Adobe and Symantec Sparked the EU's Probe of Vista

[Bio-Hazard]

Adobe and Symantec voiced their concerns about Vista to the European Union


DailyTech has been on top of Microsoft's battles with the European Union (EU) over the course of the past few months. Microsoft was slapped with a $634 million USD fine in 2004 by the EU and was then hit with another $357 million USD fine this past July (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3266) for not complying with antitrust rulings. And just last week we learned that the EU was once again after Microsoft to remove the included security features from Vista (http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4137) which are there to make the operating system more secure.
Today we have learned that two companies are the driving force behind the EU inquisition: Adobe and Symantec. According to The Wall Street Journal, the two companies have been lobbying the EU to strip Vista of features to help them compete better in the marketplace (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93590/93590.html?Ad=1).
Adobe is concerned that Microsoft's XPS (XML Paper Specification), which is freely available to use and create, will be going toe-to-toe with its PDF creation software which Adobe charges for. Adobe already won the first battle in this war as Microsoft agreed to remove native support (http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2662) for “Save to PDF” and “Save to XPS” options from Office 2007. The two features are available, however, for download from Microsoft’s Download Center (http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4104). Symantec, on the other hand has a whole host of issues with Vista. Windows IT Pro reports:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4259

[Das Capitolin]

Gee, after reading the article I am not sure which companies business practice I dislike more now.

[XJnine]

I can understand Adobe complaining about the Save to PDF function but they should have no influence over the Save to XPS option.

[Enigmachine]

Maybe I should disable save to pdf in all my software, that should make people want to use Acrobat, right? Sheesh.

Once again I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that Acrobat today is just as slow to load and use as it was 10 years ago, but computers are much faster. Hurray for propriatory formats...

[Kougar]

Why use Adobe... I've found FoxItReader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php) to have much less bugs, use almost no resources and open PDFs faster than Adobe Reader or Acrobat ever would. I didn't know a new one was out though, I'll have to try it.

Now this is exactly what I was expecting to see. I can't possible see the advantage to anyone other than Symantec's profits for doing this:

The firm alleges that Microsoft's Security Center console in Windows Vista should be replaceable by third party software, despite the fact that Security Center can be populated with links to third party products, including Symantec's. Microsoft is even allowing Symantec and other third parties to brand Security Center with their own logos and icons. Symantec has also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been forced to patch the Windows kernel because so much malicious software does so as well. That process will not be possible in Windows Vista, which should make the system more secure. Symantec wants it removed.

[Das Capitolin]

FoxItReader is great, although I still use Acrobat Pro to make PDF's. On that same note, I have grown increasingly displeased with Acrobat silently opening and consuming 40Mb+ resources in the background every time I browse the web.

[Kougar]

Agreed! Not to mention back when I was using Adobe products I was also firmly stuck to IE... and I'm sure most of the people here can recall how good Adobe's software was with locking or crashing IE windows... :roll:

[Enigmachine]

That FoxItReader looks interesting, the limitations to the free version are quite decent, especially considering you have to pay a bunch to do the same with Acrobat. I haven't checked how compatible it is with all pdf features, but I will definitely download & try it out.

As far as Symantec is concerned, whenever I find Symantec stuff on someone's machine, I always try to convince them to remove it and use something better. I guess now we have proof that they don't actually have their customers' best interests at heart.

Sooooo... if MicroSoft listens to these people and they make the Kernel PatchGuard optional, will all the kernel viruses & trojan that decide to patch the kernel on their own thank Symantec by sending them our credit card information?

[vfrex]

I love FoxItReader. Acrobat browser plugins have so many issues.

[Kasrkin Guard]

My experiences with acrobat have not been that great either with the slow loading, resource hogging, and so on... So I'm on the same boat pretty much on that, however.....

Why use Adobe... I've found FoxItReader (http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php) to have much less bugs, use almost no resources and open PDFs faster than Adobe Reader or Acrobat ever would. I didn't know a new one was out though, I'll have to try it.

