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.'"
Linux is the lock on the door, not anti-virus. Running a PC with Vista on it is a bit like having a door without a lock, and a big sign proclaiming the same.
is updating or checking out Fedora 7... Zonk is posting these feel good stories about Microsoft.
:-D
Its quite telling to see who and what gets reported on.
This will surely be modded irelevant +5 or so but really at the end of the day who cares how relatively secure Microsofts latest OS is against some other Microsoft OS before it or tentatively after it? "At the end of the day" why do people still pay for an OS? (its obviously NOT for security.)
Don't forget that. Although that's more true for Linux servers than desktops.
Life for MS means having paid fanboys submit stories to Slashdot with inaccurate headlines and summaries. The "flawed survey" (thanks for telling me what to think about it!) didn't say XP was more secure than Vista. It merely found little benefit in Vista over XP.
"Sufferin' succotash."