Feathering one's nest?

[glowstick]

Woud you not agree that it is in the interests of the preservation of Microsoft et al to have " virus' " out there?

[Walter]

Woud you not agree that it is in the interests of the preservation of Microsoft et al to have " virus' " out there?

If your conspiracy theory is correct then the one of the beneficiaries would be a number of third world countries that get donations from the foundation funded by Bill Gates and managed by his wife. I understand the funding is in the billions thanks to the largesse of persons like you and I.

[Law]

I think that MS is doing well enough that they dont need viruses, Norton on the other hand , well they would be the ones to need them.

[Bogie]

Woud you not agree that it is in the interests of the preservation of Microsoft et al to have " virus' " out there?
Explain your logic ...

"Would you not agree" or "Would you agree"?

I feel that it is in the best interest of MS to NOT have viruses attacking their systems. A moot point, anyway.

[glowstick]

I think( as Law said too) that MS does need the virus' to add to our need for fiewalls, antispyware, and any other security programs that are purchased.

[Tim]

anyone with that much money is gonna need some serious tax write-offs...

Anyway, viruses I think support a very large industry which exists to fix the problems that plague computers.

[glowstick]

I still maintain that computer interests such as MS NEED viruses like hospitals NEED illness!

[Bogie]

I still maintain that computer interests such as MS NEED viruses like hospitals NEED illness!
MS does not need viruses .... period. Any financial interest that they have taken in any anti-malware company has been for self-preservation ... an evil they could do well without.

On the other hand, the anti-virus/anti-trojan/anti-malware industry is built on serving the need for protection. That industry is not going to starve, by any means, as there will always be a need for security protection in computers. If MS, tomorrow, brought out a "perfect" secure OS, then attention would be refocused on Macs, Linux, etc., by the malware creators.

You are implying complicity by MS, and others, in creating viruses for financial gain. Nonsense.

[Rustynut]

I sort of agree with you Bogie, MS does what it can to put out a product relatively secure. However I am sure there are those in the employ of MS that have the attiude contrary to the old addage " if it works, leave it alone" From my experience with large American corporations I find they have the new way of thinking and that is :

" if something works, take it apart, lose some of the pieces so now you have to fix it thereby securing your position in the company."

They can build a better OS, more secure but no matter how secure you make it someone will find a way to defeat it.

[Walter]

No Conspiracy - 8

YES Conspiracy - 1

Guess who......want a hint? Would you like a donut? :hys:

[Tim]

No Conspiracy - 8

YES Conspiracy - 1

Guess who......want a hint? Would you like a donut? :hys:

Don't be so quick on quote button to make such an idiot assumption Walter. I think you should read what I said, and see if you can actually get the point I made, which actually differed from the original post.

And while we're having donuts, maybe some who work in the industry, can comment on how it would affect their employment, if all viruses and all security etc. problems, suddenly vanished.

Make mine a sour cream unglazed old man...