When Microsoft lovers bash Microsoft

Linux Watch ^ | Apr. 22, 2006 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

People tell me I bash Microsoft too much; that Microsoft's products really are great. OK, so I won't bash Microsoft this time around.

I'll let Microsoft's own friends do it.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

ping time

[Quix]

I have a moderately urgent problem . . . question . . .

I started downloading the

WINDOWS

LIVE ONE CARE Beta

from:

https://www.windowsonecare.com/purchase/default.aspx

It insisted on removing NORTON (System Works)

So I did.

It also insisted on removing Zone Alarm . . . I've balked so far and interrupted the down load.

I LIKE the idea of the Operating system having a fix it program that solves a host of problems including spyware, virus, firewall etc. as well as updating and repair on the system.

After all, I've ranted to Microsoft plenty of years for them to come up with such a program.

But I'm somewhat LOATHE to put all my eggs in the Microslop very flawed basket.

Guess my question is:

Are the odds are, that it's worth it?

Or not?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

THANKS TONS in advance,

[Turbopilot]

IMO, Live OneCare isn't worthwhile for the average home user at this time, for two reasons:

1. As you're currently seeing, it doesn't "play well with others" - conflicts with existing third-party security and firewall applications are common. More than one software firewall or resident antivirus program on a given computer isn't a good idea as the programs can conflict with each other. But unlike most such security suites, Microsoft requires you to use every aspect of its package, even if you already use alternatives to some of those, if you want the unique benefits not included with third-party security software, especially since you may have paid real money for some of the other software. Which brings me to...

2. Microsoft intends to charge an annual subscription for its service. The parts of it that are unique, IMO, should be part of an OS anyway, and the rest of the functions can be performed by third-party software that is available free (including updates) for home users. I personally believe that home computer security software shouldn't cost users any money on an ongoing basis, and I live that belief by using free software for firewall, antivirus, antispyware, etc. With such security (on a Win XP SP2 Home system) I have had no spyware or virus infections, no security problems, no pop-ups, no unwanted web ads, no tracking cookies, etc. since new, and my security scans (which run automatically overnight) never pick up any suspicious files.

Having said that, I do use the Windows Defender Beta 2, as it is free, doesn't conflict with other software, and adds another layer of protection. It, plus System Restore (which can be handy but which I've never needed to use), Automatic Updates, and the built-in Windows firewall (though I use the more comprehensive ZoneAlarm) are all free and provide adequate system protection; I would use the freely available software plus the built-in Windows functions before "upgrading" to a new Microsoft pay service. No security is perfect, but a system (like mine) that runs free Microsoft and third-party security software can be just as secure as one using high-priced security suites or alternative operating systems.

In summary, if I were you, I'd get rid of Live OneCare and go back to ZoneAlarm, and possibly AVG or Avast! for free antivirus once your Norton subscription runs.

[Quix]

Greatly appreciate your kind and excellent response.

Sounds rather reasonable to me.

Thanks Big.

God's best to you and yours.

[neb52]

"In one case, Danseglio said, a branch of the U.S. government had a malware infestation on more than 2,000 client machines that "was so severe that trying to recover was meaningless. They did not have an automated process to wipe and rebuild the systems, so it became a burden. They had to design a process real fast."

One of the reasons why I have been trying to champion Thin Client/Terminal Servers now days for my company's clients. But the guys that make decision don't get it. It is so much easier and cheaper to run Thin Clients, one goes bad just pop in a replacement. No time consuming rebuilds. I would contemplate using Imaging software, but again the higher ups won't spend the money to support that many images for some many different customers.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Are the odds are, that it's worth it?

The odds are 'slim' and 'none'.

And 'slim' is on a fast horse headed outta town.

[ShadowAce]

[rzeznikj at stout]

Not really.

I ran it about a month ago--I found that what I had before (Norton '06 and Ad-Aware) did a better job, IMO.

[Quix]

Thanks much.

Not too surprised! LOL.

[Quix]

Thanks--GREATLY appreciate info from someone who's had personal experience with both Norton and the MS software.

Have a blessed spring.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Not a problem.