My understanding is that Viruses spread simply by existing and are intended to harm the system in a specific way. Spy-ware spreads through user action; I try to install a program or I run a script on a webpage. Spy-ware is meant to monitor the system for keystoke or something else. It's close relative, ad-ware, is meant to bombard the user with advertising. Windows defender protects against spy-ware & ad-ware. Windows Live One Care (buy & download from live.com) protects against virus. I believe Jim Allchin's comment was simply meant as a testimonial to security in Vista. If you are working under standard user with User Account Control turned on (it's onby default), there is almost no way for a Virus to punch through. Even if you try to install a virus manually, you will likely be blocked by the system. Anti-virus software will definitely be necessary for those of us that want to run under Administrator.

I don't run any "security" software. When our family first installed McAfee, it responded by deleting a file that allowed dial-up connections. It's been over 10 years without Virus Scan, and our family has not seen an infection of this "virus".

Even my Mother who is just a beginner internet user has yet to find a "virus" to infect her PC.

Microsoft is right in thinking Vista does not need parasite software like McAfee or Norton.

Anti Virus as we know it today, is no longer required. Companies like Mcafee and Symantec, whos software is like Adware/Spyware itself (try getting rid of it when its pre installed on a notebook) are just trying to sell more rubbish to consumers. When a real new threat arrives, its not the likes of Symantec or Mcafee who will protect against it but it will be innovative, small security companies such as Kaspersky, Acunetix (web application security) and so on.

Of course one needs a secure browser, a secure OS, and have email security installed at server level. But Windows has come a long way and i believe the latest iteration of Windows and IE are pretty secure.

And should we continue subsidizing Mcafee and Symantec just because the European Union says we should?

I've used Symantec or McAfee in different environments for over 10 years. They slow the machine down, plain and simple. I still use them. I've had viruses wipe out a drive more than once. If Vista really can protect against self propagation, and make it so that users must approve all software installations, this will drastically cut down on viruses and spyware. It will not eliminate it (because users can always do it willingly on really nasty bundled software), but it cuts 90% of it. You can do this today by making an account for yourself in XP that has no administrator priviledges. Install software as "administrator" but run day to day stuff under your non-admin account. That almost eliminates needing virus software... almost.

I have been using Mcafee VirusScan for over 10 years. It rarely catches any viruses - probably less than one a year on my computer. The thing is, occassionally I have wandered into some chaotic web sites with viruses and the scanner caught it. Yes, I probably could get away without running it, until I get a virus and don't know it because I have no scanner. It is a dilemma. Those who do not use it cause viruses to spread. Of course, it is they who ensure it is spread widely enough that Mcafee and such find it so that they can protect those of us who do use protection. I actually use something from my ISP at home. Since I never get any viruses or anything, I don't really know how well it works. One indication of what is out there, however is what the mail server at work picks up. I don't maintain that device, but I understand it catches many viruses every day. I'm not sure, though, if they are executable attachments or something else.

The Norton on my business computer caught a "virus" today.

I was bad. I visited an adult site on the web. And Norton did its thing and caught the virus before it could load on my computer.

If I didn't visit those sites, would I have a need for Norton?

By my estimate, over 80% of business computers have never been close to a virus. A decent firewall (in XP SP2) has kept those computers virus free by preventing a pinging virus from finding the computer.

The problem 20% of the computers are used like mine. In between the games of video poker and minesweeper, somebody visits a bad place. Or opens the stupid email titled "you just won 7 gazillion dollars".

And for the stupid 20% (myself included), we need antivirus.

Thank goodness for Vista. Not running the computers as administrator will have huge advantages.

But, unlike Jim Allchin's son, I think I will still have antivirus loaded on my Vista computer. I just visit way too many adult sites to take the risk.

i agree and disagree, think anyone is a fool today who uses a pc without anti-spyware and anti-virus software. i've never used symantec or mcafee but have removed it from other people's pcs, and it's no fun, just like windows defender.
i agree vista seems to have taken some good steps but the reason is ms a couple years ago didn't care if people got a virus or bug as long as sales didn't go down. and people started buying macs. i've installed avg free after removing nortons and guess what it picks up trojans norton never knew were there. not saying symantec or mcafee are not good. i dont believe vista alone is enough, but it will make a good target.

