[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Can Microsoft do that? By Ken Fisher Sunday, October 22, 2006 Can Microsoft do that? With the full public release of Windows Vista only a few months away, tensions are heating up between Microsoft and some security software vendors, and plenty of pundits are saying that this situation looks like a 2007 repeat of the great Microsoft-Netscape battles of old. In the following report, we briefly summarize the facts and then explain why this situation is worlds apart from that landmark battle over web browsers. If anyone should be sweating bullets, it's Microsoft. As previously reported, antivirus and security firms Symantec and McAfee object to x86-64 Windows' PatchGuard feature for 64-bit versions of the OS, which protects the kernel from any unauthorized changes or tampering. PatchGuard is not a feature of Microsoft's 32-bit operating systems, including the forthcoming 32-bit versions of Windows Vista. Microsoft originally planned to keep third parties out of the kernel using PatchGuard, but in an attempt to appease the EU, the software giant announced that it would relent. Under pressure, Microsoft proposed new Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for access, but Symantec responded by saying that such a move wasn't good enough, and McAfee followed suit. Late last week, Microsoft offered to host an online meeting, inviting many security companies to attend in the hopes of straightening out this kerfuffle. Technical glitches with LiveMeeting added extra drama, as key players were booted from the meeting accidentally. Were certain companies getting the short shrift? A Microsoft spokesperson told Ars that "the first session had some technical difficulties which caused a delay, but the issues were resolved and the meeting continued as planned. We're grateful that over 20 partners were able to successfully participate in the call." Additional meetings have also been scheduled, so that anyone who wants will have an opportunity to participate. When they attend, they'll learn one thing above all others: Microsoft isn't going to relent further. PatchGuard is here to stay Microsoft is clear that they have no intention of disabling PatchGuard altogether, or allowing security firms to bypass it or the API designed for interaction. As a result, the meeting yesterday served to discuss the "methods by which third-party software can work alongside Kernel Patch Protection on x86-64 platforms without disabling it." In Microsoft's view, a solution has been found and is being put in place. Microsoft has promised to allow third-party vendors to send alerts that are similar to the ones used by the built-in security software, but they will not allow the disabling of the Windows Security Center in favor of a replacement interface. Security Center first made its debut with Windows XP SP2, but the functionality of the Vista version still seems to be in flux. (The beta I tested had no way to replace the built-in firewall with a third-party program, but Microsoft says that newer versions are more flexible in this regard.) Shortly after the announcement of Microsoft's API plans came another bombshell: these methods, which will take the form of new APIs, will not be ready by the time of Vista's release. Instead, Microsoft promises to have the set of documented kernel APIs ready by the "Vista SP1 timeframe," for which an exact date has not been given. We estimate the first service pack will ship more than 12 months after the launch of Vista. Symantec and McAfee are not pleased. What's the real problem? The issue of PatchGuard and the wait for new APIs overshadows the real issue: the presence of Microsoft's OneCare antivirus solution and its prominent placement in the Vista operating system. Privately many antivirus companies are fuming. Not only is Microsoft moving in on their turf, but they also feel as though the company is locking them out of the OS, and therefore out of the antivirus business. Sound familiar? There's no shortage of people claiming that this is Netscape, Part II. There are many important differences this time around, however. For example, this CNet Australia article draws strong comparisons to Netscape's fate at the hands of Microsoft and Internet Explorer (going so far as to call what's happening to McAfee and Symantec as "Netscaping"), but it fails to mention the key difference, as do most of the other analyses I've read so far. The key difference Microsoft never charged for Internet Explorer. Netscape had to compete against a web browser that was integrated into the OS and came seemingly "free of charge." With Windows Vista, OneCare may be promoted by the OS, but it is not free. OneCare costs $49.95, but provides protection for up to three PCs. Sunbelt president Alex Eckelberry has called the pricing model "predatory," but the point is: there is a price. If OneCare is going to be a success, customers are going to have to pony up for the service, making it less of a Netscape situation. Ultimately this battle is about antivirus market share, but the established players have years of experience selling software and the new competition in town (Microsoft) isn't giving its wares away for free. Microsoft will, of course, benefit from including OneCare's sign-up icon in the Windows Vista Welcome Center, but as the recent Google-Dell bundling hookup shows, software companies can attempt to work deals with OEMs for similar placement. In fact, Symantec and McAfee have both used extensive bundling deals to preload Dell, Gateway, and other PCs with their software. Indeed, long before there were complaints over Internet Explorer 4 there were bundled copies of anti-virus software on most OEM computers destined for the home. Is OneCare really a bundling threat? Surely it is, but it cuts both ways, as I will soon explain.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: Red Jones (#0)
(Edited)
I don't think it's really that big of a deal. I seriously doubt many will be upgrading to Vista, too many people have been burnt by XP and they are tired of continuing to pay for crap. Vista is destined to be just that, more crap. If MS gave Vista away as a free upgrade to XP then it would be a different story, but since they aren't it won't get the market share to make much of difference anyway. People will just wait for the next version of their OS or move to Linux. They have so many bugs with Visual Studio 2005 that it was really a disgrace for them to even release it like that. I have feeling Vista will be the same way. Oh, I got a feeling MS will soon be broken up as monopoly anyway now that Gates has stepped down.
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
well all that is good. your opinion is expert relative to mine. I hope that MS is broken up. they should be.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||