| I hope microsoft chooses to protect its product The fact is these apps will damage windows and in the end force a complete fresh install to rectify some of the problems they create. Microsoft would have to of course know this. As big as they are, why don't they tell these spyware makers to make their programs as easy to install and remove as any legit program in order to not be blocked. I doubt these companies will fight a legal battle against someone who can easily afford years of litigation. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Really is an important test for them if they want to be taken seriously and improve their security image (if there is one there to improve).
The sooner someone the size of Microsoft stands up and declares these programs do have a negative impact on system performance, the sooner the law will force them to clarify their installation procedures, which in turn eliminates a massive chunk of their revenue (unaware users). |
|
|
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Re: I hope microsoft chooses to protect its produc said by Karl Bode:Really is an important test for them if they want to be taken seriously and improve their security image (if there is one there to improve). Isn't this the same as wanting Microsoft to be the arbiter of what runs on their customer's machines? People want that?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
| We are talking about a spyware removal app. Just because I run spybot doesn't mean spybot is the arbiter of what runs on my computer. Because I run it so that programs that I choose to not be on my computer won't get on my computer. In the end I am the arbiter because I choose to run the app. Now if the app was bundled with windows with no way to disable then yes you would be correct in saying microsoft is the arbiter. Also what is so horrible about microsoft providing a spyware app? I think they should provide spyware and virus apps, because when you pay over 100 bucks for an OS, you should get apps to protect it for free. Its not fair to the consumer to make them spring up more cash for basic apps like a virus scanner. |
|
 a
@qwest.net | reply to insomniac84
Re: I hope microsoft chooses to protect its product lol, like 60b cash is not protected. the fact is it does help to be computer literate. |
|
| Your statement makes no sense???? |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: I hope microsoft chooses to protect its produc beautifully put, i agree 100% with karl here. IMO no ones machines are running up to par with spyware apps installed, its just not the same as running fresh off a reformat (then again what is, Spyware is just the worst), spyware bogs systems and its got to go, M$ gotta start the cleansing process for NT based machines,
P.S M$ antispyware has worked great for me, not sure if its a lil different with sig's for removing, but its up there perfectly with Giants form.
--
don't talk to me about my literature, if i was getting graded on a essay and not spending 2secs typing 115WPM post on a forum I might actually go through and correct my mistakes. save it. HEH |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Steve
quote:
Isn't this the same as wanting Microsoft to be the arbiter of what runs on their customer's machines? People want that?
I'm not sure your question makes any sense in regard to the topic.
It's about anti-spyware vendors having a choice of selling out to Claria and WhenU (like Aluria) and weakening their definitions, or standing firm and making it clear these apps use shady installation techniques and have a negative cumulative impact on a user's PC (McAfee). |
|
