Microsoft has begun beta testing their solution to the slow and unprotected PC dilemma: Windows OneCare. FlexBeta reviews it: “Would I personally use the Windows OneCare service? Well, it depends on how much MS is going to charge for this service. If the service will range from $10-$20 a year, then I would say it is worth it.”
Beta Testing Windows OneCare
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2005-08-09 10:24 pmDittoBox
There’s not patching involved. It doens’t fix the in-code or in-design flaws, it simply covers them up, which is never nearly as good.
2005-08-10 7:20 amkmarius
The functionality, with the exception of AV-protection, should be included with Windows for free.
Backup and tuning of the system should be standard OS functionality
Doesn’t matter what the price is, it’s a conflict of interest. I for one will fight this tooth and nail and will not suggest it to anyone, no matter how bloody good it may be, or how cheap it is.
I’ll do it in principle, because this is the exact same steaming horse crap that the mob does, just slightly different. Instead of going to a joint and saying “hey, I bet we can sell you insurance so your place doens’t burn down if a fire occurs”.
If you don’t pay up, then “bada-boom” your place is in ashes the next morning.
Except microsoft is too cheap to do their own dirty work of burning down your place (or rather creating virii, spyware, toolbars etc), they just make their product as easy to crack as possible then let script kiddies and other societal fringe do the rest.
Microsoft either ships a product as bug free as possible, then they fix the problems when they arise later on down the road, or they ship a defective product and provide fixes for critical security flaws only (often a day late and dollar short, and almost never by their own research) and charge a “protection fee” to cover up the other problems inherent in the flawed design of Windows.
What’s worse is it’s likely this OneCare crap will be included in windows, will be plugged endlessly for days after installation and won’t ever have to be “downloaded”, it’ll be built in to windows, all you have to do is subscribe/unlock.
So, basically, you think that Microsoft should not enter into a market that already exists? It’s not like Microsoft is the only one playing here.
You people are always about choice, unless it is Microsoft giving you that option.
You are absolutely pathetic.
2005-08-09 11:08 pmDittoBox
For Norton, Trend, McAffee etc. it’s not a conflict of interest. I’m all about choice, believe me–but if a company makes a house which can be very easily broken into (by design) and then come back to you and say “your hosue can be broken into very easily” and then go on to try to sell you something that doesn’t actually fix the design problem but rather covers it up–you too would be very suspicious.
That’s exactly what MS has done. They sell you a flawed product (This may be intentional, it may not) and then turn around and sell you “protection” to cover up the problems they should be fixing with original product.
They’re trying to make money off their own incompetence, it’s got nothing to do with choice, it’s got everything to do with legality, honesty and ethics.
2005-08-10 7:30 amsappyvcv
That’s one way to look at it.
Here’s another way:
A company designs houses and these houses end up being easy to break into if you don’t do proper maintenance (Get a dead-bolt lock, etc).
The company realizes this and is redesigning their new houses to be more secure. But just to be extra careful, they also offer installing an alarm-system and cameras for a small yearly fee, just in case they missed something, or someone gets in anyway.
2005-08-10 8:15 amAnonymous
Actually, it’s more like a company that sells you a house, which within days of your moving in is infested with termites ( virus) and bugs (spyware).
And then they offer to come and paint your wood with special paint to keep most of the termites away. They also say that this needs to be done every month, and they are willing to come and handle that for you, for a small yearly fee.
Microsoft should be spending their hoards of money to improve their code, and make Windows more secure.
But OneCare is a conflict of interest, as it means that the more insecure Windows is, the more likely it is that people will pay for OneCare.
2005-08-10 10:00 amsappyvcv
But that is what they are doing with Vista. This is just insurance.
2005-08-10 8:54 amAnonymous
I don’t agree, every house user does know how to lock his house without to learn anything.
For protecting his Windowscomputer evrey user does not know how to. If he would, i would not spend my free time to help friends to clean their Windows from virii and other marvels.
You could think about what you are saying.
2005-08-10 5:50 amAnonymous
“So, basically, you think that Microsoft should not enter into a market that already exists? It’s not like Microsoft is the only one playing here.”
I just have a question, Mr. CPUGuy: what other operating systems vendors charge you money for security fixes? Not trying to start anything nasty, just asking for a clarification.
2005-08-10 1:44 pmCPUGuy
One, they are not charging you money for security fixes. Two, If it is indeed $10-$20 per year the service, then they aren’t making a proffit on it.
2005-08-10 3:01 pmIlden
“One, they are not charging you money for security fixes.”
I’m sorry, I should have made myself a bit more clear: charging money for a similar service, i.e. “virus monitoring and scanning, hard drive defragment, and a back-up and restore feature.” I quoted that last bit from the artice. I really would like to know if there are any OS vendors who do that.
