You gotta be kidding me?! Vista is....

Vista turns out to be the most secure operating system now! The article even says to "Forget about Linux and Mac."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-Linux-and-Mac-OS-X-Windows-Vista-the-Most-Secure-Operating-System-58009.shtml

 

what thats a huge shocker i guess they do have the kinks out right now thats why i held out on upgrading

 

Hmmm, biased article???

Just another reason why this OS will have the biggest security breaches of all time...MS is too arrogant to realize there are MAJOR problems that need to be addressed. They should have been addressed before the OS was released.

 

Why are you guys so hard on Windows? This article maybe biased; but the claims are not totally outrageous. Windows has lots of security features in place.

If Linux or OSX had even half the attacks/viruses Windows has, they’d be no better than Vista. Only reason why Linux and OSX can brag about their security is because there are very few attacks.

 

they are so hard on windows/microsoft cuz unlike linux which is mostly open source and OSX which is limited to MAC, Windows is a more widely used OS so while they may have more security attacks, they should expect it and be prepared for it. Unlike Apple, Microsoft don't make their own computers, they're a mainly software based company that built itself on an operating system so they should have more and more people working on closing those security gaps. Same reason why MACs are considered more reliable than PCs, when you have a primary product, you should be expected to perfect it. Microsoft are doing an ok job but the holes in the XP and Vista security walls make you wonder how hard they're really trying.

This article is biased, there are no two ways about it. the guy works for microsoft, you think he would still be working or not demoted for saying linux and OSX are still good options and people shouldnt forget about them? you think he would be allowed to criticize his own company for their problems? lol course not!

 

The article's title reads as follows:

Forget about Linux and Mac OS X - Windows Vista the Most Secure Operating System - According to Microsoft​

In case you didn't notice the smaller text after the title, you mind want to reread it.

Also, even if Vista was more secure than Linux, it wouldn't matter. Linux doesn't necessarily need/I] to be secure at this point... (you don't see Linux viruses floating around too often...)

Matt

 

Hackers and others usually attack the most used OS which is Microsoft and thus gets the most news. They also attack Apple OS. No OS is immune but like I mentioned they will go for the biggest target.

 

We're hard on Windows because they have billions of dollars at their disposal and can't come up with anything better than a handful of hackers can. Linux is MORE secure because not every system is exactly the same. Windows may have security features, but most of their energy was directed at securing users from accessing content, not hackers from accessing computers.

Linux and OSX probably have as many attacks as Windows does (I've looked at my SSH and web logs). But they tend to survive them better, as the only thing that will get you into most Linux distros or OSX machines is a weak password, not a bug in, say, having RPC services listening to the world by default and turned on.

 

Exactly.

Not only do they have billions of dollars and all the resources in the world to create a firm OS, but they've also had 6 years to work on it. Granted, they had to completely start over half-way-through, but that's their fault for underestimating the time it would take to develop Longhorn.

My biggest problem with Microsoft: They can do so much better than they do, yet, as long as the customer pays, they don't care.

Matt

 

not necessarily. microsoft perhaps has the most ideal solution... let's not under estimate their capabilities because there are a lot of things to consider outside microsoft...

for example, if somehow microsoft can build better system, would you pay the price. i mean as we all know it's not the software that work alone... it must coincide or agree with the hardware. remembering what ATI said, they should build a more robust motherboard or chipset design because of the encryption/decryption data exchange from hardware to software - that, is one big reason to consider in better OS and hardware integration. see, there are a lot of things to consider not just Windows OS alone, and this hinders far more sophisticated development for the OS. and as far as i know, most hardware manufacturers complain. but this is it,,,, it's advancement... gotta get along..

a personal statistics report...

 

...do you work for Microsoft or something? Seriously... Vista is NOT an "ideal" solution, except for the people selling it. Treating your customers like criminals should NEVER be ok. ATI makes perfectly robust hardware and chipsets. The problem comes when they need to add stupid "functionality". And encryption WITHIN THE COMPUTER WHILE IT'S OPERATING is a stupid idea. Not data sent over the network, data sent from the processor to the RAM, or from the RAM to the device. It makes the system slower, takes up more resources, is more prone to failure, and... does what? It prevents you from accessing data in your own computer and makes hardware more expensive, all to protect the "interests" of media companies that don't really even represent the artists, and definitely don't represent the best interests of consumers. They represent an entrenched distribution and advertising business, and that's it.

