MS One Care subscription prices

[PrntRhd]

Microsoft has released info re its One Care program details:
$49.95 per year, covers 3 PCs.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/83356/microsoft-prices-up-onecare.html

Seems a bit funny to have to pay them to protect their OS?

[beerbelly]

Seems a bit funny to have to pay them to protect their OS?
Bill is a little strapped for cash?

[jlreich]

Bill is a little strapped for cash?
LOL! :D

Paying MS to protect their own OS is a crime as far as I am concerned. ;)

I and many others have said it before, there is no reason to pay for any AV or FW when you can get one for free that is as good or better. And there is nothing that "One Care, to rip you off" can do that you can't get for free.

Unless you are in a server environment there is no need to pay. As far as I know there are no free AV's that work on a windows server.

[ErnieK]

Ah But! "Oor Willie" has said that by paying for it you will recieve all updates (security and other patches to fix all known features in windows) automatically and that you will aslo get these updates/patches BEFORE windows users not paying for One Care Live, and that non users will recieve all relevant updates and patches through Windows update (or what-ever it is now called) once a month (on the second Teusday).

[hockey man]

Man, what is next? Soon they are going to start charging you everytime you install something!

[classicsoftware]

Let's see MS comes out with a product that is 40% less than any other product, allows installation on three PC's and they are ripping you off. I hate some of the things M$ does as much as the next guy, but Bill Gates is not Darth Vader and M$ is not the empire.

I understand your concern. But if you don't think MS has tightened up security, you are not being honest. Are they already there, no. They still have a ways to go. But the onus for the problems is with criminals who write the malware and the people who profit from it.

Evaluate the product based on the merits. I think it falls down on the merits. Either that or shut-up and switch to another OS.

[jlreich]

Bill Gates is not Darth Vader and M$ is not the empire.
There are many that would disagree with that statement. :p Bill probably relaxes by putting on a black helmet and breathing heavy. I can see him in his office with the doors closed... "Luke, I am your father...". :D

Jokes aside I think it should be free. It isn't right for them to charge you for their inability to keep there OS reasonably safe. Have they made improvements? Yes. Are they doing all they can? No. Making One Care free to MS users would be a big step in the direction of showing some concern for their customers. And don't think for one minute they came up with One Care for the people. They did it to get their piece of the security software pie.

I do agree it shouldn't be an issue. If it wasn't for the &*^holes that make the malware we wouldn't need all this software bogging down our systems. But security is a fact of life now. And windows is the most unsecured OS on the planet.

I'm sorry, I think it should be free. ;)

[PrntRhd]

Actually MS cannot provide it for free because they would be sued again for bundling applications in the OS "to drive out competitors in the AV/Anti-spyware/Firewall space" just like they were over the browser and the second time around will not be pretty for MS since they have not yet cleared the obligations of the earlier antitrust case.
So they charge a lower price than the competition, drive up revenue for themselves and claim to be playing fair. See how easily monopoly works?

[jlreich]

I would rather they not bundle it with the OS. Definitely not integrate it into the OS. But they don't have to do either. Just offer it to MS customers as a free download just like any other free AV and FW, and like they do with MS Antispyware.

Time Warner's many ISP companies give away commercial security suits to their customers. Road Runner gives out the EZ-Armor suit and one of the others (AOL I think) gives away McAfee. I think just about all the ISP's give away some kind of security suite these days.

I'm not a MS hater and I didn't intend for this to be a MS bash. I'm just kind of sick of the whole security issue with windows and Bill's greed. No one here can say Bill isn't greedy. And no one can say he cares for the customer.

I am trying to slowly migrate to Linux. It takes time and I am, like most people, stuck in the world of windows for the time being. I'm thinking about setting up a box with windows for gaming and other windows only apps and never letting it go online. Even use the phone to activate. Use Linux for everything online.

Sorry for the unintended rant. The whole thing has just turned my stomach lately.

[beerbelly]

I understand your concern. But if you don't think MS has tightened up security, you are not being honest. Are they already there, no. They still have a ways to go. But the onus for the problems is with criminals who write the malware and the people who profit from it.
This may seem a little wierd, but I both agree and disagree with you.
I totally agree that the problem is with the criminals, and they "(my additive) should be put in front of the firing squad".

However, everyone here knows that Microsoft is the KING, and the computing world revolves around Bill. It is not like this is a "new threat". This garbage has been around for years, where was Bill?
It is not like Microsoft has a lack of cash to fund product research, so instead of providing me with an OS that does what it wants to, when it wants to do it, why can't I have an OS that is secure?

I don't want to open up the "idiotproof" wound again, but why can't I go to Microsoft "update", and get everything I need?

In my own opinion, I would rather have Windows '98 that was bullet proof, than "Vista".

All of this garbage getting into our computers, tells me one thing, Microsoft is dropping the ball. Now they want us to pay again for them dropping the ball. I don't believe for one second that M$ will come out with a better firewall, AV, or anti-maleware program than is already out there. As a matter of fact, they probably stole someone elses software (like he stole the mouse).

Now on to my crystal ball.
This hasn't happend YET, but I believe that any M$ software in the future will SCREAM if you don't pay for the service. They will have all of the people that just "point an click" by the short and curlys, and they will pay.
Microsoft wins again!

