Windows 7, a more secure OS?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by RaiGal, Jan 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RaiGal

    RaiGal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Posts:
    8
    Location:
    Here and there.
    Hello there,
    Recently i have come to the point where i need to format one of my machines which is running WinXP SP3 LUA+SRP.Lately i have been getting the impression that WinXP still lacks something.I was thinking about upgrading to Win7 which i have played with a few hours on my virtual machine.

    My question is,are Win7 really a sturdier and more secure OS than XP?I have heard about the DEP and ASLR upgrade,combinded with LUA and SRP,an AV soft and a HIPS should be pretty secure.Is it worth upgrading at Win7 at this moment?

    Thanks for your time!
     
  2. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Put security away for a moment and ask a more basic question. Does Windows 7 still give you the same performance as XP? That was my question, and unfortunately it was a definitive NO. Hard drive performance on my machine is absolutely positively dismal compared to XP. Vista was on average 1/4 as fast as XP, while 7 is about 1/2 as fast as XP.

    If you like your machine running as fast as possible, my opinion would be to first install it (not VM) and see for yourself.

    Sul.
     
  3. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Wow. I'm sorry for your experience. I have had a very positive experience. I went straight from XP to 7 and I couldn't see myself ever going back. Granted I upgraded my hardware when I changed OSes, but I am still a minimalist. I have Windows 7 running perfectly, tweaked for perfect performance.

    As for security, I believe 7 to be more secure. The x64 version 7 introduces patch guard, and while software vendors might have issues with it the bottom line is that it does make the OS less vulnerable to things like rootkits.
     
  4. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Yes, I concur. Add in UAC as well, although no great security feature, it does add some. Besides, if speed is so important, then why not go with W2K or even Win '98 or 95, puppy or debian Linux for example? These will blow the sock(et)s off xp :p
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Well, I installed Win7 on the same hardware xp sp3 was running before and I have to say I was amazed that Win7 is not only not slower but maybe even faster! - O.K., I switched to SSD some days before I later also changed my OS and so I can't say anything about hdd and win7 but heard there also only good things.

    I guess when you experienced this slowdown unfortunately some indexing was going on or defragmenting or whatever? On my SSD this was all disabled (I don't need or want that) and I can assure you: there was no performance loss at all because of Win7, more likely a gain! - And since then I am so happy with Win7 that I won't go back to XP, not even if someone gives me lot's of money! :D

    And yes ... before the day I switched OS I was hardcore Win XP 'fanboy' so to speak (and of course Vista hater, the last I still am! :gack: ). :argh:
     
  6. Seer

    Seer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Posts:
    1,596
    Location:
    Singidunum
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    No. I can fool myself to some extent, but resource I/O figures speak clearly.

    It all boils down to what the PC will be used for IMO. If it's just a toy to play with at home, browse, do some multimedia stuff, than I'd say you're good to go with 7. Performance gain or loss, you won't feel much difference.
    But if you do any serious (resource demanding) productivity, stay with XP. It is a "quieter" OS. I have both installed, and each serves its purpose.
     
  7. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Windows XP is an Old OS where as windows 7 is a modern OS.

    with windows 7 and vista you can do what you have been able to do with other os's for years run as a standard user all the time and get a simple prompt for programs that need admin rights which should be very few so in that way it is more secure but if a user decides rujn excute random stuff downloaded of the internet its their own fault.

    windows 7 is faster than vista but i dont know if its faster than windows xp because i have never run windows xp on this computer because its an old OS and people need to move on. I assume the OP is a home user so in that case its easy to move on to a new OS.

    So what if windows 7 is slower than xp? windows 7 has improvements and more features. there is alot of under the hood changes from windows xp > 7.
    While most people just see the new GUI and think omg its just eye candy well is not it also has some productive features such as aero peak and the new taskbar which makes sorting out and switching between programs easier.

    Windows 7 is more reliable due to the under the hood changes for example the graphics drivers changing mostly to user mode so if the graphics driver crashes it will automatically be restored where as with XP and older if the graphics driver crashed you would have to do a hard reboot and potentially risk loss of data.

