Slashdot Mirror
Flawed Survey Suggests XP More Secure Than Vista
SkeeLo writes "One of Vista's big selling points is security, but a report from CRN concludes that Vista offers little in the way of security advancements over Windows XP. Ars Technica analyzed the report and found some methodological problems. 'The report faults Vista for "providing no improvement in virus protection vs. XP," but of course Windows Vista does not ship with antivirus software — something the reviewer fails to mention. Faulting an AV-less Vista for not stopping viruses is a bit like faulting a door without a lock for opening when the handle is twisted.' That's not all: 'It was also disappointing to see CRN completely ignore the issue of buffer overflows, which has been addressed well in Vista by most accounts. This was a major weak spot with XP, and so far, Vista looks strong in this area, strong enough that Vista may never get its own "SQL Slammer." Why CRN didn't address this is a mystery, as it is no minor matter.'"
Study finding Vista more secure then XP = X hits.
Study finding XP more secure than Vista = Y hits.
if (x > y)
post Vista more secure than XP
else
post Vista less secure than XP
Seriously. A pro-MS article? whats next, mr spock with a goatee? Doc
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
(like VPNs, IDSs, AVs, proxies, backup, imagining etc.)
I like to imagine that my XP install isn't riddled with viruses, too.
And since it's not plugged into an electrical outlet, it doesn't draw any power either!
paintball
No problem, as long as I can have my funny points back! :)
To be fair, with windows you don't have to twist the lock... a strong fart on the way past would do it.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
...That submarines with screen windows offer slightly better floatation than submarines with screen doors.
MacroSubs has affirmed that this is incorrect, however, and stated today that the question will be settled once and for all when their new submarine, entirely made out of screening material, captures the imagination of the nation with its launch in 2009.
So-called "alternative" submarine manufacturers continue to insist on using steel for their doors and heavy lexan for their windows. They claim this quaint, antiquated approach lets them offer better floatation, efficiency at depth, and crew survivability, but independent studies have shown that their apparent "floatation edge" is due to the fact that far fewer of these submarines are produced, not any superiority in design. A. Noying, of an independent think-tank funded in part by contributions from MacroSubs, had this to say:
"Look, we all know that as more of these all-steel and plastic subs get produced, you'll start seeing network effects and their buoyancy will be reduced down to normal levels. Currently, with only a few percent of the market, the oceans aren't interested in them as a point of ingress. This will change soon and you'll see some interesting numbers from my lab to back this up."
When asked about the widespread buoyancy failures of MacroSub submarines around the world, Mr. Noying said only "it's hardly MacroSub's fault if submarine captains tend to drive their submarines into reefs and long-forgotten sea monsters. Their duty is only to make subs buoyant, not idiotproof. However, they are working on an interesting feature called USC, or User Submergence Controls, which should make things a little easier. The submarine will basically ask the captain if he's really, really sure he wants to increase depth, once per fathom. If the captain insists on running into that reef after all the help he's been given, perhaps he shouldn't be driving a sub anyway..."
NO CARRIER
It's almost done logging me in, in fact.
You must be still clicking endless Cancel or Allows...
Personally, I am waiting until at LEAST SP1 is released before I install it.
Cheers, Chris
No. No! No!!
It is a Genuine advantage
This sig is intentionally blank