[crimsonsky]

On my Lenovo S10 netbook it is working just fine. I was using Avast! before, but this seems to be much less resource intensive. I can't help but wonder when the day will come when MS builds this into the OS.

[crimsonsky]

On my Lenovo S10 netbook it is working just fine. I was using Avast! before, but this seems to be much less resource intensive. I can't help but wonder when the day will come when MS builds this into the OS.

[Chris Gohlke]

I loaded it on my Acer Aspire One today with no problems. I think I forgot to remove Spybot from my Vista machine, so that might have been the cause of the problem I was having. I'll try again and report back.

[doogald]

Originally Posted by crimsonsky

On my Lenovo S10 netbook it is working just fine. I was using Avast! before, but this seems to be much less resource intensive. I can't help but wonder when the day will come when MS builds this into the OS.

It was, of course, this very thing (bundling what had been products into DOS/Windows) that got Microsoft into the consent decree in 1993. It's funny that the same people who were all over Microsoft during the anti-trust case ten years ago are celebrating how great it is that they are making an excellent security product now . . .

[Chris Gohlke]

Originally Posted by doogald

It was, of course, this very thing (bundling what had been products into DOS/Windows) that got Microsoft into the consent decree in 1993. It's funny that the same people who were all over Microsoft during the anti-trust case ten years ago are celebrating how great it is that they are making an excellent security product now . . .

The big difference now is that it is not bundled and installed by default. Although, I think you could make the argument that security software is so essential, and needs to be installed immediately that the public benefit of an integrated product outweighs the potential monopoly.

Also, I reinstalled after removing spybot and still the same lockups.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by doogald

It's funny that the same people who were all over Microsoft during the anti-trust case ten years ago are celebrating how great it is that they are making an excellent security product now . . .

Indeed...though I don't think Symantec or anyone else has a legitimate complaint unless Microsoft starts to include it within Windows. They can go as far as making it an optional Windows Update component and stay clear of any problems IMO. What will be really interesting is if companies such as Dell and HP start to bundle the MS AV product instead of the bloated piles of crud from McAfee, Symantec, etc. To be fair, the newest Symantec product looks pretty decent!

[doogald]

According to Microsoft's current consent, they could actually bundle as long as they allowed the OEMs to remove the feature (perhaps to install something else.) I believe that the consent decree was recently extended to 2011.

[Phillip Dyson]

I'm currently running Eset's Nod32 on my laptops at home and love it. Though its not free. Its an annual subscription.

Perhaps I'll recommend this to my Mom.

Is there any information about how this compares to the commercial offerings?

[doogald]

I'm also interested in one thing: with OneCare, when any update downloads were interrupted, it would restart the update from scratch, rather than picking up where it left off. It's not a big deal for people with broadband, but my mother-in-law still lives in where she must use dial-up (even 3G modems do not work any faster than dialup there), and I had installed OneCare, only to find that it was constantly out of date, as each time she disconnected, she lost the update it was pushing. I'd love to know if this product does this differently (i.e., it can restart downloads at the point where connection was lost.)

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Phillip Dyson

Is there any information about how this compares to the commercial offerings?

I think we'll have to wait for the people who collect virii to test it out and see how good it really is...I'm not one of those people.