Vista doesnt need anti-viral software? Thats what Jim Allchin, co-president of Microsofts platforms and services division, said in a recent phone conference on Vistas release to manufacturing (RTM).
Specifically, according to BetaNews, Allchin said, “Ill give you an example: My son, 7 years old, runs Windows Vista, and, honestly, he doesnt have an antivirus system on his machine. His machine is locked down with parental controls, he cant download things unless its to the places that Ive said that he could do, and Im feeling totally confident about that. That is quite a statement. I couldnt say that in Windows XP SP2.”
He also hedged his statement, “Please dont misunderstand me: This is an escalating situation. The hackers are getting smarter, theres more at stake, and so theres just no way for us to say that some perfection has been achieved. But I can say, knowing what I know now, I feel very confident.”
Why am I reminded of White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin, who said, upon the news that the Titanic was in trouble in the North Atlantic that, “We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.”
Could it be because the security companies like Symantec are already finding basic problems with Vista security?
Could it be because the Yankee Group—a research house that historically has been friendly to Microsoft—said that the intrusive nature of Vistas security will keep IT administrators and users alike from using it?
Could it be because in a recent comparison of anti-spyware programs, Microsofts Microsoft Windows Defender (Beta 2), which is being built into Vista, came in last?
Or, could it be because people are already finding holes in Vista security?