OnePlus 5 review
That may be so Mr Mistoffelees but in doing so they have disabled a key security feature in Vista. Am I right in thinking however this change won't be coming until SP1?
Another news item about the situation click here
And then again maybe they just tried to pretend they did click here
I think it's a good thing that Microsoft had made the kernel tamper-proof. I'm afraid I think the self-interested bleating from McAfee etc and the result is a backward step. Everyone bleats about how full of holes Microsoft's OSs are. So poor old Microsoft does something to make Vista a lot more secure and what happens? It gets shouted at by big businesses which should understand that it's a part of life that sometimes a revenue stream dries up.
Of course McAfee and Norton want the kernel to remain compromised: it's their lifeblood. But it's not good for the consumer. Why should you shell out £40 for software you shouldn't need - and had Microsoft been left alone, you wouldn't need? Everyone cheering the fact that the poor ickle security companies have had their revenue stream protected is cheering the fact that hackers, script kiddies, phishers and other lowlife will continue to be able to mess with the kernel and you will continue to be able to shell out £40+ for security software.
It's not a case of Microsoft forcing you to use its security software in place of commercial competition; it was a case of Microsoft doing you a favour by removing the need for it in the first place. I don't see how making an OS safer is anti-competitive.
'end-user freedom of choice' mantra a tad puzzling. Freedom of choice to do what - choose to support an attitude that - as Kate so rightly points out - might mean that Vista's system security may be compromised?
I can vouch for the fact that throughout the beta phase of Vista'a life Microsoft has majored on the question of security. For perhaps the first time in its history the Windows operating system would have been able to stand up on its own two feet and fight for its users, but...
Much of that will now go by the wayside, because a bunch of security companies saw their future revenue stream being threatened.
I think the problem is that MS have not got an awe-inspiring record on security issues - so I can understand why they may not be trusted now.
In fact it's almost certain that Vista will be compromised right away - Symantec claim they've already found ways around the MS protection - and if they have, others have.
Virtually every Windows user relies on 3rd party products to protect their system right now - and mostly they do a good job. A leap into the unknown is not to everyones taste - including mine.
And why will it be compromised almost immediately? Because it's had to make the kernel patchable. *rolls eyes*
I have no sympathy for the view put forward by the independents. I wish MS well in their determination to make Vista safe. I completely agree with Kate B, we should encourage MS to bring perfection (as far as is possible) to their products.
I also do not share the views of the gloom merchants regarding the domination by MS, its up to their competitors to produce something better instead of trying to share the gravy from the MS table. We do not have to use MS any more than we have to buy a Ford car or M and S clothes. so if poeple are worried about world domination, buy Apple or get Linux.
always used norton security.
been unable with vista. but been impressed that ms vista firewall & free Avast [without kernal access] has given good protection.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.