PC World Forums: Microsoft Kills OneCare to Offer Freebie; So Long, Norton - PC World Forums

Post your comments for Microsoft Kills OneCare to Offer Freebie; So Long, Norton here

uh, what? you think destroying yet another business model by this company is good because you don't like them?
and your complaint about bloat is laughable. microsoft, the king of bloat, and you somehow think their anti virus software will be better.
security should be at the core of any software indeed. you apparently have been aware of this, so why on earth have you used windows all these years?
i'll never get you people. i've heard folks around the office say "yeah, vista sucks but just wait til windows 7!" talk about taking the blue pill.
if only yugo had you people as their client base they'd still be in business. "just wait til the yugo 2010 comes out!"

Hi Jeff,

I took the liberty of copying and pasting this paragraph:

"The biggest losers here are the major security software developers, including McAfee; Symantec, maker of the Norton line; and Trend Micro. For years they've run a profitable business selling antimalware programs to consumers, but now that market is essentially dead. Good riddance, I say. These programs were resource hogs-each year getting bigger, slower, more bloated, and adding system utilities and other add-ons that had nothing to do with security. (To be fair, some of these tools, such as Norton Antivirus, have slimmed down recently.)"

I agree with you on the second part of this paragraph. I have Trend Micro AV and it really is a resource hog, it takes forever to load up and slows everything down.

Needless to say, I won't be upgrading next year when my subscription is up. As a matter of fact, I'm looking for another security app to replace TMAV.

Personally, I've always avoided paid-for security aps unless they were absolutely necessary; PCs are already too expensive. I am currently using a ram-hogging combination of "spyware doctor" from the google pack (for its ability to remove malware and block hazardous scripts from e-mail), "avira antivir personal free" (for its excellent virus guard), the free version of "Zonealarm" firewall (for its excellent program control and "Threatfire" (for its ability to block unknown malware behaviourally).
I applaud Microsoft's decision to offer a new comprehensive and free security ap to consumers and wish they had done it years ago. Weaknesses in "Windows" should never have become the reason why so many PCs have become infected by malware.

So uh, I guess these anti-viri manufacturers will move to the completely insecure Linux and MAC market now eh?

No, wait a sec . . . ; )

Yep-Let the Fox guard the hen house. Sounds great!!!

Just what we need, 2 more failed companies.

Tell me again exactly why MS killing OneCare will hurt other A/V makers like Symantec and McAfee? Maybe I missed it, but there are dozens of A/V & Malware packages out there and some of the free ones are good.
The only way that "Morro" will be effective is if MS really focuses on the biggest vector for most threats, it's OWN operating system and IE.
These days, most good malware/virus' are smart enough to disable programs like Windows Defender. You'd think that a company could write an excellent "defender" for IT'S OWN operating system.
Which OS is the biggest "botnet" target in the world to be used for spam/DOS attacks? Take a guess! MS should get it's act together or be taken over by people who can actually address these issues effectively. After all, this does relate to issues of national IT security.

i knew it. As soon as an article comes out saying MS is going to provide for free software we have to buy from someone else, someone was going to whine like a lil bitch about. First off I like Norton, and if what MS comes out with isn't as good I won't be switching. I have used OneCare and I didn't like it. ButI haven't bought Norton since 2003 because I can get it at work. But even when I paid it use to be good. I agree it is way to bloated now and adds crap you dont need and uninstalling it is a task all its own. Only the corp version which i use is truly slim. I don't think MS is doing this to undermine Symantec. S has been good partners with them for years. THey will still be around. There are lots of free antiviurus progs out there and they havent bit into Norton hold in that market and I doubt MS will either. But as soon as Free is associated with Microsoft here comes the whiners. Do you all get paid for your whining? Bec if not , STOP. its stupid. Many of Windows features that it provides free aways place compared to 3rd party offering accept IE. IE was better than Netscape PERIOD. Windows Media Player is good, but MusicMatch was better and maybe even RealPlayer at first. Anything is better than QT. Nero is better than Windows native CD/DVD buring software which Windows only can burn up to 2GB on a DVD. A built in alternative is good for dumba$$ users liek one I met who said she didnt know you were suppose to update teh subscription with Norton that came on her pc. I asked her what about teh box thats pops up? she said she never read it and it was annoying and she would just close it. Everything ppl bitch about and MS trys to fix you bitch more. Ppl complained about not being warned about things happening on the pc. S makes UAC and everyone bitches its to annoying now they are changing it again. its not MS 's job to kiss ur a$$ everytime, they ahve a right ake Windows better. You all bitch about security and now they are making a move to fix and look what you do. Why not crawl into a hole and dont come out.

btw i was addressing Oneleft.

