Wow, there was so much more to that anti-trust cry then just the anti virus part. m$ blocked other programs from running and/or from running correctly, Netscape ring a bell?.
As I said, Microsoft was trying to rule the world - but that was not the point. The point was, they wanted to put AV code in XP from the beginning, but Congress and the EU shot them down - and for the wrong reasons and that was a huge mistake. And the politicians know that now which is why they are not threatening to break up MS anymore.
And note Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky, Norton, McAfee, etc. aren't whining and crying monopoly anymore either - because they are getting filthy rich milking unsuspecting consumers who believe all their (and the Microsoft bashers) hype that WD is not good enough.
Most AVs did not prevent machines from WannaCry
True. But as you, me and others
correctly noted several times, it would not have mattered if those users
simply allowed Windows Update on those systems to update the systems.
IF Microsoft failed to patch that vulnerability in a timely manner, or the patch failed, then I think it fair to praise those products that covered the vulnerability. Otherwise, meh!
I'm gonna guess that win7 has more victims because of the refusal to have the upgrade to Win10 shoved down their throats. The sole reason for win7 users to disable windows update.
The sole reason? No way! Folks have been disabling WU ever since WU was introduced in Vista. And with W7, long before W
8 came about. The W10 upgrade was just one reason for those people who felt they had to have total control.
But that was almost 2 years ago and almost a year since the nagging update icon was disabled when the free update period ended. And of course, there were tutorials everywhere on how to
get rid of the Get Windows 10 icon anyway. So disabling WU for that reason was no excuse. And certainly no excuse to keep it disabled.
For the "Mr Smart Guy" who disables Windows Updates or runs without an anti-malware solution because he truly believes his experience, a degree or two, or some certs makes him smarter than the Microsoft developers and the bad guys, then he is more arrogant than smart - and likely graced with dumb luck too.
But for the "Mr Smart Guy" who really is smart and disciplined he (or she) can greatly minimize (but not totally prevent) the risk of infection when not using an anti-malware solution - but as noted way back in post #19, that still requires keeping Windows updated in a timely fashion, staying away from illegal activity, and avoid being click-happy. But only if he or she is the only user of that computer and on their network. And they still need a bit of luck too.
I can understand some folks "delaying" installing updates for a few days while they "listen for fallout" in the oft chance an update starts breaking things. But 2 months? Or indefinitely? That's just not smart.
Yeah, people get annoyed by the inconvenience and that is Microsoft's fault: not for doing it but not explaining the risks clearly and concisely what the potential consequences are of failing to update (e.g. ransomware).
And Microsoft is listening. It is simple to schedule reboots during your own "off hours" - like 3:30AM. I never get interrupted with update notifications or requests to reboot. And after you install the new Creators Update in W10, you can delay installing updates for up to 35 days if you really want. You can also tighten even more "privacy" settings - such as location settings and more.
But people really do need to understand
and accept the difference between privacy and security. The difference is huge! Microsoft protects our security and is no where near the biggest threat to our privacy. Now that our illustrious leaders in Congress have rolled back the FCC's regulations protecting our privacy by allowing ISPs to sell information about our online habits, we have no privacy any more. For privacy fanatics, Microsoft is not your enemy. Your
ISP, Google and Facebook are. And maybe your elected representatives too.
