rumors "microsoft might buy symantic"

saakeman · 11 Sep 2010

hi all

i just want to start off saying that i did some reachers about this
and many persons say that they will (if they are going to do it) make it a produc on the market like any other av program that you can buy

i say they must look into this diffrently
like make an spuper av that are already installed on windows ( like windows defender)

into the control panel , that updates with windows updates or if defenisions are avalable
that you configure when you start windows for the first time and forget when you start email , web browse, play games , work
( i mean you might be typing a very importat document and has no time thinking about anti virus)
it must be inside control panel (like windows defender on windows 7)
with norton's blocker
and kaspersky's realtime
with a firewall that are designed with internet explorer 8,9,10 ( like zonealarm forcefeild)
comodos hips
a type of malewarebytes on demand scanner

when you startup your windows for the first time
thy ask you do you want to use it or not (if you have a nother av in mind for that new pc )
when you choose yes , they run you through the config and the way you like it
when you choose no , then you are asked to install other anti virus
i mean like you setup the av
it updates with windows or when needed
it deletes virus
it blocks unsafe sites
it scans
without you even knowing that it is running

like when you go to buy a operating sytem you look at the security
it will be windows with mac's security

Please reply with more support or questions

thanks saakeman

pparks1 · 11 Sep 2010

They aren't going to build in a super AV that is part of Windows. Because if they did, they would be threatened with all kinds of lawsuits from the third party vendors claiming anti-trust and anti-competitive business practices.

saakeman · 11 Sep 2010

pparks1 said:

They aren't going to build in a super AV that is part of Windows. Because if they did, they would be threatened with all kinds of lawsuits from the third party vendors claiming anti-trust and anti-competitive business practices.

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???
and its there software so they may do what they want
i understand if they asked like example they "asked kaspersky lab for the real time"
but otherways id say they could do as they please

pparks1 · 11 Sep 2010

saakeman said:

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

saakeman · 11 Sep 2010

pparks1 said:

saakeman said:

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

your 100% right they will be forced by the law
but i just persons who buy windows for that much money get a nice produc
its like buying windows and right after that you get informed by the action centre that you need an av now you need to go buy av

jimbo45 · 12 Sep 2010

pparks1 said:

saakeman said:

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

Hi there
I think this is where it gets into "dubious" legal waters.

If you are writing an OS you can of course ensure that the KERNEL can take whatever actions it needs to protect itself (and hence you the user) from Viruses and Malware -- so I doubt whether a Court would suscribe to the view that this is "Anti competitive" or runs foul of the anti-trust legislation.

At what point does the code become "An application" that a 3rd party supplier could reasonably offer as a competitve alternative will have the Corporate Suits very profitably employed for months with probably no satisfactory result concluded either.

You could by the same token say that an OS should protect itself by having a decent Backup program included too. It's all about where the boundaries and responsibilities of the OS Kernel itself end and what an application can do and should offer.

If MS wanted to acquire Symantec for reasonably commercial reasons then it would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other business wanting to take over another firm.

In the case of Symantec it would actually make sense to incorporate Backup and AV protection strategies and there is nothing wrong in MS acquiring this type of knowhow to improve its product line (for example MS Backup is really feeble when compared with the commercial opposition).

Until this is properly tested in a Court I suspect MS will go ahead and do what IT thinks best for its business and shareholders anyway - even if they do get fined eventually it will be so small as to make a mockery of the whole legal process anyway.

I doubt also if the US govt would be happy at MS upping stakes and moving out of the country completely -- literally 1000's of job losses at a stroke.

Mr Obama nearly fell for the same trap in ranting against BP before looking at the underlying CAUSE of the problem -- people in the US want CHEAP GAS in their cars --end of story.

I think actually MS would get away with this one if they really wanted to buy Symantec.

I'll keep an eye on the Stockmarket -- MSFT is the epic code. MS currently down a bit at 23.85 USD or so.

Cheers
jimbo

saakeman · 12 Sep 2010

jimbo45 said:

pparks1 said:

saakeman said:

but why did they build windows defender into windows 7 ???

Because Windows defender really isn't an AV product, it scans for malware and adware. And it's very, very basic. Your post talked about making a super-duper product...and that's where they would get into a really sticky situation.

And most people get rid of it when they install Microsoft Security Essentials...which is a download for Windows rather than being included.

Hi there
I think this is where it gets into "dubious" legal waters.

If you are writing an OS you can of course ensure that the KERNEL can take whatever actions it needs to protect itself (and hence you the user) from Viruses and Malware -- so I doubt whether a Court would suscribe to the view that this is "Anti competitive" or runs foul of the anti-trust legislation.

At what point does the code become "An application" that a 3rd party supplier could reasonably offer as a competitve alternative will have the Corporate Suits very profitably employed for months with probably no satisfactory result concluded either.

You could by the same token say that an OS should protect itself by having a decent Backup program included too. It's all about where the boundaries and responsibilities of the OS Kernel itself end and what an application can do and should offer.

If MS wanted to acquire Symantec for reasonably commercial reasons then it would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other business wanting to take over another firm.

In the case of Symantec it would actually make sense to incorporate Backup and AV protection strategies and there is nothing wrong in MS acquiring this type of knowhow to improve its product line (for example MS Backup is really feeble when compared with the commercial opposition).

Until this is properly tested in a Court I suspect MS will go ahead and do what IT thinks best for its business and shareholders anyway - even if they do get fined eventually it will be so small as to make a mockery of the whole legal process anyway.

I doubt also if the US govt would be happy at MS upping stakes and moving out of the country completely -- literally 1000's of job losses at a stroke.

Mr Obama nearly fell for the same trap in ranting against BP before looking at the underlying CAUSE of the problem -- people in the US want CHEAP GAS in their cars --end of story.

I think actually MS would get away with this one if they really wanted to buy Symantec.

I'll keep an eye on the Stockmarket -- MSFT is the epic code. MS currently down a bit at 23.85 USD or so.

Cheers
jimbo

yes , great point jimbo
just remeber this is just my idee of what they could do to make there produc fly through the roof with sales !
and roughly i would recomend them from doing so
as for other av compynies if they want to stay in the game they would hook up with microsoft to make them part of this protection plan

thanks saakeman

Corrine · 12 Sep 2010

The only source I found for that rumor was at Microsoft might buy Symantec - News - Fudzilla, with multiple references back to the same article. I contend that it is a lot of hogwash. Microsoft had a commercial product for home users with Windows Live OneCare and replaced it with the free Microsoft Security Essentials and has the licensed Forefront Client for businesses.

jimbo45 · 12 Sep 2010

Hi Corrine
It might make sense -- especially as Backup particularly is a really weak point in MS'es offering --being non existent in its server ranges which are gradually eating into the Linux market.

Cheers
jimbo

jav · 12 Sep 2010

Corrine said:

The only source I found for that rumor was at Microsoft might buy Symantec - News - Fudzilla, with multiple references back to the same article. I contend that it is a lot of hogwash. Microsoft had a commercial product for home users with Windows Live OneCare and replaced it with the free Microsoft Security Essentials and has the licensed Forefront Client for businesses.

more source: Microsoft rumored to be making an offer for Symantec

Microsoft bidding for Symantec? Why the rumor seems very odd)

Both these and your link refer to "Jefferies & Co. analyst Katherine Egbert"'s statement on VeriSign (VRSN) and Symantec (SYMC):
Security Software: VeriSign “Likely” Deal Target, Jefferies Says - Tech Trader Daily - Barrons.com