This news is worse than when you dropped WinFS Microsoft! You caved in to
lazy Norton and you are going to give them access to the Windows Kernel?

Well there goes all those claims of water tight security, over the next few
days you'll see what a bad decision this is as every computer 'expert' whines
about the pure stupidity of letting Norton (and other lazy AV companies) into
the kernel!

If Kaspersky, Avast and etc. don't need it, why would you change it for
Norton?

Are they bl************dy mad, I agree if the rest can do then why give it to
Norton.

"intclass" wrote:

This news is worse than when you dropped WinFS Microsoft! You caved in to
lazy Norton and you are going to give them access to the Windows Kernel?

Well there goes all those claims of water tight security, over the next few
days you'll see what a bad decision this is as every computer 'expert' whines
about the pure stupidity of letting Norton (and other lazy AV companies) into
the kernel!

If Kaspersky, Avast and etc. don't need it, why would you change it for
Norton?

Microsoft decided that it was in their best interest to do so or risk
breaking European and/or South Korean anticompetition behavior laws.
Remember that because of this you have a choice of how to control your
security. Either you choose Microsoft or a third party. It's as simple as
that.

regards
Robert
"intclass" wrote in message
...
This news is worse than when you dropped WinFS Microsoft! You caved in to
lazy Norton and you are going to give them access to the Windows Kernel?

Well there goes all those claims of water tight security, over the next
few
days you'll see what a bad decision this is as every computer 'expert'
whines
about the pure stupidity of letting Norton (and other lazy AV companies)
into
the kernel!

If Kaspersky, Avast and etc. don't need it, why would you change it for
Norton?

Right. So now Symantec has the api's. Do you think that Symantec will
protect Microsoft property any better than their own. Symantec programs are
the most pirated and hacked of any company.

Now, Joe Jones gets disgruntled and leaves Symantec after a big argument
with management, and he takes those api's with him. Two day later they are
on the internet, for all hackers to obtain.

There goes security of any kind.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"RR Johnson Jr" wrote in message
. ..
Microsoft decided that it was in their best interest to do so or risk
breaking European and/or South Korean anticompetition behavior laws.
Remember that because of this you have a choice of how to control your
security. Either you choose Microsoft or a third party. It's as simple as
that.

regards
Robert
"intclass" wrote in message
...
This news is worse than when you dropped WinFS Microsoft! You caved in to
lazy Norton and you are going to give them access to the Windows Kernel?

Well there goes all those claims of water tight security, over the next
few
days you'll see what a bad decision this is as every computer 'expert'
whines
about the pure stupidity of letting Norton (and other lazy AV companies)
into
the kernel!

If Kaspersky, Avast and etc. don't need it, why would you change it for
Norton?

How is that different from a MS disgruntled employee doing the same?

"RR Johnson Jr" wrote in message
. ..
Microsoft decided that it was in their best interest to do so or risk
breaking European and/or South Korean anticompetition behavior laws.
Remember that because of this you have a choice of how to control your
security. Either you choose Microsoft or a third party. It's as simple as
that.

regards
Robert


So maybe Microsoft should no longer sell or support its products in
countries that don't seem to want them there.

Here's a better idea: stop selling their products in Europe and S. Korea,
and then rescind all the leases for all the existing products, making it
illegal to use a Microsoft product. Perhaps then those who seem to not like
the way the software is written will take a better look at what they really
want.

Sorry - gotta disagree with you guys who think MS should not have shared with
Symantec and McAfee. "Don't sell to those countries?" Come one dude..

Just as when MS embedded the browser in Windows back when --- and lost in
court --- this new architecture CLEARLY would have put Symantec and McAfee
out of business - and would have left the "fox guarding the hen-house" to
misappropriate an analog... The whole way they architected this is clearly
anti-competetive. Those two companies, and others, have been MS partners for
ages - and Symantec alone have done WAY more good for windows security than
MS itself has. You guys think it's o.k. for Microsoft to make it
nigh-impossible for them to continue doing business, and at the same time,
force us - Joe User, to use Microsoft's security product? They're just
entering the market, for the first time - and given their history, I don't
much like their resume. Symantec and McAfeee, et al, have been doing OS
security for years and years now - they're _better_ at it. And yes -
disgruntled ex-Micro-serfs are far more likely, in my opinion, to go off and
spread source among the hacker community.

I'm a s/w engineer - MS and all unix; I like Vista (it _is_ mostly just
eye-candy, but nice eye-candy). If MS had not given the security vendors a
level playing field, I for one, would definitely never buy or use Vista
again. I know many others in the industry who feel the same way. Microsnake
would like to systematically wipe-out all other windows s/w vendors, and have
you using only their products. I don't think that'd be good for any of us.
I agree with all the major technical editors out there (CPU, Max.PC, PC
world, etc...) - they're not perfect, but they all agree - (original) Vista
improved security alright - for Microsoft.

I'll refrain from mud-slinging folks - 'tis a civil forum after all, yes?

Stephen

"Mark D. VandenBerg" wrote:


"RR Johnson Jr" wrote in message
. ..
Microsoft decided that it was in their best interest to do so or risk
breaking European and/or South Korean anticompetition behavior laws.
Remember that because of this you have a choice of how to control your
security. Either you choose Microsoft or a third party. It's as simple as
that.

regards
Robert


So maybe Microsoft should no longer sell or support its products in
countries that don't seem to want them there.

Here's a better idea: stop selling their products in Europe and S. Korea,
and then rescind all the leases for all the existing products, making it
illegal to use a Microsoft product. Perhaps then those who seem to not like
the way the software is written will take a better look at what they really
want.