[url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]

They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
taking on the role of Operating System policeman.

Stephen Toulouse hears that UAC is very acceptable. Symantec hears
otherwise.
It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Toulouse is hearing things that way
unless
sycophants are feeding him what he wants to hear. The UAC needs more work.
If there's a Norton to improve UAC, Microsoft shouldn't be obstructive about
that.

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>
> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>[/color]

How utterly stupid of them.

"UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
this case, that is the user,"

Gee, I thought it was my computer.

Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the same
time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that has any
of their products on it, except to remove them.

steve

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>
> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>[/color]

They could get Peter to commute to the Valley from Oak Bluffs maybe -
like Jobs return to Apple. It would take a big ownership stake, I think.
The relationship between Windows and Norton has been symbiotic.
I hear you say, "parasitic," and feel that's historically inaccurate.

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> How utterly stupid of them.
>
> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
> this case, that is the user,"
>
> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>
> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the same
> time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that has any
> of their products on it, except to remove them.
>
> steve
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>
>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Steve:
With XP Symantec had it's way to control your computer in the way
that it wanted. With Vista this control was taken away and their goal is to
get this control back. The best move that I made was eliminating Symantec,
Norton and McAfee products. I now run Nod32 without problems or excessive
overhead.

--
Dennis Pack
Vista x64 Enterprise
Office 2007
"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> How utterly stupid of them.
>
> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
> this case, that is the user,"
>
> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>
> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
> same time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that
> has any of their products on it, except to remove them.
>
> steve
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>
>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

My favorite line:[color=blue]
>"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
>user's hands."[/color]

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
[url]http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/01/10/symantec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx[/url]

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* [url]http://www.WinVistaInfo.org[/url] *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> How utterly stupid of them.
>
> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
> this case, that is the user,"
>
> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>
> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
> same time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that
> has any of their products on it, except to remove them.
>
> steve
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>
>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>[/color]
>[/color]

In message <A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com> "Steve
Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>How utterly stupid of them.
>
>"UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
>problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
>security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
>this case, that is the user,"
>
>Gee, I thought it was my computer.[/color]

Your first mistake. It's Microsoft's computer, they'll sometimes let
you use it.

Symantec just wants a piece for themselves.

--
Death is life's way of telling you you're fired.

I wasn't referring to a relationship between the two. I was referring to
the crap they load upon the user and fool them to pay for it.

And Peter Norton would be wise to stay far far away, and I'm sure he will.

<G>

And its not just Norton, as the others indicate. Every antivirus program
likes to add scanning email to its features and every one messes up the OE
message store, when that feature is enabled. Fortunately it seems to be
less of an issue in Vista, since the messages are no longer all in one file,
and are thus not as susceptible to mass destruction due to aggressive
antivirus activity.

steve

"Michael Jennings" <metarhyme******.com> wrote in message
news:Oa5%23njPNHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> They could get Peter to commute to the Valley from Oak Bluffs maybe -
> like Jobs return to Apple. It would take a big ownership stake, I think.
> The relationship between Windows and Norton has been symbiotic.
> I hear you say, "parasitic," and feel that's historically inaccurate.
>
> "Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
> news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> How utterly stupid of them.
>>
>> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
>> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we
>> know,
>> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
>> this case, that is the user,"
>>
>> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>>
>> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
>> same
>> time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that has
>> any
>> of their products on it, except to remove them.
>>
>> steve
>>
>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>>
>>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Symantec and Norton are not welcome on any computer I own.
"Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message news:4C94CB44-5611-4B11-B559-08EE7752038B@microsoft.com...
My favorite line:[color=blue]
>"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
>user's hands."[/color]

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
[url]http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/01/10/symantec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx[/url]

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* [url]http://www.WinVistaInfo.org[/url] *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> How utterly stupid of them.
>
> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
> this case, that is the user,"
>
> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>
> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
> same time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that
> has any of their products on it, except to remove them.
>
> steve
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>
>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>[/color]
> [/color]

You know it...I get into letches for cyber utopia all too often!

F-Prot emailed me they'd put something out for Vista. Their vigilance
thingy works and is half the size of NOD's. It doesn't mess with OE.
NOD would be more appropriate for a collection of undergraduates,
but I do not seem to be a collection of undergraduates. I like F-Prot.

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
news:740CF585-267E-4262-A5B5-91FD4EC879DD@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I wasn't referring to a relationship between the two. I was referring to
>the crap they load upon the user and fool them to pay for it.
>
> And Peter Norton would be wise to stay far far away, and I'm sure he will.
>
> <G>
>
> And its not just Norton, as the others indicate. Every antivirus program
> likes to add scanning email to its features and every one messes up the OE
> message store, when that feature is enabled. Fortunately it seems to be
> less of an issue in Vista, since the messages are no longer all in one
> file, and are thus not as susceptible to mass destruction due to
> aggressive antivirus activity.
>
> steve
>
> "Michael Jennings" <metarhyme******.com> wrote in message
> news:Oa5%23njPNHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> They could get Peter to commute to the Valley from Oak Bluffs maybe -
>> like Jobs return to Apple. It would take a big ownership stake, I think.
>> The relationship between Windows and Norton has been symbiotic.
>> I hear you say, "parasitic," and feel that's historically inaccurate.
>>
>> "Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
>> news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> How utterly stupid of them.
>>>
>>> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
>>> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we
>>> know,
>>> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
>>> this case, that is the user,"
>>>
>>> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>>>
>>> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
>>> same
>>> time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that has
>>> any
>>> of their products on it, except to remove them.
>>>
>>> steve
>>>
>>> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>>>
>>>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>>>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

No problems running Symantec at home and MacAfee at Work.
"William" <woogles@charter.net> wrote in message news:OHnp1mRNHHA.3424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Symantec and Norton are not welcome on any computer I own.
"Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message news:4C94CB44-5611-4B11-B559-08EE7752038B@microsoft.com...
My favorite line:[color=blue]
>"I think third-party applications should take the decision out of the
>user's hands."[/color]

I don't want third-party applications to take control of my computer... that
is a security risk in itself. Oh, but that's right, Symantec wants security
holes.

Long live UAC!
[url]http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2007/01/10/symantec-anti-uac-product-is-a-very-bad-idea.aspx[/url]

--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* [url]http://www.WinVistaInfo.org[/url] *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@oehelp.com> wrote in message
news:A8F0A83E-D864-4AFD-B542-5DFD1B541F7E@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> How utterly stupid of them.
>
> "UAC is a great step forward for computer security, in theory. The main
> problem is that it still leaves the power in the user's hands. As we know,
> security technologies are only as strong as (their) weakest link, and in
> this case, that is the user,"
>
> Gee, I thought it was my computer.
>
> Just more ways to make $$$ and subtract value from the consumer at the
> same time. They are real good at that. I won't touch a computer that
> has any of their products on it, except to remove them.
>
> steve
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>>
>> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>>[/color]
> [/color]

Agreed. What a crock! Symantec puts out some of the crappiest software ever
seen from a major vendor. And then they screw up perfectly good software
when they've bought other sw companies. I believe the term I'm looking for
is "Pffflllbbbttttt!"

Lang

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%236LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>
> They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
> taking on the role of Operating System policeman.
>[/color]

On 10/01/2007 in message <#6LlClONHHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> R. McCarty
wrote:
[color=blue]
>[url]http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6148872.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn[/url]
>
>They should focus their attention on their lousy products, before
>taking on the role of Operating System policeman.[/color]

Anything that makes UAC more usable it to be welcomed. It's a pity that MS
programmers don't use Linux at least part of the time to see how things
can be done.

--
Jeff Gaines