It’s bad enough that Microsoft is getting in to all aspects of security. But now its going to kill off its competitors through predatory pricing,” says Alex Eckelberry of security company Sunbelt. Symantec chief executive John Thompson is also whining. “If all of a sudden the whole world uses the monoculture of Microsoft and the monoculture of Microsoft security capability, I am not sure we would create a more secure world,” he says.

The reason for these outbursts is Microsoft’s full entry into the Windows security software market, with its OneCare offering aimed at consumers and small businesses; and an Enterprise range, called Forefront. Pricing appears more than competitive, so does Thompson have a point?

I am not convinced. It is not as if the current situation is good. In its latest report, analyst Gartner tells us the worldwide antivirus industry is worth over $4bn annually, yet much of this technology is ineffective. Analyst Robin Bloor has a one-person campaign he calls Avid – Antivirus is Dead. His main point is simple. “Signature-based antivirus technology is inadequate, because it fails to protect its users from new viruses for many hours and often several days after they appear,” he writes in his blog.

I endorse Bloor’s campaign. I rarely see Windows PCs without an antivirus product installed, yet this has not solved the security problems of internet-connected computers. Some infections are prevented, but the antivirus software causes problems of its own. Such software needs to get its hooks deep into the system, so performance suffers and bugs can have severe consequences.

Incidents that come to mind include errant antivirus processes absorbing 100 percent of CPU time or creating unlimited numbers of temporary files, in both cases making a business-critical server useless. In addition, users may be falsely reassured by their security software, thinking it protects them from all attacks and causing them to lower their guard when it comes to best practice.

Overall the security industry has let us down. So indeed has Microsoft, as the vendor of the vulnerable software which has caused a large part of the problem, and the creator of a culture in which users run with local admin rights.

While I sympathise to a degree with the security companies now being undercut, because parts of their business are genuinely under threat, there are more important considerations. First, if Microsoft can now mitigate the damage it has done by offering effective security software it should not be impeded. Second, cheap security tools benefit everyone, because it leads to wider adoption. Third, it makes sense to have Microsoft supply Windows security software, since it has the best chance of working properly with the intricate Windows permission system, not slugging performance, and being properly supported when it causes problems.