Microsoft OneCare live beta

[Direwolf20]

Linky (http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=b78afccd-47f0-460e-b09b-33c2d53ac53b)

This was posted on the front page today, and it makes me think "Wow, this would be GREAT to install on the computers people give me that get messed up."

I wanted to get your takes on it. What do you guys think of it? Has anyone tried it yet, and what are you thoughts on A) Is it good protection, and B) Is it easy enough for the average PC user?

I'm going to install it when I get home from work today to check it out.

[Phoenix86]

Does it cost anything?
Nope. The beta version of Windows OneCare Live is free, though the final service will be a paid subscription.

:(

[Direwolf20]

Yea, I saw that too, same reaction :(.

Not to bash Microsoft or anything, because I know its a touchy subject, but if you release software to stop people from taking advantage of the security holes in another piece of software which you created, you shouldn't charge people a subscription to use it.

[Phoenix86]

Not to bash Microsoft or anything, because I know its a touchy subject, but if you release software to stop people from taking advantage of the security holes in another piece of software which you created, you shouldn't charge people a subscription to use it.
Word.

Actually now that I'm thinking about it, this could be bad conflict of interests. Imagine MS getting sued for having interests in NOT fixing a bug do drive people to this product. I know, fringe thinking and all, but it's possible.

[maxedoutcc]

Word.

Actually now that I'm thinking about it, this could be bad conflict of interests. Imagine MS getting sued for having interests in NOT fixing a bug do drive people to this product. I know, fringe thinking and all, but it's possible.


or microsoft could use this at a leverage point that they are offering a service that ensures the client does not require intervention to apply patches as they are released. Thereby providing less of a case against someone claiming neglegence in their security practices.

the end user is still able to get a virus even if their system is fully patched. Complete computer protection out of the box can not lie in the hands of just microsoft.

B

[djnes]

It somewhat reminds me of when Creative briefly attempted to charge people for driver updates.

[Phoenix86]

or microsoft could use this at a leverage point that they are offering a service that ensures the client does not require intervention to apply patches as they are released. Thereby providing less of a case against someone claiming neglegence in their security practices.

B
Yeah, but it's at a cost... Our product will work if you pay us more kinda thinking.

[eeyrjmr]

MMM I remember a thread abt Vista a while ago where I said their is a high chance that MS will start some form of subscription for updates and addons, I got blasted for that ,

how things turn out

[Phoenix86]

MMM I remember a thread abt Vista a while ago where I said their is a high chance that MS will start some form of subscription for updates and addons, I got blasted for that ,

how things turn out
I don't remember the thread by you, but I do remember the topics at the time, which was windowsupdates, not add-ons.

[SJConsultant]

Yea, I saw that too, same reaction :(.

Not to bash Microsoft or anything, because I know its a touchy subject, but if you release software to stop people from taking advantage of the security holes in another piece of software which you created, you shouldn't charge people a subscription to use it.

Not everything is attributed to Microsoft having a "security hole" in their software. At some point in time with alot of malicious software, a user typically running under administrative permissions *allows* the malicious software to be installed. :rolleyes:

Kazaa anyone? ;)

[ccarrigan]

I've installed the beta and used it. It's pretty nice. No complaints here.

[Ranma_Sao]

Not everything is attributed to Microsoft having a "security hole" in their software. At some point in time with alot of malicious software, a user typically running under administrative permissions *allows* the malicious software to be installed. :rolleyes:

Kazaa anyone? ;)
Sober.Z anyone? ;)

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Direwolf20]

Yea, I'm aware of that for sure.

But back on topic, has anyone tried it and do they like it?