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.'"

Comments

Re:Or ... people are still writing virii for WinXP

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Would you care to explain the Flying Elvi???

Re:Anything to slam MS

[vegaspctech]

Score 1? Gosh, someone mod that up. Sure it's mean, a tad exaggerated and rather typical here, but it's funny. And there's a little truth in it. The single thing that most made me start appreciating XP was having to start repairing Vista machines at work. On more than one occasion I've turned a Vista PC on and fixed the computer next to it before it finished booting. Vista is pretty, and no doubt improves on security, but fire it up on the more affordable PCs and XP's startup seems blazing fast by comparison. Unrelated... isn't a vista a place from where you see a distant view of where you really want to be? ;-)

Re:Anything to slam MS

[PinkyDead]

Matthew 26.52