“Two, If it is indeed $10-$20 per year the service, then they aren’t making a proffit on it.”
With all due respect, sir, I believe the question whether they indeed make any profit out of it is quite irrelevant in this case. As it seems to me, the anti-Microsoft crowd here suggests that it is unethical for an OS vendor to charge money for something that they should provide for free. On the other hand, you are essentially saying that everybody’s going it, so why should Microsoft be treated any different (please, correct me if I misunderstood your position on the issue). I myself am just thoroughly confused: who’s “everybody”?
I hope you can clarify these things for me. Thank you in advance.
2005-08-10 3:39 pmCPUGuy
It’s not Microsoft’s fault that someone has created malware. There does not need to be a flaw in the OS for it to be created. Therefore, they do not need to give it away for free.
And at least they are doing it cheaper than anybody else, and giving you more.
2005-08-10 4:55 pmDittoBox
“It’s not Microsoft’s fault that someone has created malware. ” -cpuguy
In a way it is, the way their software is made, IE, Windows etc. is designed poorly making it far easier than it should be for malware/spyware/virii creators to prey on those who don’t understand how to use computers.
Granted, these kinds of things will exist in any dominant OS, but it’s the fact that microsoft hasn’t made any real effort to stop these problems with radical design changes (which it sounds like they might be doing in Vista, they might not be allowing write access to C:) that makes people so mad.
Also, please do some research about “ActiveX” and how it encourages spyware/malware. But we’re not just talking about malware, we’re talking about uninvited spyware, malware, virii, system-slow-down-over-time, etc. I’ve spent loads of time on multiple computers cleaning up after virii and spyware, all of which uninvited (stuff that isn’t explicitly agreed to!), it’s a pain in the a**. Microsoft has the resources to fix these problems at their root, and they don’t.
And they will make money for 15 USD a year. If they do the same thing they’ve done with Windows, Office and IE it won’t be hard for them to flood the world with this and then get eve more revenue.
The point we’re trying to make here is that Microsoft needs to fix the flaws and design problems inherent in their OS, not cover it up (sometimes poorly) with AV-type software, and then charge for it.
And if it’s not extortion, they’re at least avoiding the responsibility to fix these problems.
I’ve spent too much time trying to fix problems that could’ve been prevented with better design, it’s a waste of money for my clients. And to MS push a cover up rather than a real solution, when it is in their power to do so, that makes me angry.
2005-08-10 6:55 pmCPUGuy
No ActiveX control can be installed without user permission. NONE! It’s not Microsoft’s fault that the user is stupid. Microsoft even warns people that the control, if installed, could cause problems.
You can not fix user stupidity, no matter how many resources you have.
2005-08-10 11:55 pmdufourjm
I have enough of technical guys bashing regular users for their stupidity ! I am myself a technical person so I might not be among the one you call stupid so I do not take this as an insult for me but you cannot expect every user to be aware of everything that is important to make a computer secure. It is the responsability of the developers to design a systems that is more immune to security risks. Yes we have to educate the users on the tools and methods to keep their computer clean and to avoid proliferation of virus/malwares but it is not by calling a guy stupid that you will make him more security-aware.
Some people, you know, are using their computer as a tool and have no interests in computer science. It is OK because me and other people like to know how it works and how to fix problems. It is not by treating the regular users as stupid that I will gain their respect and help them to get more confidence and more knowledge on the TOOL they are using.
I do not understand how blindly most Windows zealots will take the defense of Microsoft as if Microsoft is not big enough to defend itself. Microsoft might not be the big bad guy depicted by some Linux & OSS advocates. But as a company it is its responsability to repair the the security holes that they left open and charging for it is abusing of users while a more secure design could have avoided many of the security problems at the first place. It is not like charging for a real plus value for the system, not at all.
2005-08-11 2:03 pmIlden
“It’s not Microsoft’s fault that someone has created malware. There does not need to be a flaw in the OS for it to be created. Therefore, they do not need to give it away for free.”
Perhaps, but what does this have to do with your earlier claim that “It’s not like Microsoft is the only one playing here”? I’m still very interested in seeing a list of OS vendors who charge money for similar services. I think it’s becoming pretty much transparent that you’re avoiding my question as if it was a one-legged hooker with an STD.
I mean, if you plan on calling people you disagree with “pathetic”, you wouldn’t be dumb enough to be lying or talking out of your rectum, right? You do understand that such behaviour presents you as a narrow-minded Microsoft zealot, not that different from an average brain-dead representative of the “M$ sux!” crowd you profess to dislike so much in just about every post you make here, don’t you?
2005-08-11 4:51 pmAnonymous
First, remember Microsoft could not have forseen where the computer market was going. The company was started when home computers, thus internet access, were a rarity. Windows was created to be a standalone, non networkable OS. This, however, does not forgive their incompetence and resistance to change when the internet boom happened. UNIX was networkable, and was designed with a plethora of redundant security devices from the start in the 60’s.
