Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'macOS' started by gothamm, Jan 24, 2008.
Microsoft also said in 2001 that Vista will ship in 2003. MS can say anything, doesn't mean it's true.
By the way,
Windows Vista has received a number of negative assessments. PC World listed it #1 of "the 15 biggest tech disappointments of 2007," saying that "many users are clinging to XP like shipwrecked sailors to a life raft, while others who made the upgrade are switching back."
Wow. Just wow.
Clearly *fewer* fixes/updates/patches = more secure? What's wrong with that statement...let's think about it.
proof is in the pudding, vista has already had viruses. vulnerabilities found in labs on paper dont always transfer to a virus in the wild, different things entirely, especially without root access.
... and if you believe that I have this great deal on used bridges in London....
If Vista is so great, why are they planning on replacing it next year (bringing forward Win 7 for the purpose)?
My abacus is more secure than Vista- Doesn't mean I'll switch my Mac for one.
In any case, this wasn't either an independent, objective, or reproducible study. It was just some MS lackey playing with the numbers to get a flawed product to look better than it actually is.
ok....there is a reason i put quotes around it.
That's true if you don't connect it to anything.
Well actually, then it'll be about tied for security.
Oh, we know. We're responding to the quote, not you.
Vista is very secure if nobody ever uses it.
They still have viruses, and btw vista maybe has less vulnerabilities (because they delayed vista with 3years) but if you look at the diagram you can see microsoft only fixed the half of the problems in vista an apple 3/4 in 10.4
Regarding vista, "the majority of users will find the significant restrictions on actions which effectively sterilize the system unacceptable, just as the constant requests to confirm or enter a password for an action which the system defines as being 'potentially dangerous'. And it is at this point that the 'almost totally secure’ system is transformed into a ‘more vulnerable' system."
Microsoft's Own Vista Virus Scanner Fails VB100 Test:
"Virus Bulletin reviewed 15 different virus scanners for Microsoft Windows Vista... Of the 15 products tested only 11 passed muster, the most prominent of the failures is Microsoft OneCare, the Windows Vista integrated malware protection. Other prominent failures include the products provided by McAfee and Norman for inclusion in the tests.
The protection offered by Microsoft Defender has been called into question by some Anti-Spyware vendors after their testing showed that Defender failed to block some of the most common variations of existing spyware. In tests it appeared that various threat types including keyloggers and trojans were able to reside within the Vista test environments undetected."
Note that they are not comparing vista to OS X 10.5 which has memory randomization and additional security features.
They are comparing Vista with 10.4. In that case, why don't they compare XP to 10.4 then? Oh that's right, MS cannot create enough BS to even attempt to stack that house of cards.
As someone mentioned "Fairy Tales by Microsoft, I didn't know they started a new business."
Which is why Vista is more secure than OSX. The less people use Vista, the less it run,s the less it's in the wild, the more secure.
Can't hack a Vista PC is the PC doesn't have Vista running eh?
As opposed to whatever Steve Jobs says
It was just a delayed (But rushed) OS that was just a stepping stone for Windows 7 it's crap bet W7 will be the same no wonderer Microsoft sucks.
I read that whole article... and surprisingly Leopard came up on the list. I guess some people had some serious issues. Either way, I agree with their pick for #1