John Dvorak makes a really good point. I would wonder what the legal implications of releasing software that has security issues with it and then making a user pay to make it secure?
Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell “protection”?
I’m currently Beta testing Microsoft OneCare. It’s currently free, but the plan is to charge for it. I wouldn’t pay for it. In fact, I think that OneCare and Microsoft
AntiSpyware Defender should be wrapped up with Windows.
[tags]onecare, beta test, microsoft, racket, john dvorak, download squad, pc magazine, defender[/tags]0