Sunday, November 23, 2008

Microsoft Kills OneCare to Offer Freebie; So Long, Norton


RIP: McAfee, Symantec, and Trend Micro -- at least in the consumer market.
Microsoft has announced it'll discontinue the retail version of its Windows Live OneCare security suite, effective June 30, 2009, and offer "Morro," a free, stripped-down anti-malware app instead.
This is good news for Windows users everywhere, particularly those in emerging markets, where antivirus and antispyware usage is quite low. For folks in the developed world, Morro means the end of bloated security software and annual protection fees -- usually $20 to $50 -- that keep viruses, spyware, rootkits, Trojans, and other online offenders at bay. Morro will be available in mid-2009 as a free download for Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.
The biggest losers here are the major security software developers, including McAfee; Symantec, maker of the Norton line; and Trend Micro. For years they've run a profitable business selling antimalware programs to consumers, but now that market is essentially dead. Good riddance, I say. These programs were resource hogs-each year getting bigger, slower, more bloated, and adding system utilities and other add-ons that had nothing to do with security. (To be fair, some of these tools, such as Norton Antivirus, have slimmed down recently.)
Security should be a core feature of any operating system. Microsoft, whatever its true intentions, is doing the right thing here. I'm not saying that Morro will be perfect -- no security software is -- but it'll probably be good enough for most home and many small business users. Redmond has too much at stake here to put out a garbage security app. Apple's been gaining market share, in large part due to the Mac's ability to deliver a relatively malware-free experience.
Of course, McAfee and Norton fans will still be able to use their security suites, although I'm not sure why they'd want to. And free alternatives like AVG Anti-Virus programs will still be around, at least for awhile.

Why I Didn't Skip Microsoft Vista: Security

It's been a hard road for Microsoft's Windows Vista, but even though negative perceptions have followed the operating system since its release, recent data and positive user feedback show a glimmer of hope for Microsoft that Vista's ship is turning around.
Microsoft's recent Security Intelligence Report shows that Windows Vista was more resistant to exploits than Windows XP in the first half of 2008.
In addition, veteran Microsoft blogger Ed Bott recently ran some numbers and concluded that Vista has a security edge over Windows XP.
Another security report, from last month, by Jeff Jones, Security Strategy Director in the Microsoft Security Technology Unit, cites that Windows Vista was affected by 50 percent fewer vulnerabilities than other desktop operating systems in the first half of 2008 and had 19 percent fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP SP2 in the same time period.
Security reports from Microsoft touting its own operating system have been met with endless debate over the metrics used to crown Vista the most secure operating system.
Nevertheless, some IT professionals contacted for this article who have upgraded or are upgrading to Vista point to the OS's security as a major plus as compared to Windows XP.
(For the IT viewpoint from the other side, see our recent article "Why I'm Skipping Vista").
Vista Offers Better Search, Better Security
"The two features of Vista that are significantly better than Windows XP are security and search," says Scott Noles, Director of Technology and Education at Kinex Medical Center, a post-operation rehabilitation facility in Waukesha, Wis.
Kinex, an early adopter of Windows Vista, currently has it installed on 90 desktops, 22 laptops and is in the process of installing Vista on 170 tablet PCs.
Noles says the security features built into Vista's Windows Security Center, including the notorious UAC (User Account Control), have proved effective in protecting his users' desktops. "With Vista we can keep unwanted software and configurations out of our environment without needing third-party tools and with less effort than in previous versions of Windows."
A big part of Noles' job at Kinex Medical Center is making it easier to track and find patient data, and the search capabilities in Vista are more user-friendly and faster than those in XP, he says.
"Vista's ability to find files, applications and pieces of data whether it is in e-mail, network shares or on the local computers has allowed our employees to be more efficient."
Farther south, Jim Osteen, Assistant Director of IT for the City of Miami, is in the process of upgrading to Windows Vista. Currently, Osteen has Vista installed on 100 workstations, with a goal of 900 workstation installations by September, 2009.
Osteen agrees that Vista's search and security features exceed XP's, adding that he believes Microsoft's response times to new security threats in Vista are the best in the industry.
The City of Miami's switch to Vista coincides with its move from a mainframe environment to a Windows Server environment and also a move to a centralized storage infrastructure, he says. Vista's data backup features can do automatic incremental data replication much better than XP, Osteen says. "The replication model of XP was causing bottlenecks," he added.
Osteen expects to save $80,000 in power savings through the use of Vista's GPOs (group policy objects), which enable quick transitions between a computer's active and sleeping states. "Windows Vista has improved sleep mode; with XP, we were always turning computers on, wasting energy and money," he says.
Vista Not Perfect, But We Can't Wait Two Years
Noles and Osteen are not immune to the negative perceptions about Windows Vista. But both attribute most of the negativity to lack of education and testing by users.
With any operating system, Noles says, there are good items and bad items, and the key for businesses is to do complete testing to see if an OS is a good match.
"When we participated in the Vista beta program we tested the operating system in all areas of our business," Noles says. "We were not listening to the press, but testing to make up our own minds whether we wanted to move forward with it. From testing we determined that Vista would be effective in our environment."
Not that Vista has been perfect for either Noles or Osteen. Both have had driver compatibility problems and are disappointed in how long it has taken third-party vendors to release software and hardware that works effectively with Vista.
But Osteen notes that he has seen reliability and compatibility improvements since the release of Vista Service Pack 1 last February.
Did either of them consider skipping Vista and waiting for its successor, Windows 7?
A company can always wait for the next generation, Noles says, but in the end it will still have to change.
"Windows Vista is a complete architecture change, so migrating to it earlier will allow us to go to Windows 7 more effectively," he says. "We will have some of the growing pains out of the way."
Osteen adds: "Windows 7 seems like a service pack for Vista with a different interface. Plus, we're on a tight timeframe. We can't wait two years for Windows 7."

