Windows Live OneCare escapes (and reckless computing)

Dosen't anyone get the

Dosen't anyone get the picture here?? Bill Gates stole someone else's idea, and saw the handwriting on the wall. He listened well to what his Daddy told him. From there came the Msft OS...such as it was...then when Billy- boy saw the on-coming potential,(plus) the potential of selling "fixes" to an already flawed system.....HELL MAN...this Dude is like a snake oil salesman..if this one dosen't work...I have one other that will work for YOU! And...of course.......the rest is history. We have been sucked into a world of tech-tronics that we will never be able to extricate ourselves from. The technology is great...needless to say!! But the snake-oil salesman ...unfortunately, is the head of the snake!!

I have personally used

I have personally used Windows Defender Beta 2 and can say that I like it. Compared to other spyware/malware scanners that I have used it does its job with very little effort. It doesn't interfere with me when I am playing a game or writing a text document, nor does it tax system resources. It caught a trojan and a very destructive worm that can get through the other products I use (SpySweeper, SpyBot, AdAware). I tried Windows OneCare when it was still available as a free online tool. It worked great in my case. It detected a couple trojans and a piece of malware on a computer I was trying to troubleshoot.

I have heard of the retail version of OneCare causing install problems, but the online version worked so well.

I am not a big MS fan. I do however believe that right now there is no true alternative. I don't have time to download and apply binaries or recompile the kernel every time I need to install something so Linux is out. I have yet to see a truly intuitive interface for any flavor of Linux so that doesn't appeal to me either (possible exception of Ubuntoo). As for MAC...I am thinking of tinkering with it since some people do use it (I say SOME) but that is it. If you really want to change the world then make a user interface for Linux that is efficient, intuitive, and attractive. Clunky KDE and GNOME don't cut it. Open source is a good idea in theory but the problem lies with too many opinionated programmers tinkering with too many lines of code. It works with smaller projects (like email or browsers) but larger projects begin to show how people fundamentally disagree with each other, especially intelligent, highly-educated and skilled people:) There, I have said my piece and offered up my sacrifice to the trolls:)

Follow up to above

Follow up to above comment:

I tried using the "live support" for OneCare.

Apparently I am not registered for this service.

Then I go to the MS billing page - I'm registered. So much for the "support"...

I'm running OneCare. It

I'm running OneCare. It found 8 Java viruses AVG couldn't. That's the only good thing I've found with this.

I was using ZoneAlarm and thought the overall functionality of that was much better than OneCare. For example I could remove cookies and IE files and select cookies to keep. For some reason OneCare doesn't have this option, or any program control, etc.

Also, if you try to run the "Tune Up" (defrag / removal of IE files / virus check etc.) you have to do all of them at once. You can't choose which one you want to run, you just have to leave the PC to itself for an hour or two everytime you want to empty the cache.

If I could return this crap I would.

Going back to Zone Alarm and Tune Up Utilities 2006 now.

BTW not sure why I have to pay for an MS tune up utility when MS should really provide one with the OS.

I purchased this product a

I purchased this product a few days ago. I, probably being foolish, trusted Microsoft. My experiences with trying to install this software package would make anyone resort to profanity. After hours of uninstalling other AV, spyware checkers, etc;, downloading and rebooting, it was finally installed. Much to my anger and embarrassment, it destroyed my XP activation each time my computer was rebooted. I finally removed the software from my computer. I wouldn't want to wish this nightmare on anyone. I will not be re-installing this software. I strongly recommend that you do not purchase this software.

