Vista more secure than OS X?

[robotskip]

This is the funniest title topic ever. To even think that is a joke.

 

You know how Vista is more secure? It annoys the {censored} out of you.

 

To install Windows Live Messenger, I literally had to pass 7 little 'confirm' dialogs.

 

You can say "hey, you can disable the UAC" but then you don't get this terrible "security".

 

There's a reason Vista and the Zune are the laughing stock of the computer and music industries at this time. They're terrible things.

For fun I just re-installed Windows Live Messenger to see how many it prompts you for, guess how many ?

 

1 - Which is just me telling Vista I trust the installer

 

Though, if you choose to install the Live Sign-In Assistant thing you'll get 1 for that the first time you use IE7.

 

 

So, did you really get 7 or are you lying ?

[redult]

These confirm dialogs are just to stupid... something like that doesn't make a system more secure.

Is the user really always able to distinguish if a harmfull or non harmfull programm is being

installed?

[MacMoof]

Locks only keep honest people honest.. which is to say, all the security measures in the world wont prevent someone from messing with it if they want to get in bad enough.

 

If a mortal man coded it, a mortal man can break it.

 

We Mac folks can brag about how secure our OS is, and how no viruses exist for the Mac, but while it may be true OSX is inherently more secure than Vista, the real thing we've got going for us is not many people care.

 

Try to find new video releases on BETA.

 

If your idea is to write a bug that will circulate across the globe.. what platform are you going to attack? The platform that runs 80% of the desktop personal computers in the world, or the platform that runs less than 15%?

 

Viruses don't get written for OSX not because it's impossible, but because Macs have less than 15% marketshare compared to Microsofts 80%.

 

Not to mention coders generally write in the environment they're comfortable with. How many people are seriously going to go out and buy a whole new computer, spend months learning how it works looking for exploits, then spend a few more months writing a bug just to mess with less than 15% of the people out in cyberspace?

 

I have no doubt that within 12 months Microsoft will have egg on their face and releasing critical security patches for Vista.. it's a great big fat juicy target.

 

MacOS? The guys writing the bugs and exploits just don't care.

[nickg331]

the simple fact that os x is built on top of unix puts it far ahead of windows in terms of security (not to mention the the additional steps taken by apple developers to keep this security in place)

[cringemaster]

If your idea is to write a bug that will circulate across the globe.. what platform are you going to attack? The platform that runs 80% of the desktop personal computers in the world, or the platform that runs less than 15%?

 

Viruses don't get written for OSX not because it's impossible, but because Macs have less than 15% marketshare compared to Microsofts 80%.

 

15%, thats very optmistic. Its more like 2-3

 

Once again, an OS with a price tag of Vista Ultimate and a development span of 5.something years should be expected to be literally the Fort Knox of the OS'es, the incarnation of security. Anything less would be a rip off.

 

Exactly.

 

By the way, using an '$' in Microsoft is so 1990s, even /. is over it.

 

Because i grew up in the mid 90's (when win95 bsoded on live tv), its something i used alot back then, but the price tag on Vista Ultimate brought back the idea to me recently.

Edited February 21, 2007 by other

[other]

Too many attacks in this thread, I'm closing it.

 

Thread Closed.