MSAS will expire in 7/31/2005

[Sandra Poh]

I have installed Win XP Pro SP2 on my office laptop.
Then, I have installed Microsoft AntiSpyware version 1.0.509 and it says
that it will expire on 7/31/2005.
Pls kindly advise the below.

01) Am I still able to download the latest spyware definitions and software
updates after 7/31/2005?
02) Since my laptop is installed with corporate licensed WinXP Pro, does it
means that our company have to pay for the corporate licence for MSAS?

Thanks and Best Regards
(e-mail address removed) / (e-mail address removed)

 

[Andre Da Costa]

Yes, it is known, I think the reason why it has expiration is because its a
beta product, you don't want to run a beta product forever. Between now and
the expiry date there should be a beta 2. The final release date has not yet
been determined.

The final version will be made available to all licensed Windows Users for
freen.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Pls kindly advise the below.

01) Am I still able to download the latest spyware definitions and
software updates after 7/31/2005?

I can't say for certain, but likely not. So far, software updates have not
been distributed via the definition update process. I think that it is
likely that you will need to download a new version of the application,
which will then enable you to continue to receive definition and software
updates.

02) Since my laptop is installed with corporate licensed WinXP Pro, does
it means that our company have to pay for the corporate licence for MSAS?

Can't answer this one for certain either, but I think not--I think that the
choice will be up to your company as to whether the benefits of a centrally
managed corporate version are worth the cost. I don't think this choice
will be required by any particular parameters--say, domain membership,
etc--but I could be mistaken.

 

[Baz]

Gotta wonder - looking at the timelines here and how long
there's been a Beta 1 - whether there is going to be a
Beta 2 (or one with a valid testing cycle) before the end
of July.

Can't help but feel - at this rate - that we won't see a
Gold version before September. Or it could be another
Longhorn and be 'sometime' later...

Of course, when (if) the Gold does appear and if MS is
serious about the problems of spyware/malware it should
include it as a 'Critical' in Windows Update.

 

[Andre Da Costa]

Feedback is more important than I a new beta I would say. I want Microsoft
to get this one as good as possible out the door. The only thing we should
be worrying about for beta 2 is cosmetic issues.

 

[Baz]

Agreed.

But MS has traditionally released products based more on
corporate or financial expediency rather than whether its
ready for safe public consumption - and I see no reason
that MSAS would be treated any differently.

Getting 'regular folk' to test their products can be more
cost-effective for them then doing it all in-house and
looks good from a PR point-of-view, but that also means
(especially with a product that they themselves acquired
from elsewhere)that they can divest themselves of
responsibility if the product is not "as good as possible
out the door".

Problems with the Gold product? "It's our fault for not
finding them as Beta Testers", can be MS's defense.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Baz - if you really think that any part of this drivel is true, you should
find another companies software to purchase.

 

[Baz]

Oh but I do, Bill.

I appreciate as a MVP, you are a proxy server (in the
biological rather than hardware sense) to MS - and as
such, any substantial doubts about Redmond's software or
the processes they use to get it to market are considered
drivel, but I stand by my comments.

Originally ambidextrous when it came to mainstream OS's, I
eventually chose Windows as my OS - not because of the OS,
but the whole package was cheaper than the alternative.
I've experienced most of the WinOSs (and many other MS
products since)and I can honestly say that MS must be
eternally thankful for the internet - for if it wasn't for
it (and the bandwidth we devote to Betas and these
discussions, downloading repairs, patches or entirely new
programs)MS's OS and programs would be seriously hobbled
and nowhere near as 'stable' as they are now. Even so,
they continue to abdicate responsibility for their
products to the users and appear to only repair problems
when outside sources report them and they become 'common
knowledge' - as on Forums like this.

Find other companies software to purchase? Oh but I do.
MSAS (assuming you want to call it MS's) is at the bottom
of my arsenal of already tested and effective malware
scanners, while other MS software is (largely) replaced by
other companies' products. I'm trying MSAS, but I won't
lose anything if I remove it....

Drivel, I know.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I think you haven't looked real closely at MVP's if you see us as extensions
of Microsoft--it's a tension in the program, but the MVP's I know are quite
critical of Microsoft in areas they know well--and publicly so.

Every effort to bring a complex product to market involves trade-offs. In a
software product some of the trade-offs involve choosing which bugs remain
in the released product.

You seem to view Microsoft as motivated primarily by the profit
margin--getting things to market as cheaply as possible.

That has to be a part of the equation for any publicly traded company.

However, I don't see it as the primary motivation either in releasing this
beta as a public beta, or in the quality of the final product. If I did, I
wouldn't be here.

I note that you find the overall quality of Windows sufficient for your
needs.

I hope you'll find that true also of the final product of this beta.

 

[Guest]

So do I, Bill, so do I - but I am aware there are
alternatives and I use them.

Meanwhile, as you rightly point out, here I am still with
Windows. I could always go with the other retail
alternative, but that's simply a question of trading a
Meglomaniac's OS for an Egoist's - with little upside as
far as I can see.
Now if I could go into my corner computer store and pick
up a notebook from IBM, Toshiba, HP, Avaratec or the like
with a fully supported LinuxOS pre-configured and
installed by the manufacturer, I'd likely be gone. In the
meantime, I pause to genuflect towards Redmond everytime I
boot up...

Of course any company is going to make something as
cheaply as they can to sell as for as much as they can -
god bless The Business Plan, Mom's Apple Pie and 3rd World
Manufacturing - but it also behooves companies like MS
(with a market share to over 95% of the market and the
ability to limit what their hardware suppliers can access)
to produce a product that isn't simply a rehash of someone
else's work, re-tested by volunteers and released when it
is 'good enough' or corporately expedient.
Then to rely on the 'Goodness of Strangers' - users'
access to the net to patch the errors you've left behind -
well that really is a bad Business Model.

We shall see what August brings....

 

[Bill Sanderson]

Well - Dell will supply you with a fully configured Linux machine--but only
in the Server end of the business, as I recall.. I believe some other major
vendors will do that as well.

I don't see anybody doing this at the desktop level, though and I doubt it
is fear of the wrath of Bill alone that is keeping them from doing it. I
suspect it is small issues like whether there's a market, and whether they
can afford the support issues.