said by Midak:said by Mele20:said by u475700:Would users really be more secure if McAfee or Symantec were free to circumvent standard interfaces to readily accommodate their products?
A resounding YES!!! And anyone thinking otherwise has their head in the sand.
Mele, you are a narrow minded fool if you really believe the trash and bullying your spewing out. Everyone is stupid if they don't follow your way of thinking??? Dismount your high-horse. If you don't like Vista, don't buy it! There are other choices, like it or not. Why should MS be forced to cater to your wants and whims? You complain when they don't secure it and now you complain when they do. McAfee and Symantec can keep their bloatware.
Myself, I run W2k and XP and will not go to Vista until after I see it as being a stable OS with no issues I don't want to deal with.
If you want to run off at the mouth at least do your research first. I have said repeatedly for a long time that I have no plans to upgrade this 8 month old gaming computer to Vista. Since this is a new computer, I won't be buying another for some time. So no Vista. I also have not been complaining about MS not securing XP. In fact, I have complained that MS gets in the user's face way too much already because they are a monoply. I am quite satisfied with my security which has nothing to do with MS's junk offerings. I have not been in the least inconsistent. I would still be using XP ProSP1 even after it goes unsupported except that my computer had so many problems that Dell sent me a new one as an exchange and it has SP2 on it. I don't like the added security in SP2 and everyone here but you knows that...god knows I posted enough about it when SP2 came out. Where were you?