Well lets compare, one care, bloated junk software, win defender, more bloated junk software, silver light, more bloated junk software. Maybe MS should practice on what they still are not very good at, building software. One should not have to spend a couple hundred for software, only to have to buy another 100 dollars worth to protect it. Alas this is the real world. One care was junk when it came out, and will be junk when they retire it. If they start giving it away, it will be even worse, if that is possible. Bill is in business to make money, he won't put a extra dime of effort into one care for free. One does not build security suites in a day. Mcafee, Norton, ZoneAlarm, and the other security companies have been in this business for years BECAUSE THEY WORK. I will put my money in GOOD protection, I don't have time to fight a computer to make it work. Free is just another word for you get what you pay for. MS can't even get windows to run correctly, how would ANYONE expect them to build a world class security suite? The biggist threat to the computer world is the casual user who has no clue that trolling porn sites and loading dangerous software can contaminate a computer. The info to protect their computers is out on the net, they are to stupid to look for it. I clean computers for people once, I recommend software to protect their machine, I will even load it for them, if they don't know how to update it, they are back in a month wanting me to spend 8 hours doing their cleanup again. Sorry, they were warned.

Except Microsoft WILL spend money to 'give things away for free' if it means that they can drive competitors out of business and control another segment of the PC market.

'Anti-virus' is one of those dumb things that people THINK they need. If the underlying security of the operating system was good, it wouldn't be needed at all. But it's Windows, so you need the big, fat, bloody bandaids like 'anti-virus' and 'anti-spyware' on top of the festering security holes that Microsoft provides to you, its adoring public.

It's hard to say what they think they'll 'own' if they control the 'security' kludges for Microsoft's buggy software. Of course, if they can drive everyone else out of 'Microsoft Protection Racket', they can sell a buggy OS, and then sell you the buggy 'cure' for the buggy holes they left in the buggy OS and make you, the Microsoft user endlessly pay upgrade the bandaids to keep your computer from being overwhelmed by malware.

Sweet scam.

When has Microsoft EVER built something that was not bloated? I'll believe it when I see it.
Something will have to give - if it were possible to build a low-demand and highly effective security program, the security experts (Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro) would have done it by now. Either the new prog. it will be bloated and slow like the rest, or have a reduced effectiveness. In either case, I think the reports of the death of the other security companies are a bit premature.

As far as I know, Giant was split in two: CounterSpy and Windows Defender. Both are trashy. Microsoft's Windows Defender is not worth having and CounterSpy is a hefty 72 MB. Morro is not likely to be any good, or to last.

Please keep things civil, personal attacks are against the Community Standards and will be removed. If you feel as if you have been personally attacked please contact myself or any other of the member moderators.

I don't want to start a big Apple / Microsoft issue here.

There is no way some of the big names in Anvirus will go away, Corporations need the support that a paid program provides.

However there are very well programed Antivirus such Avira and Avast for home use and Microsoft is going to have to better their protection application since it has rated poorly on reviews.

However your statement:

Apple's been gaining market share, in large part due to the Mac's ability to deliver a relatively malware-free experience.

The above is misleading, everyone knows clearly that Apple patches their software OS or Browser to cover any exploitation by hackers.

Most recently FireFox and another browser which I forget the name, have been BIGGER targets and as you pointed out Apple is gaining some market share.

It is marked share that dictates the time a Hacker spends in tryng to break in into your computer, and right now MS OS is the more target, BECAUSE IT IS THE MORE PROFITABLE FOR HACKERS.

Things will change.

Apple really keeps up now due to their lower market penetration, but it will become harder as the company expands the desktop to more applications which could be improperly programed just like it happens in Windows. That is if Apple expands their openess of third party applications usage.