Seems like there is an alternative to everything eventually these days. You sir, have my thanks for linking to a much better alternative. :mrgreen:

[GIBSON]

Well, I think we can all agree on this one, Adobe reader sucks big time! Hell, IMO the whole PFD thing sucks. In my eyes it's just plain gay. Anyhow, I didn't knew there was something like that foxit app, until now I have been using something called pdf speed up or so that removes all the crap that bugs you whenever you start an unaltered acrobat reader.
That put aside, I think what symantec is doing is ridiculous. It's not really weird though. They have been making money out of windows' security problems for a long time (while everyone has been making a mockery out of windows' security). And now microsoft finally does something about it in their next OS and they are all like, "OMG no, you can't make a safe OS, don't you people have a heart!!!"
Bottomline is, vista will make an end (maybe for a short period who knows) to their business. So what symantec is doing is basically asking microsoft to leave vulnerabilities in their OS so it can be exploited and so symantec can charge people money to fix it.

[Enigmachine]

Was it Symantec or Norton that actually started selling their antivirus before the software was even started? I can never remember which. I know I read that in an old book on worms & viruses, in 1991 or so...

[vfrex]

According to wikipedia, it was founded in 1982. I'm pretty sure that there were proof of concept viruses long before then, but according to wikipedia, the first "in-the-wild" viruses surfaced in 1982.

[GIBSON]

Was it Symantec or Norton that actually started selling their antivirus before the software was even started? I can never remember which. I know I read that in an old book on worms & viruses, in 1991 or so...
Norton is a product name. The company is symantec.

[vfrex]

They have been making money out of windows' security problems for a long time (while everyone has been making a mockery out of windows' security). And now microsoft finally does something about it in their next OS and they are all like, "OMG no, you can't make a safe OS, don't you people have a heart!!!"

Can you really blame them? They are a company that has been "plugging" (Perhaps I should say attempting to plug) Microsoft's security issues for over 20 years. They employ hundreds, if not thousands of programmers, techies, designers, marketing staff, and others. Microsoft has decided to wake up and care about security, which is GOOD for most people. But it isn't good for Symantec, it isn't good for their shareholders, and it isn't good for their employees.

I'm not saying Symantec's claims aren't a stretch, but they are trying to defend themselves the only way they really can here.

[GIBSON]

Can you really blame them? They are a company that has been "plugging" (Perhaps I should say attempting to plug) Microsoft's security issues for over 20 years. They employ hundreds, if not thousands of programmers, techies, designers, marketing staff, and others. Microsoft has decided to wake up and care about security, which is GOOD for most people. But it isn't good for Symantec, it isn't good for their shareholders, and it isn't good for their employees.

I'm not saying Symantec's claims aren't a stretch, but they are trying to defend themselves the only way they really can here.

Hence why I wrote
It's not really weird though.

However this doesn't mean that a company can oblige another company to make a bad product as to not lose it's business. They can try, but obviously, the other company won't do that.

[Kougar]

I'm still wondering why the fuss. Vista will be the most secure Windows to date. It will also continue to get hacked and attract bugs worse than a summer outhouse in 120 degree heat, simply because half the world or more uses it or it's companion Longhorn. So it's not like Symantec's river dried up or will shrink appreciably...

I'll give McAfee a plug here just because I don't like Symantec: McAfee has been offering a free copy (http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/downloads/beta/beta_mcafee/vse.html) of their beta Windows Vista anti-vrius and anti-spyware programs for months now. I personally have used Mcafee Enterprise for a long time, and much prefer the very simple no frills interface and very functional program.

Edit: Arstechnica mentioned this little tidbit:

For its part, Microsoft wants the EU to sign off on Vista in advance so that it doesn't face antitrust issues down the road. The Commission won't do it, though, claiming that it is simply a regulator, not a group authorized to certify that new products won't create problems. The Commission's response to Microsoft has been, in essence: roll the dice and take your chances. Source (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7799.html)

[vfrex]

I love the A/V makers logic; bloat and crap for the regular consumers. No frills, no bloat on the corporate/professional version. I guess it makes sense. I'll continue using free stuff :p