Secondly, Microsoft MUST charge for the service, or be sued for monopolistic practices again by the anti virus companies (McAffe, Norton, etc.) They would give it away if they could, but this is obviously not an option.
2005-08-11 8:38 pmdufourjm
They would give it away if they could, but this is obviously not an option.
You know that for sure or you’re just of these Windows fanboys who talk as if they were Microsoft representatives ?
is it just me or are these things already available for windows just not in one place.. there are already backup tools, and disk defraggers, etc. Ok, so you pay for the “antivirus” definitions.. I could probably write OneCare in a spare weekend with a little VB or C#, nix the AV, unless I teamed up the an established AV vendor. None of the things in OneCare are all that handy or worth money if you spend the time to set the programs up when you get your computer in the 1st place. I know – I know.. joe six pack doesnt know how to do these things.. but shouldn’t there be a better welcome to windows when you first install your OS that asks you if you want to do these things and holds your hand through them? something you shouldn’t have to pay for as an extra yearly fee? SERIOUSLY. And I would think there’d be something better than AV, backup, and tune-up for your computer.. how about giving me something worth paying money for? Like letting me know when I am having performace issues and what is causing them? Maybe a report telling me where all my bandwidth is going when my network connection is ungodly slow, etc etc. Maybe something that is smart enough to smack my hand when I install spyware.. not just prevent it, but teach me by saying: look this == BAD spyware, dont download or click anything that looks like this (things that are blaringly obvious)
2005-08-09 10:45 pmCPUGuy
You are already paying for yearly (monthly, or however you pay) for virus defs, why not pay the same and get everything, and in a nice, single UI for all tasks that a non-power user can actually use.
2005-08-11 2:26 amre_re
the best antivirus and firewall for windows that I know of (for home users) is AVG and ZoneAlarm.
both of which are free, including updating definitions indifinitely.
is there a link to the flexbeta review?
This sounds like M$ could leave a few extra things to patch to force you to pay for the service. It’s a slow transition to a subscription model.
They can’t make much more money from the OpSys market, people have been accusing their “innovations” of being just UI candy, not worth the price for upgrade. The solution: make everyone pay all the time, even when there is nothing new to add.
Seems a bit like extortion to me. The risk of lossing your data due to spyware or viruses is very high, which has created due to Microsoft’s poor response time to their gapping holes of their security model. Now they will charge you for a problem they indirectly created, in order to keep your data safe. Of course you can go to extreme alternative messures, like remote backups or running 6 anti-viruse apps + reg-cleaners + spybot + adaware and then maybe you’ll be safe.
“”Would I personally use the Windows OneCare service? Well, it depends on how much MS is going to charge for this service. If the service will range from $10-$20 a year, then I would say it is worth it.””
I’d rather pay someone $10 – $20 a year to beat the shit out of me than give M$ any of my money.
Free Open Source Software is the future.
say bye-bye to semantic and mcaffee
hehe stop complain and use a real os.
When i used Windows, half of my time was to make backups, use anti virus, make multi-passes anti spy/ads tools, reboot often, and finally not using my computer the way i want to use it.
I personnaly switched for Mac, and at last… I JUST use my computer (and i have more time to play World of Warcroft 🙂
Just my 2 cents to become happy
So Vista is about improving their code, and make Windows more secure.
So was XP so was Win2000 Win98se Win98 Win95se Win95
guess what at the end of the day nothing will change…
The Os will still be as insecure as it always has been and getting worse..
What is it that every company wants? I guaranteed revenue stream. Sure MS sells huge amounts of OSs but it’s not constant and predictable. Enter Windows One Care. It starts with the basics and it’s cheap. MS starts adding features. Upgrade to the $40 per year subscription and we’ll throw in our moviemaker and photo organizing apps, etc. (with free patches/upgrades of course). Upgrade to the $80 version and we’ll give you free OS upgrades when they come out. Upgrade to the $120 version and we’ll throw in MS Office (home users only).
If everybody that used Windows had the “high end” subscription model that theorized, MS’s income would skyrocket, they would have a guaranteed revenue stream, and there wouldn’t be much pressure to update their products (after all, you pay the subscription whether or not new products come out).
It may be evil but if I was MS, that’s what I’d be doing.
you use Windows AND pay for antivirus software? Crazy people! http://www.clamwin.net Add this to the list of opensource software you use in Windows! Avoid yet more taxation…
This is getting ridiculous! Microsoft is seriously trying to charge users for a “service” and “protection” that partially patches the numerous bugs and vulnerabilities in their software? Isn’t this practice considered extortion if anyone else is doing it? I really hope someone has the guts to start a class action suit against Microsoft.