It's Symantec's job to scare you into buying their after-the-fact product instead of Microsoft's after-the-fact product.

Fortunately for Symantec, Leyden forgot that Norton AV ALSO failed the Virus Bulletin 100 tests here, though he wrote that himself earlier:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/05/vista_security_criticisms/

Also see:

http://www.vmyths.com/column/1/2007/4/4/

And you can have all this after-the-fact security-blanket software even though Vista's more than capable of stopping this stuff before the fact, as can XP and 2K:

http://antiwindowscatalog.com/?mode=rant&id=5

That is, of course, if you're smart enough to let them.

"Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia said the software would deliver deeper integration"

Oops. Doesn't that mean that when (not "if) the major security holes in Forefront are discovered, they can be exploited to compromise an entire enterprise through a single point of entry?

Hasn't Microsoft learned *anything* about security in the past decade? Oh, never mind, silly question. After all, Marketing is far more important than actual product functions.

... hasn't anyone posted an analogy with "Foreskin" yet...?

So, if after having installed Forefront, the user feels that

- many people who have it don't want it;

- it's largely useless; and...

- there's evidence that life is more pleasurable without it, then...

...maybe someone will?