    I really dont know what took Microsoft so long so long to implement the following
    1.true limited user accounts with right granting when needed. with windows XP and lower it is a nightmare running as a limited user. Unix based OS have had it for ages aka SUDO.
    2. I dont know what took Microsoft so long to separate the GUI from the OS. unix based os's have done it for years.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  8. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I am confident all daily posters know I respect everyones opinion. We all have different viewpoints.

    I can agree that Vista/7 might be great for you.

    It is definately not for me.

    You can slice it and dice it however you please, but Vista/7 have stepped backwards in the UI I believe. I don't see how twice as many 'clicks' on your mouse to do something that is not really any different is 'progress'. I don't see how radically restructuring where things are, how you get to them, how you use them, etc, is 'progress'. On the UI portion of Vista/7, I consider it 'Epic Fail' (which seems to be a popular term lately lol).

    Performance wise, new feature wise, etc etc, I cannot really argue. Vista/7 are much more bloated with services etc than XP is/was. But XP was also considered bloated when it first came out as well (I remember it well). Most all of that stuff can be turned off anyway, so I don't see it as a negative feature so much as unnecessary bloat that could have been trimmed down for novice users.

    I don't begrudge anyone who uses Vista/7. I would use it, but for the absolutely dismal harddrive performance. I have an ich7 chipset, hardly new, but hardly slow. I have very fast wd750aaks drives, which while not as fast as say a Raptor, they are no slouch. I have tried different drivers, installing fresh onto 2 of the 3 drives. I picked up a new 1tb drive recently, and the problem exists there too. I installed onto a 36gb raptor and a 150gb raptor, problem is the same. I stripped the hardware down to bare bones, still happens. Frag the drive, still happens. Defrag the drive, still happens. Wait a few weeks for the indexing etc to get 'normalized', still there.

    For me, there is one facet of using a computer that is the 'make or break' of it, the harddrive read/write rates. Nothing is more noticable. It might be because I spend a lot of time opening/closing things and in general using the file system. But I cannot believe someone would settle for one of the only 'tangible' things in thier computer becoming slower.

    I recognize this is not a concern to everyone. I also recognize perhaps not everyone might notice it. And it is also true that even if it was noticed, some would certainly rather have the new eye candy rather than the perceptible speed.

    As you say, it is too bad that it is so very noticable. I was hoping to be an early adopter with beta 7, so that I could become intimately familiar with it, as XP will slowly die out. But alas, all I can do is tell people, just like in this thread, that if they think they want to use 7, for whatever reason, perhaps they should try it first. Maybe they will not have the problems I have, but sometimes better safe than sorry.

    Sul.
     
  9. Carbonyl

    Carbonyl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    256
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Patch Guard was actually introduced with 64-Bit XP, and was also included with 64-Bit Vista. It arguably provides no real security benefit at the present moment, aside from security via obscurity, and has already been bypassed in certain cases.

    Moving forward, Patch Guard will prove a liability for 64-bit users, as it does more to halt the system on kernel patching, and less to prevent that patching. In effect, Patch Guard will keep out security vendors more than it will malware.

    Digital driver signing and UAC are more useful security measures available in Win 7 when compared to XP - But these will be circumvented in time as well. DEP is something I don't have enough experience to comment on.

    The bottom line is this: The OS doesn't matter half as much as the experience and knowledge of the person using it! If you've got LUA and SRP set up in combination with appropriate security software, you're ahead of 90-95% of the rest of the boxes hooked up to the net, no matter if you're on XP or 7.
     
  10. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Patch Guard does not prevent security vendors from creating AV software that works just fine. Indeed, most AV software does not patch the kernel -- only a select few do. Even Microsoft's own AV software does not patch the kernel. If M$ itself doesn't need to, then why does Symantec and McAfee need to? This whole fury over Patch Guard is just a dying industry lamenting the fact that their software is becoming irrelevant.
    UAC is not a security mechanism.
     
