Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:44PM EST
See Comments (11)
Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin gave a typical press conference yesterday about Vista, but all eyes are focused on one statement he made: That Windows Vista is so secure it won't need antivirus protection.
Whoa whoa whoa... we're talking about Microsoft Windows, right? Where the number of known viruses now numbers over 100,000? Where roughly 1,000 new viruses appear every month? I'm sure Vista has some security improvements (and hopefully those 100,000 viruses won't run on Vista at all), but will they prevent all virus attacks? Doubtful. Earlier this year it was mistakenly reported that Vista had already been hit by its first virus, before the OS had even been released. It turns out the subsystem affected by the virus was later stripped out of Vista, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Vista sees its share of genuine virus attacks just like XP, whether Allchin likes it or not. To think that Allchin is willing to let his own seven-year-old son use Vista without antivirus protection... well, we'll see how long that lasts.
But maybe Allchin is relying on common sense here. Most people can protect themselves reasonably well by using good judgment in not opening suspect attachments or downloading iffy files from the internet, but lest you think viruses are only delivered via spam messages and porn websites, remember this. In recent weeks, Apple shipped iPods preloaded with a Windows virus, and Google sent a virus to thousands of members on one of its mailing lists. Back in 1996, Microsoft itself shipped virus-infected CD-ROMs to 14,000 developers.
Will Windows Vista really be virus-proof? Despite popular rumor, even MacOS and Linux have been hit by viruses, though both have a reputation for being immune from virus attacks. (The big reason there are fewer viruses on these platforms is that they don't have the insane number of users that Windows has, making them less attractive targets for virus writers.) I applaud Microsoft for making efforts to harden its famously holey OS, but encouraging people to go without antivirus seems foolish and irresponsible.
It will be a matter of months before we see whether Allchin's claim holds water. Meanwhile, I put it to you: Would you run Vista without antivirus protection?
Update: On Saturday Allchin "clarified" his remarks.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
i agree that Vista won't bee needing any anti-virus. as long as you don't hook it to the Internet or insert CD, USB or the likes into the computer it'll remain secure.
This is amazing news. Hopefully it is true. Personally, I am not taking any chances. I will maintain my safetynet of anti-virus protection.
I would not run any program without virus protection.
I have to agree with the no's on this one. Operating a computer without antivirus is like going into battle without body armor
Windows Vista does need some sort of anti-virus. I have windows vista and my computer already had a virus and i have only had it for 3 months. SO dont believe a word they say. They are only trying to get you to buy the upgrade. Dont fall for it.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by justavisita on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:44PM EDT Report Abuse
Anyone who's willing to pay $400 for that rubbish deserves to be hit by a virus.