Kaspersky Lab Anti-Virus 7.0 (Electronic Software Distribution)

Price Range $29.95
- $59.95 (1 sellers)

Microsoft to Launch IE8 in '09; RC Due out in Q1

Microsoft Thursday said it would issue a release candidate (RC) for Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) in the first three months of 2009, indicating it will ship its newest browser sometime in the first half of the year.
"We will release one more public update of IE8 in the first quarter of 2009, and then follow that up with the final release," Dean Hachamovitch, the general manager overseeing IE8, said in an entry to a company blog.
The current version is Beta 2, which was released in late August.
If Microsoft's past performance is an indicator, the final of IE should launch in the first half of 2009. Its last major update, IE7, hit release candidate status in late August 2006, and shipped as a final version in mid-October of that year, a span of just under two months. Even if Microsoft pushes the release candidate of IE8 to users in March 2009, it should still be able to manage to ship a final edition by the end of June.
Hachamovitch said the IE8 release candidate would be the final, more or less. "We want the technical community of people and organizations interested in Web browsers to take this [release candidate] update as a strong signal that IE8 is effectively complete and done. They should expect the final product to behave as this update does." He went on to urge site and Web service developers to test their work against the release candidate when it ships.
As other Microsoft officials have done since IE8 first appeared, Hachamovitch declined to set a specific date, however. "Our plan is to deliver the final product after listening for feedback about critical issues," he said. Previously, all that the company would commit to was a release prior to the launch of Windows 7, which in turn has been pegged for late 2009 or even early 2010.
Although several people who left comments on Hachomovitch's blog applauded the disclosure of the rough timeline, others thought Microsoft is moving too fast.
"'We listen,' 'We are listening,' 'We've heard you,' and other stupid marketing sentences..., you've just heard nobody," said a user identified only as Oliver. "Where's beta3? Beta2 was unusable and crashed all the time, so we can't test it. Please give us a testable beta before a release candidate."
"This has been said many times before, so I'll make it simple," added Jason Ashdown in another comment to the post. "We want a Beta 3! Beta 2 was nowhere near the quality we expected. Before getting to a [Release Candidate], we want to get the last set of bugs reports before you get to RC1. Closing the door now would be a horrible mistake."
Although IE continues to dominate the browser market, relatively few people are trying the preliminary versions of IE8, according to Web metrics firm Net Applications Inc. IE8 accounted for just 0.58% of all browsers used last month, Net Applications reported. As a comparison, Google Inc.'s Chrome, which was released about a week after IE8 Beta 2, and is in beta testing itself, accounted for 0.78% of the browsers used in October.
#resourceLinks li {
display: none;
}
Sponsored Resource:Ten quick fixes for the worst security nightmares