We all want Microsoft to produce a secure OS and browser. I'm tired or "Patch and Pray Tuesday". If this means the demise of antivirus software then halleluiah. But who out there really thinks that Microsoft has ever produced, is producing, or will produce secure software? November's Patch and Pray Tuesday included IE7.0. It is unstable, hangs frequently, and paralyzes computers. Is this an indication of how Vista will behave? Maybe Microsoft is taking the security approach that the only secure PC is one that’s not operating? Yes we want secure software but more than that we want stable secure software.

What is the point of this article, anyway?

Allchin clarified what he meant already, as you point out. Were you just late jumping on the bashing bandwagon? The only "bigger implication" here is that you don't believe his clarification. Even the original article you linked to on EWeek clarifies what he means right there in the next paragraph.

You say you don't run AV on most of your Macs because there is "no need to" but in the same paragraph you admit there ARE viruses for Macs. So you just said the same thing you're slamming Allchin for, w/out clarifying WHY you see "no need to" run AV on your family's Macs (which he did).

"It's unfair to fault Allchin for enthusiasm, and his goal is a good one. Windows Vista should be so secure that no additional security software is required."

Where does he state that as his goal?

I'll be checking back here for your response Joe.

Windows will always need anti-virus software
there are SO MANY viruses, spywares, adwares, worms..... and whatever. Windows defender is absolute crap, I was very entusiastic to test it and I found that its doing nothing but standing and look secure:) ITS NOT BIG DEAL TO GET ADMINISTRATOR PRIVILEGIES under linux and windows, no matter with what user you are logged in.
I dont care for Allchen's son, ask a system administrator how many viruses (and all harmful things of this sort) a office with even a minimum of 10 PCs have per day. Thousands of mails per PC, and half of them viruses. Small office without any security, counting on windows defence, will close doors after the first week, blacklisted everywhere with machines that cant work correctly:)
EVERY windows need protection, and MS will never give it to us. Anti-virus program is must be for every pc.

good point julian, but only for realism purposes. ideally, no one needs any antivirus on any pc.

my first and last virus was in '94, dos based, and hid in my mbr to come back after a format (without an fdisk /mbr) I occasionally run a scan on my system, (ok maybe once every few years just for giggles) and for a while I lived with a woman and put f-prot on her system in addition to sygate since my system was exposed to hers, but never have I had a virus since '94. a few years ago I even somehow managed to skip a virus on a personal system of mine, a network aware job which blew out our network at one job I had and overwrote all mp3's and jpg's with itself. perhaps it was the @ symbol in my workgroup *shrug* I honestly don't even know how I managed to avoid that one, but my 40GB's of music were fine. I visit crack sites and at least used to visit porn sites, I don't see what the big deal is. I've been a computer tech, for exactly 10 years, mostly the last 4 years or so dealing mostly with malware/virii. I wonder sometimes just how people infect themselves. But then again, I talk with these people too, and many times their computer is broken simply because they suffer from ID-10-T errors.

point is, a new operating system, especially one from microsoft, is one to target for malware authors, and I *would* feel safer with anti-virus software now more than ever; the fact that microsoft has at least given a decent effort (though too many complain about it and it's legalities) is a great thing and totally balances my piece of mind since (though I recommend it to others) I'll never subject MY OWN PC to parasitic "anti-virus" software. it's about time microsoft stepped up and tried to be truly secure, like Unix/Solaris/whatever have been for years. ever see a real time monitoring antivirus solution on them? not to protect the local system, at least I haven't not to say it doesn't exist or there isn't a tiny need, but there isn't any point to it most of the time. there shouldn't be for windows users either, business and home users alike.

no computer should *require* anti-whatever software.

AND, it's time that symantec and mcafee changed their business model and got with the times, they've been usurping from MS's laziness for far too long. even though symantec is the biggest whiner, it's just greed -- you see how they are buying up all types of companies lately, (too bad they didn't continue norton desktop utilities development when they bought norton so long ago) but now they realize what's at stake, so look at their new 360 beta, designed to go after MS OneCare. they still need to do better. NT Backup has been available forever, and long after it's introduction it's there even with XP pro (I use as an example because even so many home users use pro,) as long as you knew where to find it on the CD, and scheduler has always been there, worst case there has always been a command interpreter and the ability to use batch scripts; so features weren't there, they are now. there is nothing new being created, and symantec et. al need to get with the program and think up something we NEED or make existing solutions easier to use WITHOUT ALL THE BLOAT IN THEIR CODE and drag on your system.