XP and Vista would be safer against viruses if users would run the OS in a limited privelege account so viruses couldn't install, but users don't do that because of the "inconvenience".

And to all those Linux and Mac religionists: if your favorite OS ran on 90% of the PC market it would be YOUR OS that virus writers would be targeting. It's not that your OSes are more immune to viruses, it's that virus writers can't be bothered to write malware for such a tiny segment of the PC population.

I am sorry, I fail to what good is that for. Windows has always been bloated to start with. I use linux for practically every thing, except play games, which is the only good thing Windows is good for. I never use IE to surf the web, I only use mazilla firefox and I never needed any antivirus protection of any kind in my linux box. So I really do not understand what is all the cheering about.

Lots of folks here contradicting themselves. I personally will give "Morrow" a shot, just like I did OneCare. I didn't like OneCare, but if you read carefully, you'll see that MS is not just making OneCare free, this is (at least they claim) a whole new product. Maybe it's based on OneCare, but so what? If it works, what's the problem? I have never liked the model used by the "big companies", making me pay again and again for resource-hogging software.

As for security under MAC and Linux, I think it's great that they have such inherent security, but that alone is no reason to use either (or both). There are over 120,000 (last I checked) programs written to run under Windows. I seriously doubt that MAC and Linux together have even a quarter of that. Sure, there are programs running under those OSes that do what most of the Windows programs do, but I am too busy to deal with the learning curve, let alone the expense. It makes more sense to get "buggy" Windows, then get additional software to protect it.

I hear that the latest version of Norton products have negligible effects on system performance but I have been so far unable to get it to install on my computer, even though it far exceeds the requirements. I think it's a hardware issue on my end but I just haven't troubleshooted it yet. Bottom line is I don't know if it's as good as they claim or not. I can say this; one thing that will help limit the performance hit you take with most security programs is to disable the function that scans opened/accessed files. This is a trade-off; you are limiting your security, but I have no problem doing this because I'm careful about my computing habits. I do full scans more often just in case, but at least I get what feels like 90% of my performance back.

Bottom line: if I can get adequate protection for Windows, and get it free, I'll do both (continue using both Windows and that security software). Any argument for switching from Windows becomes nothing more than philosophical conversation, nothing practical at all for perhaps 90% of computer users on the whole stinkin' planet!

I think you make a valid point. I personally do not like the idea of paying third party vendors for Windows flaws. In all honesty it should be Windows responsiblity to fix its security vurnabilities in the first place and not the consumer. I use OneCare myself and even for that I had to pay on my Windows XP, but rarely use that OS to start with, as I only got it for my kids, whom themselves do no use it either by their own free will. Just want you to be aware that OneCare does also use a great portion of resources as well though, at a 1 gigabyte of ram you would think that things would ran much smoother in Windows, especially when I practically do not have much installed there.

As far as Mac and Linux, I do not know much about Mac to fully pin point its flaws, but I do know Windows and it has taught me a great deal on being patient. I usually go to the kitchen and make myself a cup of joe, while Windows loads up, unfortunately that patience has worn thin especially when Linux loads up half the the time it takes Windows to load. If you include all the opensource programs that have migrated from the Linux community to Windows over the years, you might be right. Proprietary plus Opensource might weigh in the 120,000 that you speak of. I find paying half of my paycheck for an OS and in addition buying more hardware to support it, expensive enough as it is, not to mention that all I get in return is a crappy browser and a wordpad program.

The 90% percent arguement is also running thin over time. In China Windows is supported heavily and pushing even for the Firefox browser, which is better then IE, has been a challenge, but not because IE is better, but because they like the bundle concept. So far you can cross the street and get a pirated Vista OS for only $2 a pop. So my take on this is if you can get something that prides it self from being the best in the world and charges consumers enormous amounts just for a desktop you have two options, you either get a pirated version or hack the OS with viruses and other impurities. Perhaps that is what makes Linux in a good place to be, there is no reason to hack into it. That of course might change overtime as it is becoming very popular world wide. Mark Shuttleworth might not be a billionaire, but has made a revolution for the technology industry. Technology is suppose to be cheap and efficient and not the other way around.