Microsoft is the reason why we need protection because of the massive security holes they build into their products.
Actually, the reason we need protection for M$ is because M$ os were the ones attacked. All software had holes, but nobody cared. In fact, that was why security features were installed for games made for the Atari. But, I'm using the "Microsoft Security Essentials" because it's free, doesn't need registration, is very light and is completely integrated. Well, it also seems to be logical to use M$ to combat the people who attack it. Who would know better where the holes were or could be than the people who made it? Who'd be the most interested in making sure that it was successful? And, if something goes wrong, who'd know about it first and want to fix it soonest? Other anti-spyware solutions "depend" on people attacking M$, anyway.
The biggest risk with using the MSE kit is that people might be afraid that M$ is hacking them. Or, that the people who work on development will go rogue or sell secrets. But that's true of Kapersky, AVG. Avira, Norton. So, it makes sense to me if an operating system also integrates a firewall, anti-spyware, anti-adware/malware, etc., rather than putting together a suite from various sources. Though, in this case, that's probably what M$ did anyway. The biggest difference between the MSE and others is that it can only work on M$ systems.
Besides, I've got plenty of backup. Every time I upgrade a drive, I use the old one to install an os "just in case." Then I set them aside or just disconnect them if something goes wrong or gets badly infected.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
