[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Vista as Insecure as Windows 2000 here

[RNR19952]

What a second ...I thought SECURITY was what everyone was telling me that was so great about Vista...Maybe security for the Media Mafia LOL

[ivorycruncher]

Wow, this must be a slow news day for you to have to resort to twisting the facts in order to make a headline. In the opening paragraph, you state outright that Windows 2000 came out at a time when malware infestations were not very common or widespread. To then state that Vista had more security vulnerabilities than 2000 is comparing apples to oranges. If the current level of malware had been around back then, I think you would have found Windows 2000 to be FAR more insecure than Vista is. Vista is the first Windows OS to completely go through Microsoft's security testing program from start to finish. It's my understanding that such a program didn't even exist when Windows 2000 came out. Vista is indeed the most secure version of Windows to date, despite its problems. Please stop distorting the facts.

[rgreen4]

When you finally get to the end of the article, they point out the problems with the study in that it didn't separate problems with the OS from those related to applications running on Vista.

[ivorycruncher]

I realize that, and I apologize for seeming so harsh in my initial comment. It just seems to me that it unfairly put a negative spin on the discussion right from the start, especially with a headline like "Vista as insecure as Windows 2000". I'm just wondering what the point of this article was. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to promote more argument over what is secure and what isn't, and how people perceive security, which there's already too much of.



To Mr. Dunn: my comments should not be taken personally. Just please be more careful about choosing your words, especially for headlines. This particular headline is quite a bold statement that is easy to start arguments over, especially when you're ultimately saying that it's not true. A better headline would have been something like "Is Vista really as insecure as Windows 2000?". That will make people read the whole article to consider the facts, instead of making false assumptions based on the headline and first couple of paragraphs.



Anyway, I'm done stating my opinion now. Anybody who's reading this is free to agree or disagree with me as you see fit.

[rgreen4]

No need ot appologize Ivory, I was agreeing with you. I was adding the additional comment that at the end of the article that they pointed out all the flaws in the study. The original study was flawed, the new article even more flawed and the PC World post headline misleading.

[anonymousx]

I though this was PC world and not macworld, I must be in the wrong website

[rickk1]

Vista is and always will be Win-Me 3rd edition. Why say anymore?

[technicalhitman]

First, Vista is nowhere NEAR the issues that plagued Millenium Edition. It was damned near impossible to patch ME. Vista has tackled most of its issues very responsively. SP 1 has done a great job of bring the OS around. Does Vista need more work? Absolutely. Does it resemble anything near Windows Millenium Edition? No way. Not even close.

Frankly, I'll take the number of Vista vunerabilities over XP any day of the week. This is a major step foward. Along with the knowledge that Microsoft responds quicker to Zero Day attacks than Apple, I'm quite comfortable in Windows Vista. I haven't had a single virus issue since I switched off XP. I think PC magazine is looking for webhits and aren't reporting many of Vista's successes.

Quite frankly, PC Magazine should report the number of Apple OS-X related issues. Right now Secunia is reporting over 116 advisories of security issues and 19% of issues currently with no resolution. Apple's OS-X has issues that need to be reported.

[rgreen4]

Most who knock Vista have never really used it for any length of time. When asked for a specific problem, they cannot give you one. They have their mind made up to hate it, so please don't confuse them with facts.

[snorg]

I dont like "security" it dictates what I can or cant do.
I look after security myself, people who dont find themselves in trouble.

[pinu]

When you are talking of Windows 2000 you are talking of an OS of 2000.At that time security was not needed much.In that way it solved less problems and it means that it was the most worst OS at that time whereas nowadays security is needed always. If Vista solved less problems it means that it is really a good OS because to solve over 500 threats nowadays is very difficult and it means that Vista is really a secure system, though some hardware compatibility issues were there,most of them have been solved.Windows XP which was released in 2001-2002 has been the most secure in the tests conducted but at that time security was not really a big problem though Microsoft has improved the XP SP1 by introducing XP2.In that way XP has managed to top the table.It might be that Vista has not topped the table because of the hardware compatibility issues since they could have caused significant problems while the test was done and due to that Vista could not spot all the problems.Vista is a good OS.

[glassmaster]

All this Vista slamming is really funny to me. The tech industry and computers have been around long enough now that I fear we have entered a nostalgic era in the tech world -- everybody is longing for the past. Now the fashionable thing to do is slam the current Windows OS. I remember when XP first came out, it wasn't perfect by any means, and it eventually took 2 service packs to get it as stable as it became. How about let's give Vista a break at least until after the 2nd service pack comes out.

[sjeldich]

Alright, let's picture this scenario for a minute: Most Businesses have a computer, or several computers and most run Windows XP. That leaves Windows 2000 in the dust. Wouldn't you think that if the same thing applied to Vista for example, the older operating system would find less attention to hackers because it's no longer being used as much in the business world?
Windows Vista has User-Access Control; great, a new feature that makes the Operating System more secure. Windows 2000 does NOT. What is User Access Control? If you can answer that honestly, maybe the guys who wrote the article need to look at things in another way.

[pinu]

In the first three paragraphs you talked about three OS i.e,2000,XP and Vista.In The first two OS users didnt know what was happening in their computer. Windows Vista basically accomplishes what Linux has been doing for a long time-ensure that regular users don't have access to critical OS files and services.In that way Vista has achieved far more than 2000 and XP.