Security Drives Vista Adoption

[HardOCP News]

According to a recent report on enterprise security, most users migrate to Windows Vista because of its reputation as a secure OS.

In a recent report on enterprise security, the top reason survey respondents gave for adopting Windows Vista was that the new operating system is perceived as being more secure. The "Fourth Annual Enterprise Security Survey" was commissioned by secure-file-transfer software maker VanDyke Software and conducted by independent research firm Amplitude Research.

 

[Sovereign]

Can I laugh, not to say that Vista is insecure but just because the phrase "secure OS" and the word "Windows" are being put in the same sentence and it might actually be something besides marketing this time?

 

[wiseoracle]

Well if you think it's in-secure, tell me why and whatever proof to support your claims?

 

[markt435]

Can I laugh, not to say that Vista is insecure but just because the phrase "secure OS" and the word "Windows" are being put in the same sentence and it might actually be something besides marketing this time?

is it so hard to see that Vista is actually fairly secure compared to previous OSes?

drop the stereotype.

 

[ICOM]

...good freakin' grief.

 

[Wumpus]

of a sieve make it watertight?

Wumpus

 

[ribo]

is it so hard to see that Vista is actually fairly secure compared to previous OSes?

drop the stereotype.

Yes, it is. I don't think it's been around nearly long enough to have a "reputation" as a secure OS. Further, Y/N prompt boxes aren't security.

 

[Monkey34]

I think for the most part, the only people who went for Vista because its "more secure", are the ones who aren't very knowledgeable. I'll admit that Vista is getting better in some regards, but XP is just as secure to anyone who knows what they are doing.
I haven't been compromised yet.

 

[devil22]

Yes, it is. I don't think it's been around nearly long enough to have a "reputation" as a secure OS. Further, Y/N prompt boxes aren't security.

You don't understand security. If pressing NO prevents access to unathorized processes, then a YES/NO prompt does provide security. Further, UAC can be configured to prompt for a password or always deny. I guess it's asking too much to have 1 windows thread that doesn't include blatantly false cheap shots from the death-2-ms fan club.

 

[dot_Zen]

You don't understand security. If pressing NO prevents access to unathorized processes, then a YES/NO prompt does provide security. Further, UAC can be configured to prompt for a password or always deny. I guess it's asking too much to have 1 windows thread that doesn't include blatantly false cheap shots from the death-2-ms fan club.

Bingo. If any other OS, of their choosing, was in the top percentile, the situation would be turned on it's head. Furthermore, when the next generation of Windows OS's are released, the previous will be hung on like a dingle berry to a b _ _ _ s _ _ _.

 

[Wumpus]

Bingo. If any other OS, of their choosing, was in the top percentile, the situation would be turned on it's head. Furthermore, when the next generation of Windows OS's are released, the previous will be hung on like a dingle berry to a b _ _ _ s _ _ _.

If it was any other system, the problems would be different. If Mac were king, any price decrease would include bitching about the "mactax". If Linux were king, any new release of tuxracer would include bitching about lack of games. Nobody can touch windows for insecurity.

The other catch is that other users aren't effected by the mactax and the lack of Linux games. Botnets supply our daily dose of spam, and now with the ease of cracking 1024 bit RSA allow all sorts of electronic crime.

Botnets might possibly exist without windows, but not in the numbers allowed by MS's (and MS customers) complete indifference to security.

Wumpus

 

[ribo]

You don't understand security. If pressing NO prevents access to unathorized processes, then a YES/NO prompt does provide security. Further, UAC can be configured to prompt for a password or always deny. I guess it's asking too much to have 1 windows thread that doesn't include blatantly false cheap shots from the death-2-ms fan club.

I understand security quite well; and having a single point of failure is a poor game plan for secure system design.

It would also be nice to have a rational discussion instead of name-calling.

 

[Martyr]

well i installed vista on my brothers computer for security reasons. he had his xp install so full of crap, and every time i fix it its messed within a month. lets see how vista fares.