It's not "advancement" in any way except an advancement of how to screw people out of their fair use rights, as well as making them pay more for marginally functional systems. Would you buy a car with 500lbs of lead welded into the frame because the manufacturer owns most repair shops (accidents will cause more damage) and has a financial interest in road construction companies (it'll cause more road damage), just because they make a shinier paint than last year's model? Because that's what's happening with Microsoft.

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. Do some research... it may be enlightening. Hardware manufacturers aren't complaining about having to make new hardware, they're complaining about having to follow stupid rules that make their job harder and more costly, solely for other people's benefit (and not even the consumer's. Other people = Microsoft and media companies).

 

Apple controls all fronts. Hardware, Software, and the integration between the two. This lets them design exactly what needs to be done for that exact hardware.

The problem that normal software has to overcome is that people want to mix and match any number of pieces of hardware and the software has to keep up. This is hard when you see there are hundreds of thousands of configurations if not millions compared to Apple's what, ten or one hundred?

This is not just a problem for Microsoft, it also comes into play with Linux and any other vastly open OS or piece of software.

Microsoft just has one more challenge on top of that...user friendliness. They have to make everything easy to use and familiar to the users and general public where linux can just be obscure and let people use command lines and all that goodness.

The combination of having to be an open software and be user friendly is what I think makes it hard for MS to make a rock solid OS. If you guys used some of Microsoft's server stuff you would know they can make very secure stuff that is just as good as Apple or the like if not better. Problem is this stuff is very advanced and not for the general public.

Finally, Microsoft is the main target because they are the main OS out there. If you were a hacker spending hours making a new virus are you going to target the small percent or the large percent? It is a landslide on to who controls most of the consumer (aka vulnerable) market and thus hackers aim their codes at this percentile.

Honestly I am not biased anywhere. I pick what works best for what I do. I have found Windows has worked the best for me over the years in my areas of work and Vista has also been a smooth transition for me. I spent some time, learned it, and have had no issues at all and think it is superior to XP. Like any new OS though, you have to sit down and learn it and accept its differences. There are things that are done differently thanks to the new kernel and security features. I for one have not had one security issue with Vista and even did a trial of using it with no AV or any 3rd party protection for awhile while it was in beta and did not have one Virus or issue (not recommended, but I was testing and seeing what it could do).

My thing with the OS game is this:
"Use what you want, Use what works best for you, but please dont rip on what others use and what works for them"

I accept Apple users even though I do not like OSX, I accept linux users even though I am not comfortable using it full time, I accept windows users even though windows is not the answer to all.

 

no I don't work for Microsoft. i see some exaggerations about the criminality things and that. And the "screw" things. please don't comment further on windows/vista if you are not using it and do not harm other people of saying these thoughts as they have their own judgement. have you heard of me saying Linux is crap... i often appreciate the way Linux community is doing... but what are you doing in return... you think the Linux community will appreciate this. I think I am the one who must complain. and yes i always utter windows has its own shortcomings too.

i never said anything about manufacturers complain on developing new hardware... really cant remember. It's a general gist. and as you continued, they complain... only you have a specific thought.

and by the way about the research thing you suggested... well actually i do really work in the research project. anyway, you said there are a lot of stupid ideas behind Vista. if you know better than them or have better ideas, why not try developing one that would suffice us all. just a thought... my last post for today... bye.

 

I hate to pop Microsoft's bubble of fantastical reality, but Windows is not more secure than BSD; statistics can verify this known fact. Of course they do say in the fine print "Vista is better than OSX or Linux", but then in the title they try to decieve less tech-savvy people by saying "most secure OS ever".

This obvious attempt at misleading readers doesn't lend the article any credibility in my opinion. If they lie to me once, why should I trust the rest of their material?

 

Well, most companies lie (even though that does not make it something everyone should do...). Even Apple has told plenty of lies in its existance.

 

Let me guess, the Vista machine had the ethernet cord pulled out for the tests?

 

I am amazed how many think that Vista is so insecure without really any proof of it one way or another. In my own experience with it, Vista is much better than XP or any previous windows OS. I have yet to get a virus on my Vista machine where they were frequent on XP.

Kinda like how everyone bashed IE7 and said Firefox was so superior, than a bunch of third party reports that are truly unbiased and used to show Firefox as the leader have shown that Firefox has had more unfixed holes and issues than IE7! (sorry, no links as I do not have them handy, but there were lots in the news a few months back).

 

It is because many hackers targets Vista, that was why i am surprised by the report that it still has not surpassed all the other OS in terms of vulnerabilities in the report of 6 months.Was hoping to see it having more than XP.

