Ryan Naraine reports:
Microsoft has confirmed plans to bundle anti-spyware protection into Windows Vista, a move that is sure to raise eyebrows among competitors and possibly antitrust regulators.
The Windows AntiSpyware product, which currently ships to consumers as a free standalone application, will be integrated into Vista, as is indicated in the newest beta build of Vista distributed to technical beta testers on Monday.
Good. And baseline anti-virus protection should be baked in too, with the user having the option to replace it with a full-featured alternative. It’s just like the firewall bundled with Windows XP SP2. This level of protection should be a core part of the operating system. If someone files an antitrust complaint over this move, I will be among the first to complain about their move.
Oh, and this same baseline level of security should be ported to Windows XP as well. It’s only right.
Ed Bott 
It’s great that Vista will have this built-in. Makes sense. But Microsoft shouldn’t have to retrofit XP with Vista goodies (although they might anyway). That’s like saying auto makers who include airbags in new cars must now also incur the expense of retrofiting their old cars since it’s a safety issue. When you bought XP, you didn’t buy built-in anti-spy so you shouldn’t expect to get it for free. It wasn’t part of the original bargain. Ditto if you bought a car without airbags back before airbags became standard.
Ed: Just wondering why you would complain about an antitrust complaint? Competition is a good thing.
What would “baseline” anti-virus protecton consist of? Real-time monitoring of data including internet worm protection, email scanning, script execution, etc? Or are we talking a plain jane file scanner that can be run manually or be scheduled?
I have no objections to antitrust complaints based on features that can rightly be considered optional. But security is a fundamental requirement of the operating system. The user has a right to it, and it is a perversion of the antitrust process to force Microsoft to sell a product that is inherently unsafe so that third-party companies can then offer those consumers the “choice” of spending more money to achieve baseline security or remaining in an unsafe condition.
There is plenty of precedent for this. Take TCP/IP networking protocols, for instance. Those were add-ons in 1993 and 1994, and several companies actually built business models based on selling TCP/IP packages to Windows users. Should Microsoft have been prohibited from including core networking features in the OS? Would the world be a better place today if it had?
I agree about the antitrust bit. Everyone attacks MS for one simple reason – money. They have it, and they keep bringing it in. Is competition fierce? Just watch the new version of Vista (the N version, no media player) and see how successful it will be. It won’t. People honestly don’t care.
Anyone can download or install anything they want to, and including software from the publisher and developer isn’t going to change whether or not people will go out and buy other things.
If Microsoft gets attacked on this, whoever does will be labeled by me as stupid. I agree with Ed that security is crucial. People have complained and whined about Microsoft’s “security holes” for a long time. If Microsoft takes a step to resolve the problem and people get upset about it, it becomes an attacking loop. Do you want to purchase additional software for a bad OS just to “help competition”, or would you rather be satisfied knowing everything you need is out of the box and you don’t have to purchase or install anything else?
Ed: I appreciate your comment, and generally speaking, agree. You state that “security is a fundamental requirement of the operating system”, but what do you mean by “baseline”? I cannot see how Microsoft could offer a more secure OS without incorporating a full-featured anti-virus program. Real-time protection, internet worm protection, email scanning, etc, all seem necessary to make the OS (and other Microsoft applications) more secure.
I disagree with your comment about spending more money to achieve baseline security. Any computer I have purchased in the past 6 years comes bundled with Norton and McAfee antivirus software. Additionally, many (if not most) ISPs offer a “security suite” (antivirus, firewall, pop-up blocker, etc) to subscribers to download for free. Cost is not an issue.
Jared: Incorporating an anti-virus and anti-spyware applications in Vista does not equal resolving the problem of “security holes”. These applications prevent or attempt to prevent the exploitation of these “security holes” not fix them.
I don’t buy the argument of having to “purchase additional software for a bad OS just to “help competition””. Your argument relies heavily on the assumption that Windows Vista is a “bad OS” or “inherently unsafe”. Surely, I would expect Vista to be a much better OS than XP, otherwise we get stuck with ME2. With the spotlight on security, I cannot see Microsoft spending millions of dollars and person-hours, developing a product that is worse than XP? As I mentioned earlier, every computer that I have purchased in the past 6 or so years has come bundled or preinstalled with Norton or McAfee, negating the need to purchase or install anything else.
Look, I’m no Microsoft basher. I can’t stand all the IE vs Firefox or Windows vs. Linux threads all over the internet – I just don’t see the point. I like competition. I like choice. That’s just me 😉
Mousky, did your Norton or McAfee bundles include lifetime subscriptions to their download services? Anyway, you’re living in the past. Today, low-end Dell computers sold through their Home and Home Office division and through their Small Business Division include no security software. You have to pay $79 for a 15-month subscription to either program.
I agree with you that including baseline antivirus functionality (which is real-time scanning and regular updates from a reliable database) does not equal resolving the problem of “security holes” – but it is one part of the solution. The other parts are being very capably addressed.
By the way, Microsoft agrees with me. Why do you think the Security Center includes Virus Protection as one of the three items in its Security Essentials list?
Hi again Ed!
The rest of above message got lpst beause I used a Greater Than
********baseline anti-virus protection should be baked in too********
I’ve been saying that since security flaws were daily headlines!
(And got ridiculed for suggesting such a thing, sigh)