Smith, the BIG point here is

Smith, the BIG point here is EXACTLY what you say it isn't, unless the premise is true that everyone is FORCED WITHOUT CHOICE to purchase the product at whatever price is applied. Everyone has the choice to purchase Microsoft or NOT to purchase Microsoft. Unless you are completely powerless and clueless, when you purchase a Microsoft product - especially nowadays - if you are completely absent of the fact that the product is not perfect (I am still awaiting the flood of emails and postings here proclaiming any such perfect product), you should be exiled to an insane asylum. Here is a revelation for you: No product is perfect. Now, start your arguments from that vantage point. Should all of Microsoft's products be free just because they have even a single flaw? OK, if not, why not? And by the way, "if you don't really know what you're talking about, do you?" is not a question or sentence, and given the apparent intent of your fragment, you should point that weapon back at yourself. Back to your meanderings: A doctor buys insurance to deal with the exact problem you describe. Not only does your analogy fall flat on its face in countless ways, the doctor - through insurance - may very well pay YOU for the mistake, let alone laugh at you should you ask him to try again. So, to apply the same analogy back to the OS World, if you believed Microsoft's OS or software was responsible for a data disaster (due to poor code or whatever) and you WENT BACK TO THAT SOFTWARE AGAIN AND AGAIN (and continued to pay), who is the stupid party? I certainly can identify the RICH party of the two. Regarding your complaints: What are the "missing major components?" What makes it "not fit for public use?" And, once again, what software exactly does not routinely contain "massive numbers of bugs?" As far as a defective product that I will be charged for fixes, this happened to me just this year: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/ford_truck_engines.html . Microsoft is not the only company doing this, but perhaps they are the smartest to figure out how to make a profit from it (back to the jealously effect). Microsoft has obviously taken a path of first-to-market rather than perfect-to-market (which you errantly believe is a requirement). If Microsoft was not the dominate OS and software company, and if they were losing $1bil per quarter, would you give a flying rat's hind end if they were selling a 'defective product?' Nope. Why? Because the market will take care of the issue. Guess what, the market will take care of the issue. And I doubt that you would enjoy being a doctor. It would require looking at things with at least a small speck of economic reality attached. A "properly designed operating system" can be WHATEVER THE F THE COMPANY MAKING IT WANTS IT TO BE. You don't have to buy it, and it DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANY SECURITY OF ANY KIND. How about an example to help even bricks understand: Imagine your OS is not on a network, and has no peripherals to propagate damage. Do you STILL need 'security?' OK, now imagine that the machine is completely secure in its physical environment. Should you then be forced to purchase a product that has security such that configuring it legitimately is time-consuming? A firewall can be considered an add-on if the company chooses - regardless of whether you believe this to be nonsensical or not. I cannot even begin to address the fanatical approach to which your hole-card breakdown reaches, but I can say that if you believe an OS should be responsible for virus activities, I would like to know where your vehicle is parked. I will be very confident as I steal your ride knowing not only will you not protect the product yourself (Why should you have to? It should be inherent of the design!), but you'll ask the manufacturer of the car to replace it for free (I mean, come on! They have "virtually unlimited resources"). The police will never know, and never care. Better get a bicycle handy (and locked down, of course), just in case.

lol. Ford(MS) created a

lol.
Ford(MS) created a brand new car(Windows).
It comes with basic security features, enable ppl who own it, lock's the car and prevent theif. Most ppl happy with the default locks. But some professional theif(hacker) found some ways to overcome the lock and steal it(created a virus that can affect windows). To overcome this Ford(MS) comes out a new efficient lock(OneCare) and charge it's owner to change to the new lock(OneCare). But the owners wanna get it free, coz according to them, Ford(MS) is the one who should fix the lock. Ford(MS) says that this lock is virtually very safe coz it got updated once car theif got another workaround. Still, cars(Windows) owner want the lock, free.

Think.

I would suggest that most

I would suggest that most people complaining about the product haven't even used it. From my short experience it is certainly better than the alternatives (McAfee / Nortons at least). If you have an agenda against Microsoft, perhaps you ought to be a little more open minded and appreciate the quality of the products they are actually starting to produce.

As for potential antitrust implications - every developer has equal opportunity to compete with them now by simply making and succesfully marketing a superior product. If Microsoft isn't permitted to improve upon and offer new products, how can we really expect to receive better products?

ironic, no. illegal, yes.

ironic, no. illegal, yes.

1taz - amusing end to your

1taz - amusing end to your otherwise highly incorrect comment. The point is that a properly designed operating system doesn't need to have a security product - security is an direct issue of the OS. there is absolutely no reason that a firewall should be considered an "add on". this isn't something that runs in the application layer (unless you're a halfwit employee in Redmond). It needs to be down in a level before an application can get to it. to make your hole punch analogy more effective, we need to make a proper comparison with MS. The MS (tm) branch Hole Counter (tm) would not only count the holes in the cards, it would count any dark spot on the card, dust particles, fingerprints, and if i draw a circle on the card, it would count that too - twice, since I obviously really wanted it there. you may only be designing a hole counter, but if your hole counter were to injure someone (maybe the light it uses to detect holes has unsafe radiation or is much brighter than it really needs to be and needlessly causes eye damage), then you are still responsible for the damage that you have caused. Just like MS should be responsible for the damage it causes. Not only should it be releasing patches immediately and free of charge (they already have virtually unlimited resources), it should be paying damages done to PCs for its irresponsibility.