Dell Dell Latitude E6400 Laptop Computer (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.40GHz, DDR2 SDRAM 1.00MB, GB)


Price Range $899.00
- $899.0 (1 sellers)

Intel's New Core 2 Duo Processors Run Blazingly Fast in PC World Tests

Exclusive PC World tests show that PCs equipped with Intel's new Core 2 Duo processors, formerly code-named Conroe, set new high marks for desktop performance--they're the fastest we've seen by far.
With this chip line, which formally launched on July 27, Intel decisively reclaims the power desktop crown from competitor AMD.
AMD recently introduced aggressive price cuts, lowering the cost of its Athlon 64 FX-62 from $1031 to $827, while mainstream chips like the 2.4-GHz Athlon 64 X2 4600+ dropped from $558 to $240. In response, Intel also lowered the prices of older desktop processors.
Testing, Testing
In our WorldBench 5 test suite, Intel's Core 2 Duo reference system outscored a matching system equipped with AMD's high-end Athlon 64 FX-62 chip by 17 percent. We also tested shipping PCs based on several chips in the Core 2 Duo family, including a water-cooled, overclocked ABS machine that posted a mark of 181 on our WorldBench 5 test--the highest WorldBench score we've ever seen. (See PC World's detailed test results and chart. For full reviews of five new Core 2 Duo-based systems, click the product names in the results chart.)
All of our Core 2 Duo configurations performed impressively, and the higher-end models in particular should allow power users to handle demanding multimedia work on their PCs more quickly and to perform multiple computing tasks at once more efficiently. Gaming, too, will receive an impressive boost from systems equipped with the new chips.
Though its new products are good news for users, things are different for some Intel employees, as the company announced the layoff of 1000 management employees.
The Core 2 Duo Line
The Core 2 Duo processor line ranges from the 1.86-GHz E6300 chip ($183) with 2MB of cache to the 2.93-GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800 chip ($999) with 4MB of cache; all have a 1066-MHz system bus. (Intel leaves the "Duo" designation off of its X6800 CPU.)
Though Core 2 Duo chips use the same Socket 775 interface as current Pentium 4 and Pentium D chips, they require new chip sets, so you'll have to get a new motherboard--you can't just pop a Core 2 Duo chip into your existing Intel-based PC and reap the tremendous performance gains. The Core 2 Duo reference systems we tested used a motherboard with Intel's 975X Express chip set (boards using the P965 Express chip set will also be available); nVidia and ATI have their own Core 2 Duo boards as well.
The new processors and systems will be on sale from various vendors beginning July 27, with some configurations of Core 2 Duo machines checking in at surprisingly reasonable prices.

