MS to Launch Paid Security Subscription Service

user24 writes "MSN reports that Microsoft 'is launching a subscription service aimed at providing better protection for the Windows operating system, which has been vulnerable to Internet attacks. Windows Live OneCare will protect up to three computers for about 50 dollars a year.' From the OneCare website: 'Windows Live OneCare works continuously, automatically, and quietly in the background on your PC, ever vigilant against threats but never in the way, allowing you to have fun and be more productive:'"

We've known the second step for ages.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: don't have your business rely on Microsoft products.

What do we do? We use Linux. We use Solaris. We use BSD. We use Mac OS X. We use AiX. We use HP-UX.

How does it benefit us financially? What we spend on our UNIX licenses pales in comparison to what we would have paid for Windows licenses, plus this sort of nonsense (all which "fixes" problems that just don't exist when using UNIX). Of course, our Linux and BSD systems don't have such fees at all.

This isn't a matter of Microsoft figuring out the second step. This is a matter of the vast majority of companies not understanding it.

While many companies and individuals waste their time and money on this sort of junk, we just use systems that work, and doing so allows us to vastly improve our productivity. Our productivity improvements easily allow our products and services to succeed. Our corporate networks aren't infected by the Windows worm-of-the-week. Our servers are not easily compromised by script kiddies. We succeed because we know the second step: avoid Microsoft products.

This is insane!

[rindeee]

Everyone has pointed out WHY this is insane, so I really feel that the best use of my time and talent is simply to reiterate the insanity of this whole thing. Back in college, I would have LOVED to have proposed this in a marketing class. While I never took a marketing class, I would have if I had thought this up, if only to frustrate the professor with my very, very stupid and unmarketable idea (that Microsoft is now making money with). It's like they've found a way to profit from hypocrisy.

Re:Incredible

[Gorshkov]

There is a very major difference between a 10 year old washing machine needing repairs and parts replacements after good, solid service and use over a period of time, and having to have the Maytag Man show up on your doorstep once a week if you want to be able to do more than one load a month without having your clothes get caught in the gears.

Re:Obligatory

[deadgoon42]

ah.. Just when my mod points went away. I hope Dapper hurries up and comes out today.

Re:In search of the almighty $

[Gorshkov]

No double standard at all. Symantec et. al. exist only because of Microsoft's design/implimentation errors - they should not exist at all - there should be no market for microsoft to push them OUT of.

If microsoft started addressing the problem and making the changes that rendered 3rd party virus programmes unnecessary, I would not only applaud them, but I might even change my mind about being willing to even DEVELOP windows applications.

In 25 years as a programmer, I have never written a windows *anything* for a client, and never will. Because when the sucker crashes (and it will), will the client blame microsoft? No, they'll blame ME - and it will affect MY reputation.

When I write for Unix/Linux/QNX/VRTX/Anything the hell else, I can be pretty sure that if something goes boom, it IS my fault - and I should take the blame, and if it reflects badly on me, I deserve it.

I have no problems whatsoever accepting responsibility for my errors. But there is no f..king way in HELL that I am going to send a client a programme and have them call me once a week bitching about how it keeps crashing becase it's MY fault, when it's because the damned thing is running on an unreliable piece of shit.

Re:We've known the second step for ages.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us who have known the second step for ages: What do we do? We use Linux.

Spent the entire day dealing with the CFO's laptop - one of those that happens in a Fortune 100 company on occasion. XP on a Dell decided to stop handling IP - Outlook would seize, IE and Firefox were hosed. Other than a rebuild, the system was screwed. Whole damn thing was tired. Typical fscking Microsoft "This system is more than 2 years old - I'm ready to die" crap. As if SOX regulators thought that way.

Interestingly, the CFO asked about my teams laptops and what we use in the security dept. to make sure things run, Sarbanes Oxley auditors stay off our asses, etc. "Ah... that Linux stuff again, huh?"

Yea. Linux made the auditors go away happy, in spite of all the Windows nightmares. Tell me Microsoft isn't ready to fall and I'll invite you into any SOX-regulated shop that knows better. Run, don't walk.

The moment Linux can handle desktop apps, Microsoft is the next Osborne.

This is excellent

[Infonaut]

Microsoft just gave Linux, MacOS X, and the BSDs a nice, juicy marketing point. There's no need for the DOJ on this one. Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot by coming out and saying that their product simply isn't usable out of the box. If I were RedHat or Novell, I'd jump all over this. I can picture the ads now: "So I need to pay another $50 EVERY YEAR just to keep my computer from getting trashed by viruses? Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft!"

yup

[goldcd]

I have a few windows machine.
One - a 2003 server has never crashed - as I mainly leave that happily running Apache, mailserver etc.
One - my big beast has bouts of flakiness - everytime it's down to a flakey driver for some obscure or cutting edge piece of hardware. (a problem MS has attempted to address with signed/unsigned drivers).
Now if a company produces a buggy driver for Windows, you can usually be pretty sure they put even less effort into the linux one (if they bothered at all).

It's a protection racket

[infinite undo]

Check out the description of "protection racket."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket [wikipedia.org]

How is what Microsoft is doing any different?

Support? From Microsoft? FREE?

[argent]

My first support experience with Microsoft set the stage for later encounters.

This was my first NT domain. Upgrading from NT 3.1 to the newly released NT 3.51.

Microsoft changed the licensing mechnism in 3.51. I don't recall the details now, but the result was that my network of ~100 PCs was having itermittent login problems. It was annoying, but we were able to live with it while I figured it out.

I called Microsoft, they made some suggestions, we went around a couple of times trying things, and on the third call they suggested it might be licensing and suggested I try making some changes to the licensing settings and call them back.

The changes completely broke the network. Nobody could log in. I called them back. "I'm sorry, you've used up your three free support calls for a new install. You'll have to buy a support contract..."

They wanted me to PAY for the damage THEY had done?

I went ballistic at them, and did what I should have done in the first place... went to my free software support ... Usenet newsgroups. The kind of free software support you get for Linux. And was back up and running in a couple of hours.

A week later I got a call from some muckymuck at Microsoft offering me another three free support calls. I'm afraid I got a mite sarcastic with him.

Since then, well, there have been exceptional brief bright pockets of clue (the Pocket PC group when Derek Brown was there, Windows Services for UNIX after they bought Softway Systems, ...), but this has been my usual experience with Microsoft Support.

Paying someone else for support on Microsoft products is much more cost-effective.