[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Vista Security Beats XP, Tests Find here

[tenney67]

How does Apple's software stack up in the same tests?

[gosseyn]

This study means absolutely nothing, since it is wholly dependent on the Internet behavior of a random group of unknown users. For such a comparison to be meaningful, it would have to compare the O/S's with users doing the same exact actions on both systems. Since Microsoft is hosting the results of this "study", I would have to assume that they funded it in the first place, in their efforts to shore up their fairytale about Vista's superiority over XP. Also, their discounting of the data about Win2000 Pro is specious at best, and mendacious at worst. I know many users of W2k that are NOT part of a corporate network. It's a little slower than XP, but much more stable & robust.

[billg35]

The third paragraph says "PC Tools counted 639 unique threats over six months." Then it says "a threat is actually when (malicious code) has penetrated the machine".
I don't understand that that's a threat. It seems to me like a failure. A machine has been attacked in malicious code is gotten in? Isn't that a failure of security? I would think a "threat" be an "attempt".
The next paragraph leads off with "we wanted to find out how bulletproof vista was". It seems to me that Vista wasn't bulletproof at all if 639 times the bullets struck home. Would you want a bulletproof vest that allowed bullets to get through?
I'm primarily a Mac guy: I'm used to security which is actually secure. Have Windows reviewers become so used to windows of failing that failure is only a threat and that bulletproof means bullets get through?
I mean I'm new to this field of carefully reading windows lit, but this just seems crazy.

[anonymousx]

wow, more windows bashing, when will this stop?
when a macbook air was hacked first before a windows vista laptop in some contest recently, there were very few articles on PC world, err, I mean Mac world

[JimH443]

To quote the article: "60% fewer Vista machines were infected by a recognizable piece of malware than PCs running XP"
This says more about the detection software than it does the OS. :)