Say That Again

by Mike Masnick

Gates: Antivirus Software? Fuggedaboutit!

from the so-why-should-we-spend-on-yours? dept

theodp writes "Bill Gates startled WSJ Conference attendees with his observation that "during the last year, if you had up-to-date Windows, you would have been safe if you didn't have" antivirus software. Gates endured a hostile question from an audience member claiming to be from ZoneLabs, who blamed MS for a litany of security problems and decried Microsoft's forthcoming pay-for-security move as "like something out of The Godfather." Gates also shrugged off a suggestion that MS should partner with security-software makers, saying "we're partnering with [Romanian antivirus company] GeCAD, which is a company we bought."" So, wait a second... if everything is so safe, why should we rush out to spend on OneCare's anti-virus components? And, also, if a patched Windows and GeCAD were enough, why did Microsoft go out and buy another anti-virus company a few months ago? Anyway, it appears that this year's WSJ Conference is where all the execs are saying stuff that people find shocking.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • identicon
    Dudu Mimran, 24 May 2005 @ 3:00am

    OneCare tough Challenges

    Mike, Microsoft will face the same challenges they faced in their last unsuccessful try to enter the AV market in the past. See Microsoft Enters Consumer Security. Again.. Thanks, Dudu

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ivan Sick, 24 May 2005 @ 5:52am

    No Subject Given

    Bill: Buying a company ≠ partnering with them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bob, 24 May 2005 @ 4:34pm

    That is so not true

    In the last year at microsoft I've had my network access yanked twice due to a fully compliant and up to date machine (by internal M$ standards) being infected.
    This is on M$'s internal LAN. The IT people replied to me ... yes, even with antivirus software and a fully updated machine you can still be vulnerable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TJ, 24 May 2005 @ 8:19pm

    ... so long as there is no user at the keyboard

    Proper patching would avoid most remote exploits without the use of Antivirus software, true. But plenty of exploits are still launched by the unsuspecting user themselves, through e-mail especially. Since Microsoft has defaulted to standalone PCs users being Administrator, and made it difficult to do otherwise with even many of their own apps, Antivirus still serves a key roll in protecting the user against their own naive actions.

    But Microsoft is getting into a pickle: 'Spin' that Windows itself is good without add-ons, while trying to market and sell said enhancements. So Bill, tell me, when it comes to Windows: "Is it safe?" There must be a way to balance that, since car companies get away with charging extra for side curtain airbags, stability control, etc. But perhaps it is easier to sell for a tangible product.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark, 27 Jan 2010 @ 1:06pm

    Well, Bill and company certainly went back on this. Still, I am at least glad they gave up on it when they realized they could never sell it for cash. I think that despite the fact that MS architects Windows, the other antivirus companies are light years beyond them when it comes to keeping it safe.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.