Norton Internet Security 2011

Computer manufacturers & Microsoft...

Huh? That makes no sense at all to me. It sounds like something Microsoft bashers would use. I am sorry, but it appears you are not following this conversation. PC makers don't profit from malware. And as I noted before, Microsoft has NO incentive to let malware proliferate. Why? Because Microsoft bashers and the biased IT press already blame Microsoft for the security mess we are in even though it is the badguys, not Microsoft, that put us here. Microsoft does not sell security programs so again, they don't profit from it. In fact, the security situation, again fueled by bashers, have led many users to flock to Linux, Firefox and other alternatives to Microsoft products.

And the very fact Windows 7 is more secure is an indication Microsoft does take security seriously. Also, the improved security of IE8 and now IE9 - plus the improved Windows Firewall, and the free Microsoft Security Essentials all demonstrate Microsoft's anti-malware efforts.

Just as it is no longer appropriate to blame the current version of NIS for the sins of previous versions, we cannot blame Microsoft, or PC makers for the security situation badguys put us in.

I'm not bashing microsoft. It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts. I thoroughly enjoy using microsoft products, and I have spent about $18000 on windows 7 30-packs so far this year to upgrade used but relatively new computers to windows 7 for resale, and for installation in computers I've built myself, but some of microsoft's business practices are less than honorable to say the least.. and my experience with people in general is they don't change. They may apologize for wrongdoing when they get caught and even stop for a while, but when somebody gets away with something more than once.. they're going to find another way to do it again after they get caught.
Microsoft, computer manufacturers, and internet security software companies have plenty of incentive to allow malware to proliferate.. for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded.. for companies like Symantec.. it's also matter of survival, if they ever created a product that didn't allow new, unrecognized malicious software to enter the system, nobody would ever need to buy their newest version.
Now if you want to stick your head in the mud and ignore reality that is your choice, but the facts remain

It's not bashing something to make a statement based in facts.

Okay, What are the facts then? You have stated none that are applicable or valid.

for Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, and computer manufacturers.. every new, more inherently secure computer means a new windows license and a new subscription to the security software that is almost always manditorily preloaded..

No! That is simply wrong - totally invalid! New windows license? What does that have to do with security? You are just bashing! The fact a new computer needs a new Windows license has absolutely nothing to do with security, malware, or subscriptions to security software. And neither does Microsoft's past lousy (I agree with your there) business practices. I am sorry, but you are simply bashing Microsoft for bashing's sake. You are making connections where no connections are warranted. As a clear example of your biases, the fully capable MSE is totally free.

My head is not buried in the sand. I'm standing tall and my eyes are wide open and looking around at today's security environment.

Don't get me wrong - I have and will bash Microsoft again - when due! Their strong armed marketing practices of the past are something I, as long time builder and supplier of custom built PCs, have complained about plenty, on forums like this, and to Microsoft. But Microsoft has made a turnaround in terms of their stance on security since unjustly enduring over 10 years of bashing for XP. And I say unjust because it was. XP was designed to support insecure, legacy, DOS era hardware and software because users (mostly corporate) insisted it should as they did not want to have to pay to retool again, as they did with Win95. Microsoft started this turnaround with XP SP3. Then the purchase of Giant Antispyware (renamed to Windows Defender), which they then gave away free. Then IE7, 8, and now 9, continue to increase security. Windows Firewall is an excellent firewall, and free. And again MSE has continued to garner excellent test results and is free too.

Once again, Microsoft does not sell anti-malware software. They see no benefit when a computer gets infected. You are 100% right about Symantec and McAfee, but you cannot lump Microsoft with them. They are totally different entities.

madtownidiot said:

very interesting idea.. I tried it using the comodo sandbox and it works.. even lets me upload pics..
Attachment 105573Attachment 105574

Seems comodo is doing a good job too

been trying to find some malware sites.. to test that too