Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Nov 2005 11:45 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 57063
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Should have been named...
by n4cer on Mon 7th Nov 2005 03:31
in reply to "RE: Should have been named..."
I don't understand why this software is separate from the OS. I can see them giving it a codename internally, but why not silently include it as a service, thus avoiding the 'sell insecure OS -> sell security patches' claim?
Windows Defender is not a commercial product. It'll be available as a free addon.
RE[3]: Should have been named...
by AllTom on Mon 7th Nov 2005 03:33
in reply to "RE[2]: Should have been named..."








Member since:
2005-11-06
I don't understand why this software is separate from the OS. I can see them giving it a codename internally, but why not silently include it as a service, thus avoiding the 'sell insecure OS -> sell security patches' claim?
It seems to me that they're going about repairing their tarnished name. Why "Windows and Windows Defender" instead of "Windows--Now More Secure"?