Edit - http://www.betanews.com/article/Vista_Security_Report_Raises_More_Doubts_Than_It_Relieves/1182530446 (saw this on my BetaNews RSS, but the webpage cannot be displayed.)

More controversy coming.

 

This is very misleading for several reasons. First, it is done by a Microsoft employee. Second, it does nothing to describe the "vulnerabilities" in question, including their severity, availability, commonality, etc. And thirdly, it requires that you believe Microsoft that there really are only 25 vulnerabilities for Vista. It's a lot harder to prove how many holes there are in an OS when you can't see its code. The open source nature of Linux lends itself to finding these holes and vulnerabilities, but this is what creates its security. When people know about them, they can protect themselves from them.

Also keep in mind that in the Linux world, many patches and updates are made "upstream," where they are fixed by other pieces of software or developers and are updated there rather than the particular vendor. This is another benefit of an open OS; you aren't relying on one company for security, you're relying on millions of other actual computer users. Also, keep in mind that one vulnerability can do more damage if everyone can get it and transfer it than 50 vulnerabilities that can only attack one or two people and not spread.

 

From what little I know (from friends that have worked there), Microsoft will drop charges against the hackers who discover their security holes, if they sign on as advisors. I hear they get paid pretty handsomely too. The problem for MS is, for every security expert they have, there are 10 hackers working on breaking that guy's code, and it only takes one of them to make a mistake (and it usually is just one) and all of a sudden "WINDOWS INVITES VIRUSES, STUPID MICROSOFT CAN'T OUTSMART TEENAGERS!!" Please. Not that I don't blame the company for their mistakes, but I don't think that they are slacking. As a matter of fact a MacOS machine was hacked easily at Black Hat this year, because of a faulty Mac wi-fi driver, the hacker was able to control the entire computer within minutes. So, it is true that the other systems are "safer" to use but only in the way Sweden is safer to live in because no one wants to attack them.

And, for the record, I don't think it would really matter if MS controlled 90 or 50 percent of the market, they would always be the most attacked because for some reason advanced computer users have this silly vendetta against them. I guess because most of the world isn't very critical of Microsoft, they take it upon themselves to make up for it. Scare them out of using it or something.

 

a perfect example of fallibility in ALL major OS makers is the Safari release for MS. yeah, the debut went well. 5 extremely critical flaws in the first two hours out. nice. no one is perfect. if the holes get fixed fast, its all good.

ev

 

I like to point out to the people complaining that software companies can't make bug-free code this little mathematics analogy.

You must prove every possibility true for a proof to be true. However, you need only one contradiction to prove it false.

In that same regard, it's nearly an impossible task to write absolutely-bug-free code (and no, "Hello World" does not count). Any programmer that has worked on a substantial enough project can atest to that. You have to cover every single possible combination for it to be bug-free, while one single 'contradiction' can show it to be vulnerable. It doesn't help that there are so many people specifically searching and prodding for exploits in Windows.

EDIT: I'd also like to bring business into this. I'm sure Microsoft could write a more secure version of Windows as well. But they'd have to lock down even more than they currently do and spend more time and/or money on development, which would then be passed onto us, the consumers. There gets to be a point where the product is 'good-enough' from a business standpoint. Any improvements beyond that reduces ROI.

 

well said, chuck.

 

let's PRETEND that windows systems are not secured compared to others... most corporations inside the big 500 use approximately 50% windows technology. why? because they dont listen to rants. they think and decide before they act. they are professionals. they know how the technology works with their setup. they are not naives. that is why most companies and corporations dont hire incompetent fools. also, majority of windows users are basic consumers and they really dont care of how much security they have... what they need are OSs that work for them as they see fit. im not seeing so much trouble on the security measures windows is now implementing... i'm not paranoid enough. so what if they scan my system overtime. so what if it consume more resources. my pc have the power. and besides, hackers, do all you can to hack me, you will get nothing in return but full of pornography stuffs and such. lol.

 

I know that it's impossible to ensure that software is bug-free. But that doesn't excuse the case where a product launches with a long list of known bugs.
It also doesn't excuse bad design.

In fact, it doesn't excuse Vista.

 

You guys can keep burying your head all you want. UNIX is fundamentally more secure than Windows on many levels. Period. You can go on and on and on about all the new features, but you just can't argue with some stuff:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/views/article.php/3665801

It's 4 a.m. and I'm going to bed, so I don't have time to find more for you. But I'm sure a Google search would do wonders.

