Security vendors holding off on 64bit Windows

Companies looking to become early adopters of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows x64 Edition operating systems have one more reason to postpone the decision: They may find that their favorite antivirus software no longer works on their new desktops.

Like it's going to make a lot of difference.

Though Microsoft maintains that most software written for older, 32-bit versions of Windows is compatible with the 64-bit version of the operating system, released last April, changes to the core, kernel component of Windows means that certain types of software need to be rewritten for the company's 64-bit versions of Windows.

"Every time that we do a major shift in the kernel any software that runs in kernel mode needs to be rewritten," said Brian Marr, senior product manager in Microsoft's Windows Client group.

With the x64 Editions of Windows, that means that device drivers and antivirus software, in particular, will need to be rewritten. "Beyond that, there aren't too many types of applications that hook into the Windows kernel that deeply," Marr said.

So companies that use products like McAfee Inc.'s Internet Security Suite or Trend Micro Inc.'s PC-cillin Internet Security will have to wait until 2006, when the first x64 Edition products from these companies are expected to ship. Enterprise customers can purchase Symantec Corp.'s AntiVirus Corporate Edition 10.0 product, which supports x64 Windows. Symantec representatives were not able to say whether or not Symantec planned to do a 64-bit version of its antivirus software for small business or home users.

The illegally-maintained monopoly bought out an antivirus company. They had the code they were going to use in the 64-bit garbageware. They had a head start on everybody involved. Why didn't they use their advantage to go ahead and put the other companies out of business? There's little doubt they plan to eventually put other companies out of business by including more stuff in the core product. If that isn't an immediate goal, it would still be an effect. And you can bet that's what they're planning on doing eventually.

They've started including a "firewall". They're already including hokey CD-burning capability. They've had their own file zipping capability for some time. There's been no problem pushing other things into the kernel to make them inseparable from the core, like the browser and filemangler.

Why would they miss this opportunity?

Could it be because they're inept, short-sighted and stupid? If people can't try to protect their machines, are they likely to adopt a 64-bit version? I mean, of course, the early-adopters that are likely to spend the money to get everything moving, not average the John or Jane who probably aren't doing too much to protect what they have now.

Or could it maybe be to act as though that isn't really the goal at all, maybe for convincing courts the world over that they aren't the crooks everybody already knows them to be?

Right before...they come in...for the...kill.

-- NT... the last two letters of "bowel movement."