The Netscaping of Symantec and McAfee 385
rs232 writes to mention a C|Net article about the uncertain future of the popular anti-virus software companies. "I mention Netscape because, if you believe Symantec and McAfee, a similar situation is about to unfold within the security industry. Microsoft, again recognizing late that it had failed to seize upon this thing called security, is now about to bundle its own security solutions within Windows Vista and further enforce new security policies that lock out some third-party security solutions altogether. Vendors Symantec and McAfee have looked into the future and realized that people may one day speak of them in the way that we now speak reverently of the early builds of Netscape."
Speak reverently of Symantec? (Score:5, Funny)
Speak reverently of Symantec...... Bwahahahahaha
Re:But they are already unusable monsters... (Score:5, Funny)
But that is security! Studies have shown that a system brought to a complete 100% standstill is impervious to malware and virus infection.
News Flash! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm no fan of Windows, you'll never see me use an OS that requires fifteen free gigs just to install, but if they're finally getting their security right then I guess the security vendors are S.O.L.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:5, Funny)
What's truly maddening about this is... (Score:3, Funny)
People look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them their paid antivirus software is causing their computer to suck, and I need to replace it with free antivirus software. Their poor little heads just spin as they smile, nod, and slowly back towards the exit.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:1, Funny)
Agreed. McAfee software crashed my XP installation on my Dell 4600, requiring me to purchase a new HDD to reinstall. Now, with two HDD's, the power supply is ailing, I have ordered a new heavy duty one for $140.00.
All because Windows is not secure, and Dell thought that McAfee software might help, so they bundled it in the package. Wound up putting Symantec software there, that is costly also, and take lots of time to scan for viruses.
Windows _____ - now with more security! (Score:3, Funny)
Windows 3.1 - no real security, but it's prettier than DOS!
Windows for Workgroups 3.1.1 - now with a login screen (but still no real security)!
Windows NT 3.51 - now with ACL's (and mostly not compatible with Win3.1 apps)!
Windows 95 - also has a login screen! no real security, but prettier than WfW!
Windows NT 4.0 - now with shared ACL's (domains) - the most secure Windows ever!
Windows 98 - Slightly less likely to crash than Win95! No NT security features!
Windows ME - Now with some system-software protection, but still no ACL's!
Windows 2000 - An improved interface and kernel! Active Directory 1.0! Now, the most secure Windows ever!
Windows XP - The successor to the Win2k and Win9x kernel products - super duper secure! Home users still run as the super-user, but it's less likely to crash! ACL's for Professional users and a very limited firewall make this, yes, the most secure Windows ever!
Windows 2003 (server) - The XP kernel in a server! Hardly anything runs by default! The Most Secure Windows Ever!
Windows Vista - Still with ACLs! New ways to limit access! Everyone's running as superuser, but with more warnings!
Windows Longhorn (server) - Not fully designed, but looks a little less secure than Win2003 - possibly *not* the most secure Windows ever!
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:1, Funny)
Microsoft, the convicted monopolists par excellence, wouldn't do something like this?
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:2, Funny)
Heh.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:1, Funny)
HP, Enron, The Oil Companies... Microcoff
G.
Re:This is NOT the same thing (Score:2, Funny)