Honestly, the thing I understand least about Windows zealots is how they come to feel this way in the first place? How can a company sell a product (after delaying it for 3+ years) at a higher price than ever, force users into new hardware and software, obsolete their old or current hardware, tell them how they can and can't use the product, put restrictions on what other products they can associate the product with, restrict how they can interact with the product, use the product to effectively "spy" on the consumers, use the product to accuse the purchasers as criminals, and the consumers still continue to praise them? Any other company would have gone under within a few years. The difference is that Microsoft came in at the right time, knew whose pockets to stuff, how much piracy to allow, and did so effectively and quickly enough to tie 90% of the market into their proprietary formats that it will take years for anyone to dig themselves out and claw themselves away.

 

I think you do understand how MS pulled it off (you have explained it yourself, in the last part). In addition to that Windows is easy to use and has more software (especially games) and better driver support.

Getting back to Windows security issues; as long as you use a good all-around 3 rd party protection system (like the Kaspersky Internet Security Suite) and take proper caution, Windows can be as safe (if not better) than Linux/OSX

 

Linux users are in the minority and hackers usually go for the big ones such as Windows. Big businesses are the primary targets because they use Windows. Who wants to hack a mom and pop business who uses Linux or OSX and get nothing in return. The lucritive target is I'm sorry to say is Windows. Don't boast Linux too much on it's security, it can be hacked it's just not worth their while.

If you were the programmer of Windows would you yourself guarantee that what you wrote is secured? Nothing is guaranteed. Sure Vista is more secure but it doesn't say it can't be hacked. If you don't like Windows then go ahead and use something else. You have the freedom of choice. Don't keep arguing about what's wrong with Windows instead look the on the other side and say what's right with it.

 

I think what many people fail to understand, especially in a highly technical forum such as this, is that the world is not about those minute details and perfection. It's about business and money.

 

Yep, Phoenix is right, you explained it yourself. People trust what they're used to. If they've been using Windows for the past 10 years, they're not in any position to switch. They know how Windows works and how to use it, why would they switch?

Also, they didn't delay Vista for 3 years. The first Longhorn builds in 2002 and 2003 were amazing. (At the time.) They had a lot planned for Longhorn, and got ahead of themselves. Eventually, they realized they would never finish in time, so, in early 2004, they completely started over (using Windows Server 2003 as their base code). We didn't even know about this restart until almost a year later.

Having said that, from 2004 to 2007 they had 3 years to build a good, firm OS. They came up with Vista. Not good enough. It took them 3 years to build this?! Not good enough.

Matt

 

You just don't get it do you? UNIX is more secure by design. Why? It was created from the get-go as a workstation and server OS, where security is necessary. It was designed from the beginning as a multi-user OS, and behaves accordingly. Only the root superuser has full access to the operating system, and that applies not only to the person sitting at the computer, but also the applications being run on the system. Now, with Linux kernel 2.6, things are even more secure (though this obviously doesn't apply to whatever Apple is doing with their UNIX base). You can read for yourself here:
http://os.newsforge.com/os/04/05/18/1715247.shtml

And to say that there would be no benefit in attacking Linux because nobody but geeks is ridiculous. Here's a list of who uses Linux:

Federal Aviation Administration
Google
National Security Agency
California's Union Bank

These are just those who use Linux for desktop usage, not even mentioning server usage (which is where you'll find the most usage of Linux). There's also talk of the Defense department switching to Linux, and I believe the French government is switching to Linux as well. There are plenty of reasons to hack UNIX systems, it's just not easy enough to justify the benefits of hacking Windows. You can make an effective worm or virus that will infect millions of users in a fraction of the time it will take you to make a worm or virus that likely won't spread beyond one business or a handful of desktop users.

 

I'm sure at least one hacker would love the dubious honour of being the coder responsible for bringing down 90% of Ubuntu machines. Fact is, it hasn't happened yet.

 

I'm no expert, but I'd figure that would be extremely hard to do unless the user is on root. Otherwise they can probably just mess up your Home folders.

 

Some people like to Dis windows for the sheer sake of dissing windows. you can knock it all you want to, but the fact is ive been running vista for over 4 months, and NO PROBLEMS. ive been using windows for over 8 years and NO PROBLEMS. funny how that works.

A lot of people talk up how bad microsoft is, but he fact is, if windows is so bad, and unix/linux is so good, explain why companies (major fortune 500 ones) havent dumped microsoft and adopted linux in its place? i dont want to hear that ' arguement either. Fact is, there were an awful lot of 'proprietary' networking protocols and products that died VERY FAST in the 80s when newer tech that was more interoperable came on the scene. yet, windows endures. hmmm....... maybe they are getting it a little bit more right and doing it a little bit better than some in this forum are giving credit for.