  11. guest

    guest Guest

  12. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,212
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Like you say we are not all the same, thank God for that, I have XP Home, XP Pro and Vista. No, I don't have Windows 7, and not because I can't afford it. Vista for me is the very best produced by MS. Speed for you is everything, how depressing indeed, what you call "eye candy" is what makes design an interesting approach to everything in life. A Lamborghini is fast and beautiful, a formula one racing car is just fast, that's it. XP is none of of these I'm afraid, just an old worn out suit.

    As for security, for an expert like you any OS will do, but for common mortals, Vista and Windows 7 provide just about everything that is needed for free.
     
  13. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Care to expand on that statement? I do not believe this is true. But to be fair I guess we can all have different definitions of the work "needed".
     
  14. Johnny123

    Johnny123 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I also find this to be a big turn-off with Vista/7, I couldn't agree more. Above all, quite a few of these changes aren't the least bit intuitive.

    To be honest I can't see any advantages that outweigh the PITA UI. After installing it you can still only play Solitaire and Freecell or write love letters with Wordpad. Nothing new there except that it takes up twice as much disk space.

    As of now the best Windows OS I've tried is Server 2003. Luckily I have a TechNet subscription otherwise I couldn't afford it. :p
     
  15. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Yep, I agree, would be a boring world if it were :)

    True, I suppose the new design, the joy of seeing the changes etc would be nice if all I were doing was playing games and storing photos and such (not implying anything here, just a comment). But as a tool that I use all the time, and most especially since I love to really dig and explore, Vista/7 are very slow for me. But hey, I would love to drive either of those cars for fun. But for getting to work and back in record time because I have many more things to do than spend time driving, give me the F1 McLaren please. Raw power, no power seats, no radio, just pure speed baby ;)

    lol, I can see why you would say that. However, do you really believe, deep deep down, that if 'mortals' had been using LUA this whole time there would have been as many problems for them? And do you believe that a 'more protected psuedo-admin account' is the best approach?

    I think the 'mortals' should depend on what was built into the OS to begin with, and that the software vendors should have modified thier practices to account for the fact that just everyone should not have to be admin to run thier programs. But, that is just how it looks from where I am standing.

    Sul.
     
  16. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I agree. Only of late have I realized it's far more practical and every bit as secure to use as much built-in security features in the O/S as possible.

    As for twice as many mouse clicks in Vista/7?? Don't know about Vista, but with 7 I could, for example: Start-> Run, type three letters "c-o-m" (no dashes) and instantly "Computer Management" pops up in the list at the top of the Start menu. Or another: w-i-n and I have Windows firewall, windows explorer, Windows media player and Windows Defender to chose from. Use the up/down keys to make my selection and hit <enter> and I'm in :)
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I am using here rather old Athlon X2 4850e and Super Talent Ultradrive GX 64 GB (SSD) with Win7 Ultimate ... and I can assure you .. it's like being right there on racing track, I almost can smell the gasoline .. experiencing the speed. :D

    Before this I had this *same* combination running under XP SP3. - Very fast too. Not so much stable though. But I assure you again win7 isn't slower here (!) on my (!) machine than XP SP3. - Maybe in some benchmark, don't know about that and don't care, but not in real world feeling (this is the only important thing to me).

    So whatever your problem or issue is with your hardware, I don't know. - I am using just the windows 7 drivers (because I need TRIM support) and if Paragon Backup Pro says it reads with 19x MB per second (backup writing is on normal hdd and much slower of course) I don't think at all that is not fast enough or is it? - Coming from any 7200 HDD it is lightning fast anyway and SSD is really the best thing I ever invested in. -> Win7 + SSD = SPEED & FUN! ;)
     
  18. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    Thats pretty cool, I admit, how it auto-fills like that.

