The reader submitting to Ed Foster wrote “Since NAV 2006 had coexisted with Spy Sweeper and Zone Alarm Pro without a problem, the reader wondered whether the NAV installation message was correct. “I tried ignoring the warning message, but the installation wouldn’t proceed,” the reader wrote. “The obvious solution, as Symantec’s reps explained it when I called them, would be for me to abandon both of my non-Symantec stalwarts in favor of their bloated Internet Security package. The first rep simply said that the message was accurate and that Zone Alarm and Spy Sweeper would have to go. The second told me that the two programs would conflict with the spyware protection and firewall that were part of Norton AV 2007. I assumed that to be wrong, because if it were true, what would be the point of spending more money for Norton Internet Security?”

This of course raises the possiblity that these programs are purposely being designed to disable a competitors program from operating.

The original post seems to just assume that Microsoft’s questioned actions will make Windows more secure. If Microsoft’s actions do lock out some antivirus products or constrain their ability to protect users, then security may suffer. (Whether third-party programs can download and run is only part of the question. Once they’re downloaded and running, how much latitude do they have to protect the user?) Only a detailed, technically sophisticated examination of what Microsoft is doing can tell us whether the company’s actions will improve security. To just assume the result of that analysis is to ignore the most important question here.