I hardly believe the voices of dissent on this forum are smarter than the IT departments of the major fortune 500 companies that continue to employ windows and are planning to deploy Vista in the near future.

Just my opinion, not stated as fact. Its simply the way it is.

ev

 

Funny, on this forum, I see very little senseless bashing. The vast majority of Vista "bashers" on this forum are ex or current Vista users.

Remember, a lot of them use Linux too.

Agree with you here, I mean, who wouldn't kill for their marketing department?

And I'd hardly believe that you are in a position to comment on the intelligence of people you have never met.

 

Exactly. Most likely, a virus will only be able to affect a user's home folder unless they manually run it as root. Even then, it can't really spread anywhere else unless another person also manually executes it as root. It would take a really really clever virus or exploit to spread to millions of computers before it could be patched.

Hey, I'm glad you've had such good luck with Windows. I've had really good luck with Windows at work. And to be honest, I agree that Windows is a great solution for many businesses as the monolithic nature of the OS provides simple interoperability in a business environment. However, the argument could also be applied to OS X, as they have a similar approach. But even Linux could fill this need if people actually followed the standards they strive to set up or used open formats and documentation.

The bottom line, though, is that Windows is NOT the best solutions for environments where high security is necessary. And just FYI, many of the members here on this site actually are programmers, IT professionals, and computer engineers. Pitabred is one example (though I'm not exactly sure what his actual profession is). We also have some employees of very high profile companies (like Intel, AMD, etc.). You may want to pay attention to what the knowledgeable, respected people say on this site.

 

microsoft rules!

 

The way I see it, Linux/Unix has a good track record for security mainly due to two reasons :
1. Fewer number of attacks
2. Because of the competence and the awareness of the user community. Most Linux/Unix users are tech savvy, and perhaps security is one of their major concerns for using Linux, therefore they know how to keep a system safe.

Personally I haven’t had any serious security related issue with Windows over the past several years. Most of those who have such problems are either inexperienced or weren’t careful enough.

Microsoft is responsible for the security flaws in their OS, but things wouldn’t be this bad if the windows user community was more cautious and competent .

 

with all due respect,

never said anyone on this forum was unintelligent. not one time. i hear what you are saying, i just dont agree with all of it. you are entitled to your opinions. im sure there ARE plenty of people employed by those companies, and that said, your opinions and theirs are not the only ones in town. if you were right and i were wrong, nobody would be using windows. that isnt so. theres a middle ground you are missing here. both have great aspects to them and everyone will choose whats right for them. but talking down Vista and talking up anything but Vista is biased and not exactly accurate. if you dont like it, dont use it. period. i dont like linux, and wont use it. satisfied?

Furthermore, i will take whatever advice i choose, and dont need anyone to tell me whats good advice, whats bad advice, and whats opinion. i will decide for myself, thank you. so with that said, use what you want. Theres nothing wrong with Vista, just as theres nothing wrong with linux. a smart, savvy user wont have security problems with either one.

ev

 

Really? In my opinion, there's plenty wrong with both... or at least ways they could be better...

 

A smart, savvy user will also realize that it's not just about your surfing habit, Firewall setting or how many Anti virus/adware apps they have. Sure that stuff helps but, it's also about the vulnerability of an OS. Hence the reason for so many MS Security Updates.

 

That's the general idea behind competition.

First of all, I thought opinions were supposed to be biased by experience, that's why they are called opinions. And I don't care what OS you use, because it's unimportant. Just like I haven't said in this thread what OS I use.

Satisfaction comes when biased articles such as the one linked are exposed for what they are, attempts at fooling the less knowledgeable population. I am pro choice, and have no problem with people using Vista, as long as it's an informed choice.

I don't think anyone here was trying to force you to give up your choice.

 

Of the companies you mentioned do they use Linux exclusively? Or how much percentage of the company use Linux? As I recall these companies had computer problems in the past, yes even the FAA. When the east coast airports were shutdown recently because their computer system went down due to they weren't able to broadcast their flight plans, even their backups weren't working. Was this a glinched? Were they using Windows or Linux? No mention in the news which operating system was being used, but if it was Windows it would be all the news. NSA won't tell you which OS they use, that would invite hackers to attack the system... they are National Security afterall. Like I said before, no one is immune from attacks, Linux, Windows, OSX. If they want to get into the system it doesn't matter what OS you're using. So don't tell me Linux is more secure than others.