    To understand a simple example, please try to change your NIC settings in 7, and in XP. XP is direct, the same as has been for years of OS now. 7 how many more clicks away? XP you could click on the tray icon, then click properties, and you were there. 7, well, maybe there are some secrets but I haven't seen them yet. So many common use items (for me) seem to be 'buried' in layer after layer, with no way I've seen yet to get there fast. Granted of course I have minimal usage with it, so maybe there is a better way.

    Even with the the 'extra effort' needed to navigate 7, I do still like it. Maybe not as streamlined as XP for UI stuff (IMO) but I think it brings plenty of cool features I would use... if only it would read/write faster lol.

    I will hold to the 'test it first' mentality though for anyone who does care about performance, however they percieve performance that is ;)

    Sul.
     
  19. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I have been thinking of investing in an SSD. Which one did you get?

    If I read you right, 19mbs? I have 7200rpm drives I use daily, and when using TeraCopy with XP, I average like about 90mbs across drives. My external USB drives average 24mbs. I hope you're not measuring the same bit rate as I am lol. Using Vista, I get like 20mbs across drives, using 7 I get like 50mbs across drives. That is quite a difference to me.

    Maybe there is a misconception on 'speed', the same as there seems to be in general with 'security'. By speed, I do mean literally the speed of hard drive reads/writes, which for me is probably more important than CPU speed. And then there is speed of use, more like in how fast can I navigate to where I want to go, and do what I want to do. I am talking about modifying the OS, so that means using its tools like I mentioned changing a NIC setting.

    This is the part that has bugged me since Vista, was for years there has been a set way, a set route, a map if you will, of how you get to point A, by using a direct route through points B and C. Vista/7 have changed the route now so that you must get to point A by going through routes B,C,D,E and F.

    I have used Vista/7. For common things, I don't deny they are not 'slow' on a good machine. And I don't deny they bring more to the table in terms of security. And I don't deny they bring neat-o features many would use. Hey, I am just a hard-core geek who does not like to waste time mouse-clicking when I don't have to. Console is great, but sometimes you got to use a GUI, and when the GUI is slower than its predecessor, it makes you evaluate if the 'newest' version is really worth the trade off. If you spent as much time as I do futzing with the OS, you might also get annoyed very quickly with the idiotic changes.

    This is quickly turning into another one of those new vs. old things. lol, sorry everyone for taking this OT.

    Back on track then, I have stated my take, I am sure someone who uses Vista/7 everyday can give some relevant infos.

    Sul.
     
  20. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Re: Windows 7,a more secure OS?

    I'd say you're right; I can type n-e-t, highlight and enter on "Network and sharing centre", mouse click on "Change adapter settings", then right-click-> Properties on the chosen adapter icon. This looks to be more steps involved. I guess it's a case of "win some, lose some" but overall I find it just takes a little getting used to, discovering some shorter routes, and Win 7 isn't too bad.

    My hardware is > 3 1/2 years old, though very high-end, I guess, for that era (custom-built Voodoo Omen I bought from my brother last year for a nice $$) It is dual core amd x64, dual 7900 GTX nVidia gpu's in sli mode, but only 2 GB's Corsair RAM, and using a 2 GB USB stick as "Readyboost" - yes, it works :) Still, present day hardware @ around $1200 CDN I'm sure can blow this machine away, especially given its slightly lower than mid-range ranking in Passmark and Sisoft Sandra benchmarks I ran on it.

    Anyways, Win 7 x64 is humming along with terrific performance on it - at least perceived performance. Maybe r/w or i/o disk rates are higher, but it is very difficult for me to tell the difference between this and when I ran XP on it. Even Vista x86 was excellent from my perceived viewpoint. I splurged and bought the Ultimate version to get the extras such as AppLocker. BTW, i run no 3rd party resident security apps on it, only AppLocker, built-in two way fw with custom ruleset, hardware DEP, Firefox, sitting behind a router. I routinely image everything as well. Oh, forgot, running dual-boot with Linux Mint, too :)
     
  21. guest

    guest Guest

    I posted my SSD already (Super Talent Ultradrive GX 64 GB) and of course I meant 19x MB per second as in 193 MB per second or 196! :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.