To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
May I be wrong but I remember about the big security companies (Macfee, Symantec, ...) complaining about MS refuse to publish all the specs needed, or be late on that, so that they could adapt their products.
So, please, put this bill on MS account.
Also, remember that is easier to adapt little programs to a new system than huge and complex ones, like Symantec and Mcafee suites (which I don't use anyway).
Edited 2007-01-23 01:34
May I be wrong but I remember about the big security companies (Macfee, Symantec, ...) complaining about MS refuse to publish all the specs needed, or be late on that, so that they could adapt their products.
You're incorrect; Microsoft provided an API; Defender API on which so far 4 security products (including Microsofts own) have been released, and now relying on - rather than digging deeply into the bowls of the operating system, the security vendors link against that API specifically written just for that particular purpose.
Symantec and McAfee waged a PR Microsoft bashing campaign; and given that you were sucked into believing the bullcrap spouted by Symantec and McAfee, it speaks volumes as to the ignorance out there of Microsofts technologies and what the real story was behind the whole 'drama' which Microsoft competitors drumed up.
"What the hell are the security companies doing?"
Well, if you are referring to Symantec and McAfee, they are too busy writing the malware so they can justify their existence. You do know that for some reason those are the only "security" companies that required access to the kernel enough to make a claim to the EU?






Member since:
2005-07-06
What the hell are the security companies doing? I mean, if you've got hackware being pushed out and compatible with Vista before the security software, it speaks volumes to me about the laziness of these companies in regards to testing and making sure their products are delivered ontime when Windows Vista is released.