 

That is a load of rubbish. Vista is about as secure as my notebook is from me smashing it up if this turns out to be true!

Oh well Microsoft would say anything to get £1 more profit.

 

I completely agree that choice is what matters. People choose Windows a lot, and I understand why. It's simple, graphical, and you really never have to touch a command line. And if something does go wrong, there are plenty of people that you can fork your money over to that will be glad to "fix" it (which usually just ends with a reformat, but that's another topic altogether). This is one thing that makes it great for businesses; they need a third party to be responsible when their computers have problems (and all computers and OS' will). This is why even companies that use Linux use stuff like Novell and Red Hat rather than free distributions like Ubuntu.

That being said, my point was not to degrade what OS you use. I still use Windows XP, and have not had a whole lot of problems security wise. I've had plenty of other stability issues, but as long as I run an antivirus, use a firewall, watch what sites I visit, and keep my computer up to date, I don't have issues with viruses or (much) malware. And I'll even concede that Vista is even better in this respect (as long as you leave UAC turned on). My point, though, was that it just doesn't match UNIX/Mac OS X. I have never run an antivirus, anti-malware, or any firewall besides the built-in and have had 0 security threats. No adware, no spyware, no trojans, and no viruses. And it required really no action on my part to keep it that way.

Like I said, if you use Windows, that's fine. So do I for certain things. But my point, as Lysander pointed out, was that the article was biased and shouldn't be trusted as gospel. People often mistake my stance on Windows and Microsoft in general; I don't hate Windows, and often give it praise for helping bring GUIs to popularity (though Mac had a fully GUI OS first) and bringing computers to the masses. I don't want Windows to go away, as competition is great for the customer. I just want them to stop bashing Linux. Everybody always complains about how Linux and Mac users bash Windows, but it goes the other way too. I just want Microsoft to start going with the standards and quit making it hard on the competition. My problem with Microsoft isn't necessarily with Windows; it's with their lack of respect of open source and Linux, and their monopolistic nature and consistent attempts at vendor lock-in and proprietary reliance, which hinders choice for the consumer.

 

exactly. The problem is most Microsoft users do not realize this. They have no clue what kind of trouble someone has to go through just to open a Word-document (i know, bad example.) on linux. Since most people use Microsoft products (which, in it self, is fine by me), and there by Microsofts closed formats (herein lies the problem). Which means you HAVE to use Microsofts products to open their formats (or reverse engineer it. Simple.).

Even if you like Linux or OS X better, you're stuck using Microsoft software, because otherwise you're not compatible with the rest of the world.

Yes, I hate Microsoft, I want the ability to choose what I feel is best for me. Which isnt a problem, if it's a Microsoft product. Too bad it isnt.

 

I second that. I used to be hit with multiple viruses each day on my XP machine but I've yet to come across ONE in the three months I've been using Vista. A similar situation arises when looking at spyware. Ad-Aware SE hasn't picked up any sort of malicious threats in a month or so.

I'd also like to add, that from my own experience, the Linux distru I have been footering about with boots and shuts down far slower than Vista on the same machine. There has been no viruses on the Linux OS but I doubt that there are anywhere near the same number of viruses for Kubuntu as there are for Windows.

 

"I second that. I used to be hit with multiple viruses each day on my XP machine but I've yet to come across ONE in the three months I've been using Vista. A similar situation arises when looking at spyware. Ad-Aware SE hasn't picked up any sort of malicious threats in a month or so."

User habits and knowledge contribute much more towards a secure machine rather than which OS that user is running. Your testimonial is exactly what Microsoft wants to hear, because in principle, this is how Microsoft and Apple acquire most of their customers; by convincing them that they don't know better and then claiming to have the solution. This is how most businesses function, that is, by convincing us that we need their products. But do you?

Most of these users are "convinced" of their own limited understanding of technology either because they don't know better or because they've never known any other operating systems before. When you consider my previous sentence more closely, you'll find that the former case is due to the latter!

That is why, for the most part, the smartest user equipped with the worst OS can fare better than the most ignorant user running the most superior OS ever made. So I would think twice before attributing my online safety to the OS alone; more often than not security is due to being street wise.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070624-vista-the-most-secure-os-according-to-researcher.html

Probably we are going to change our view on Microsoft Windows Platform.

 

Why would biased articles change our views? That article is just as bad as the first.

Maybe when Secunia says so, I'll believe it. But as it stands, they think Vista is less secure.