oh well. good luck, you dinosaurs -- because I hate to break it to ya, no one has EVER needed to run security software on a PC (as in personal computer.) The only think people need is to be taken care of, and those who need security software on their home PC's expecially, I liken them to children who need to be in day care while parent's work. they are simply children without having developed the needed skills to function independently in society. Adults don't need security software. ahem. sorry, common sense prevails. argue all you want, it's true. though I won't argue that server level security of some sort is a great idea, it is. but home users shouldn't need squat. if thanks to vista a greater percentage of those idiot home users won't security software then that's a good thing.

oh yes, and as for the microsoft guy's kid. yeah, it's a statement to vista's security... it's also a little boost on being proud of your son. I'd pride myself that when I have a kid one day I'll teach him enough to not be an idiot on a computer and need a crutch such as symantec and their peers. I'm sure my dad, who was a mechanic, is proud I can at least change my own oil, diagnose my own alternator and oxygen sensor issues and take care of it myself, and have pushed my current vehicle like 300,000 miles without so much as a new clutch. even if I invented a car with no need for all of that, I'd still be proud my son didn't crash it into the other idiot on the road. I figure there's a little bit of that pride in there, not just in vista but in his offspring. though granted, yeah it's just a publicity thing... and dude, Max, WTF are you talking about the point of the article is pretty plain, even with the blunt statement at the end that it's a discussion encouragement thing. quit being so dense hah!

Yeah Virus running the net why is it that every time their is a computer virus their is 30 computer worms running through international servers that can be traced back to America companies and it's government branches such as the CIA Collegue Training Centre,

I have busted this government agency twice in two years yet they are still allowed to sent computer virus out on the net targetting innocent people it is like that other agency called the FBI who are senting out child porn to everyones computer

To anybody that says that "they don't need antivirus protection," I really do laugh at you. I used to do PC support, and 75% of the jobs I was sent to were for spyware and virus problems. Now I'm a computer security engineer, and all I hear about everyday is how all these networks of zombies are sending out mass quantities of spam and hitting various online businesses with a crippling amount of traffic, which literally knocks their site offline (and they do this right before christmas, or right before the superbowl ie). I personally go to some shady sites, and regularly delete viruses and spyware (that is until I ghost my computer with a fresh image that I made when the computer was known clean - sort of a restore point if you will).
Anyone still think they don't need antivirus? and that includes you people with Macs too. You think Macs dont get viruses, do a google search than. The reason you don't hear about Mac viruses as much is because EVERYONE is using windows.

Jared Braverman
Security Engineer

Vista without Antivirus parasite ware on it?

I'll put up $10,000. in a trust account and award it to the first person in this blog who will agree to run windows Vista without AV, and give me their current IP address. That's all I need. . .to run my new Vista killer ap. It causes a panic in the OS and gives me access to certian directories in Vista.

Good luck gentlemen. May be the most confident Vista user claim the $10,000. prize. I'll put the money in a CitiBank branch in NJ. I'll give the trust account number and PIN code to the winner.

Good Luck!

Jason Brunette

Hi, I just bought a notebook with vista on, has a 30 day free trial with norton, haven't activated it yet, as i've been told that a lot of anti virus software isn't compatible with vista. Now I read your comments and don't know what to do. I've read that vista is a more secure system with anti spam, phishing filters built in etc, so, do I really need an internet security isnstalled. Our Isp is Bt yahoo, who also have a very secure email program, so with these combined, seems pretty tight to me. Help, any advice would be gratefully appreciated.

Hey Lisa, give me your IP address, so I can put that laptop of yours of out its misery. . .

Or, get a damn Mac ! Stop farting with risky software . . . . just buy a quality computer you can trust, if security means that much to you. . .

Otherwise people are happy with untrustworthy, disposable computers and software that eats from your pocket book. Keep feeding the Matrix Lisa, . . keep feeding . . . keep feeding them your dignity and independence . . . break out of the Matrix Lisa . . get a Mac and you will see a whole new world and the truth. Take the blue pill. . follow the white rabbit . . ..

Take Care!

Get a damn Mac ! Stop farting with risky software . . . . just buy a quality computer you can trust, if security means that much to you. . .

Otherwise people are happy with untrustworthy, disposable computers and software that eats from your pocket book. Keep feeding the Matrix Lisa, . . keep feeding . . . keep feeding them your dignity and independence . . . break out of the Matrix Lisa . . get a Mac and you will see a whole new world and the truth. Take the blue pill. . follow the white rabbit . . ..