Windows Vista

The greatest proof of brainwashed mindlessness is when one is too scared to even entertain the possibility that the facts are contrary to one's own obsessed beliefs.

How pitifully pathetic.

 

I've been using Vista64 for a couple of months now and like it after about 5 years with XP. Nothing in particular wrong with XP, was / is a good OS for me. Vista seems ok. Have had two minor problems which I couldn't find a solution to, that I understood, but they don't seem to cause any major issue, so all in all I quite like Vista, does what I need it to do.

 

Thank you for the interesting read. Certainly XP seems to be very vulnerable compared to Vista particularly in the hands of inexperienced users. I'd like to quote some parts of it:

Excerpt from:"Microsoft Security Intelligence Report volume 6 (July through December 200.

For browser-based attacks on Windows XP®–based machines, Microsoft vulnerabilities
accounted for 40.9 percent of the total, consistent with the pattern observed in 1H08.
On Windows Vista®–based machines, the Microsoft proportion was much smaller,
accounting for just 5.5 percent of the total, down from 5.7 percent in 1H08.

Microsoft software accounted for 6 of the top 10 browser-based vulnerabilities
attacked on computers running Windows XP in 2H08, compared to zero of the top 10
on computers running Windows Vista—similar to the pattern observed in 1H08.

The infection rate for Windows Vista is significantly lower than that of its predecessor,
Windows XP, in all configurations.

Comparing the latest service packs for each version, the infection rate of Windows
Vista SP1 is 60.6 percent less than that of Windows XP SP3.

Comparing the RTM versions of these operating systems, the infection rate of the
RTM version of Windows Vista is 89.1 percent less than that of the RTM version
of Windows XP.

The higher the service pack level, the lower the rate of infection. This trend can be
observed consistently across client and server operating systems. There are two likely
reasons for this:

Service packs include fixes for all security vulnerabilities fixed in security updates
at the time of issue. They can also include additional security features, mitigations,
or changes to default settings to protect users.

Users who install service packs may generally maintain their computers better
than users who do not install service packs and therefore may also be more cautious
in the way they browse the Internet, open attachments, and engage in other
activities that can open computers to attack."

RTM means 'Released to manufacturer'.

 

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1333802

Interesting XPx64 versus Vista x64 test. XPx64 is based on 2003 and therefore the security updates for it are as critical as 2003 is MS's mission critical OS.

 

I don't see the value of testing quantity of XP vs. Vista.

I don't see the value of stating one version of MS is 'much mo safer' than others.

It does not matter the OS. It does not matter the security software employed. It matters of the unique amalgimation of User/Hardware/Software.

Some can use win95 and be more safe than those using Vista.

Information such as is being discussed now in this thread, who is safer that who, should have a special title applied to them. Something like 'Statistics and opinions that novice users might like exist here'. At least then the target audience, that this kind of information actually applies to would be attracted to see it.

I don't argure that newer OS might have learned how to make itself more secure. And I most certainly don't argue that the average user needs as much help as they can. But I do not think any article or report that spouts of number of XP % to number of Vista % have little relevance. The only way they would have any relevance, is if each computer included in the tests, also had a user test, to see how well the user practiced 'safe hex'.

Sul.

 

My girlfriend has exactly that, Vista SP1, and i have to be honest, although it is a marked improvement visually and maybe in some ways security, i still prefer my XP Pro over it and why i'm holding out for Windows 7 with some expectations it will finally be the O/S that can truly replace XP.

If however it turns out like this poster says and is just a lighter version of Vista then some real reservations are going to fill my opinions of whether to go that route or switch to alternative O/S's then $MS.

As far as performance, My XP Pro smokes Vista hands down even with lesser RAM and thats no joke folks, the only thing that makes it faster IMO is hi speed internet service.

I kind of chuckle at the Windows 7 GUI taskbar though because i don't know about anyone else but to me it's so similar to how Windows 98/Me would have been if they would have not abandoned it like they did and just re-write the kernel & explorer and add those Glow task bars to it instead of releasing it in Windows 7.

They could have saved the rest of the eye candy for Vista like it is now.

I dunno, i'm torn at this point because Vista just doesn't match a very well refined XP Pro with the proper security programs all in place from excellent vendors who worked very hard to secure it and make it a reasonable safe O/S for such a long time.

The signed driver concept should avert the massive onslaught XP suffered from but vendors quickly sealed up that problem even before M$ patch tuesday got their act together to release a fix. Fix tuesday is such a joke for me. This is a computer not a quilt that has loose strings that need patches all the time. Why don't they stretch out the componants instead of welding say IE to the O/S itself and just make it portable. Portability is already proven it's case now everyone is flocking to apps that don't need the O/S componants to run. And .NET should never been invented in the first place IMO. Personally i take one look at assembly language apps and i'm floored how consistent and super quick they respond compared to M$'s idea of tethering nearly everything to it's base componants of myriads of dll's,exe's, etc.