[pop pop]

M$ bashing :rolleyes: Let's see, do I want to be drawn into this again? Nah.

Just wto things...first, the last financial report I saw said that M$ has 35 billion or so in CASH laying around and NO DEBT. Enough money to buy several small countries and have a few sheckles left over. Could they do something, anything more with that free capital? You figure it out. Does M$ care about thier customers? Nope, your money yes, you, not a bit.

I'll leave this "potential" bashing session with this: Classic put it best when he said shut up and switch to another OS.

I will and I have.

[i an not a nerd]

Hmmm, all these virus problems would be gone for advanced users (with no constant-on AV software) if Microsoft would put an option to have a "Default Access Deny" setup instead of the "Default Access Allow" setup (like they do on those big secure miliarty computers). Of course, then you would have to check and authorize EVERY program that wants to run, but then again, advanced users know how and probly have the time.

[pop pop]

I am not a nerd,

You make a good point, but it's not entirely correct. The default "user" level thing would help, but it would not cure the problem. I work on those "big seure military computers", and even those can be hacked with know how and the right ...everything. They primariliy run some Unix variant. Each application has "authority" to run a certain way to to acces certain things and areas of the OS and or network(s). That is done various ways.

Anyway, these systems and networks are not connected to the "outside" so to speak, certainly never to the internet. So besides being more secure by using the strengths of a *nix variant, they are also more isolated.

[Paleo Pete]

like they do on those big secure miliarty computers

I sincerely hope pop pop is right, the high end military servers should definitely be running something other than Windows. But something I noticed a while back, working close to a military base was the huge number of computers on that base, both PCs in living quarters and in base offices, were mostly running win98 and XP. (I haven't had any contact with the "mission critical" servers and workstations, so they could be running DOS for all I know...) One office computer I had to work on, sitting in a base office and connected by network to several others, had java running, ActiveX enabled, and several spyware programs, plus a trojan or three. If the office computers of this nature are connected to a network available to the servers pop pop mentions, they have Internet access and are therefore an open invitation...I only saw a couple of the base computers, but from what I saw, I'M SCARED...That's the US Army sitting there with TONS of spyware and trojans all over their official computers...I'm talking about machines with US Army ID number stickers on them. To take one back to the shop we had to go through 3 days of red tape, including picture IDs, and sign it out, and they were on the phone to us every couple of hours wanting to know the status...that's why most of our jobs were service calls, the computers are not allowed offbase, and civilian access is extremely limited. I'm probably the only civilian that ever touched or even looked at this particular machine...

Then I installed win2000 server on a machine I was building for a customer and took a look at the EULA. When I got to the section relating to Sun Java, it specifically stated that it [java] SHOULD NOT be installed on "mission critical" machines such as ...[list]... and one of the items on that list was "missile targeting systems", another was "air traffic control systems". And there, sitting in the base commander's office, is a Windows XP computer...networked to the rest of the office, probably half the base, and running the most unsecure OS out there. Windows should never be anywhere near any military base, and for security reasons, probably not even in enlisted persons' living quarters, due to proximity and the possibility of base access.

OK, back to the topic...I agree that "one care" should be free, but as noted above, I think they would probably have more lawsuits on their hands. I also seriously doubt that it is anywhere near as comprehensive or effective as a lot of thrid party solutions, even the mostly inferior commercial ones.

At the risk of "M$ bashing", aside from the fact that it all stems from criminal activity, I don't think this was done because M$ cares about their customers, or security, it was done for the one reason M$ has always done everything...MORE MONEY. Although to be fair, the past couple of years the company has been forced to pay a lot more attention to security, and they have made a lot of progress. They still have a long way to go, and should have started long before they did, and still have failed to deal with some long standing issues, but Windows security is a lot better now than it was 2 years ago.

I'm thinking about setting up a box with windows for gaming and other windows only apps and never letting it go online

That's exactly what I do now, I'm typing this on a Linux box, my Windows machine gets online once a month or so to run a small utility to reset the clock drift, otherwise it never goes online, and when it does it's for about 30 seconds, time enough for the clock application to connect to the US Naval Observitory atomic clock (or one of several others that can be configured) and reset the Windows clock, then I disconnect. Otherwise, it's used for games. All other web browsing is done on this Linux machine. That includes downloading drivers and even Windows updates for Windows computers. Windows Update itself won't work, of course, since it doesn't exist, but the M$ website does. A USB drive and CD burner take care of transferring files to Windows computers.

[hockey man]

Pete, that is very scary. Militery pcs infected. . . I hope there main servers are not based on Windows. More than likely though, thay probably have there own version of a Linux/Unix based OS that is "Classified."

[capequahog]

Bill Gates, "I was the only one smart enough too say DOS was my OS so, yes I will license it to IBM and begin to take over the world". But after I've charged everybody for everything I promise I'll give it to the poor dying ones that dont have to pay me yet."

[Paleo Pete]

I never saw any of the servers on base, so I don't know what OS they were running, but I hope it's as pop pop said, some flavor of unix.

We're probably talking two different types of server too, the machines in the base offices are for administrative/personnel/management usage, while those pop pop referred to are the ones responsible for higher level classified information such as tactical, communications etc.

I still think it's scary, Windows on a military base...I wonder how many offices MSBlaster and Sasser took out...