First Tests: AMD's Phenom CPU Won't Scare Intel

AMD's new CPU has impressive technology but turns in disappointing performance. Can AMD remain competitive if its high-end processor isn't much faster than a year-old Intel CPU?
Jon. L. Jacobi, PC World



AMD's new Phenom processors and Spider platform for desktop systems incorporate some impressive steps forward for the chip maker. The chips, which are made using a 65-nanometer manufacturing process, feature both a native quad-core design and enhanced power-management technology. But when we ran a Phenom- and Spider-based computer through our lab, the results revealed that AMD still has a lot of work to do.
Problems Already?
AMD sent unlocked versions of its 2.6-GHz Phenom 9900 chip to reviewers, but that model likely won't be available on the market until well into the first quarter of 2008, at an expected cost below $350. Until then, the fastest Phenom chips that you'll be able to find are the 2.2-GHz Phenom 9500 ($251 to OEMs) and the 2.3-GHz Phenom 9600 ($283).
A sub-$300 2.4-GHz 9700 chip is scheduled to ship in the first quarter as well, and an unlocked, overclockable Black Edition 2.3-GHz Phenom should be available by the time you read this.
Though both the 9500 and the 9600 appear to be widely available now, AMD recently owned up to a bug in the first generation of its Phenom and Barcelona chips that can cause systems to lock up when running certain rare software workloads at clock speeds greater than 2.4 GHz. A BIOS upgrade is available as a workaround, but according to enthusiast Web site The Tech Report, the workaround slows performance by up to 10 percent. The faster Phenom processors that the company is preparing for release in the first quarter of 2008 should have this error corrected.
Discouraging Results
Now that we have a Phenom CPU in our labs, we can make better comparisons with test systems built around Intel-based processors (see the chart "Penryn vs. Phenom: Two Different Worlds" at the bottom of this page). Our Phenom test setup used the same supporting components --an nVidia GeForce 8800GTS-based graphics board with 320MB of RAM, two Western Digital WD2500AAJS hard drives in a striped RAID array, and 2GB of DDR2-800 RAM--as our earlier Penryn tests did. We tested our unlocked Phenom at both 2.6 GHz and 2.3 GHz on an Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe motherboard with an AMD 790FX chip set.
When running the Phenom 9900 at 2.6 GHz, our test system posted a score of 107 on WorldBench 6 Beta 2, not all that faster than the average mark of 96 turned in by the systems we've seen based on the last-generation Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU. The E6600, an older chip, goes for $230 from stores such as Newegg.com, compared with the projected $350 price for the 9900.
Of course, the fastest Phenom chip out now is a 2.3-GHz model, and at that speed our test PC's score dropped to 99--not much of an advantage at all for a CPU that costs about $50 more than its aging competition. And there's no comparison to the ultra-high-end Penryn chip we evaluated on the same test bed: That $1000 CPU clocked in at a WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 127. By the time AMD's faster Phenom processors are ready to ship, Intel will likely have mainstream Penryn chips ready to compete.
The first Phenom-based PC we could test--a $999 CyberPower Gamer Ultra CF 3870, featuring a 2.3-GHz Phenom 9600 and an ATI Radeon HD 3870 graphics card--didn't fare much better with its score of 95.
AMD currently has no answer to Intel's SSE4 instructions for accelerating specific multimedia operations, which may widen the performance gap further in selected applications. On the other hand, unlike Intel's quad-core models, which are basically two dual-core CPUs using a shared bus interface, Phenom has four distinct cores, which should offer benefits. The performance comparison may evolve as more applications begin taking advantage of multimedia instructions such as SSE and leveraging more than two CPU cores, but given the size of Intel's head start, it's unlikely that AMD will be able to truly close the gap.
At AMD's Phenom launch event in November, we also tested a 2.6-GHz Phenom 9900-based system featuring two of ATI's recently released Radeon HD 3850 graphics cards, an MSI motherboard using AMD's 790FX chip set, and 2GB of DDR2-1066 RAM. On WorldBench 6 Beta 2, AMD's test system received a score of 105, significantly faster than the 93 posted by a Polywell 580CF-2900 with AMD's last-generation 3-GHz Athlon 64 X2 6000+, though not nearly the 32 percent gain that AMD touts. While representing an impressive boost over AMD's previous CPUs, it's nowhere near enough to make Intel sweat.
Penryn vs. Phenom: Two Different Worlds