in security for Windows.
However, I was shocked to see a balloon suggesting I purchase a
third-party antivirus program (!!!)
Microsoft, as a non open-source operating system company, needs to
accept responsibility for anti-virus products, or open up its source
code. Only those in possesion of the source code itself are best able
to manage a comprehensive and fast-response antivirus system.
To both acknowledge that your operating system is virus-prone and
suggest you pay someone else to protect you from Microsoft's insecure
software is very ironic.
Rather then promoting the anti-virus market by advertising third-party
products, why isnt Microsoft simply accepting the reponsibility of its
operating system security from end to end with an anti-virus
product??? As the owner of the OS, source code, and Windows
developers, and as one of the most cash-laden companies in the world,
they alone are best equipped to undertake this task, yet they seem
fine with simply letting their lack of security support a third-party
software market.
I dont want to pay $80 for my operating system, then pay another 50%
of the cost of the netire operating system to a third party to protect
me from its vulnerabilities - having the OS reccommend this is
insulting.
????