-
he he....
I was waiting for someone to bring that one up!! an unpatched flaw does in fact change a lot when it comes to any situation, but I still feel safer knowing the flaw exists and having the capability of monitoring that flaw then not knowing whether or not a new flaw will be discovered tomorrow.... as that discovery may be on one of my machines.....
I'm sad to see MS play the runaround and not let any of it's software grow up, and even sadder to see NT leave the world... but 2k is reaching acceptable stability for me (so long as they dont drop it too) and eventually even XP and the new 2003 server will reach a good maturity.
Truth be told... the "which OS is better" argument is like preaching religion to a deaf agnostic.... pointless...
-
Even though i do not like Microsoft OS but live with no choice due to high market demand.In fact,how secure the OS is all depend on you on how you secure it.Like a Linux can also get rooted,not to even mention about Microsoft OS.I been using WinXP Pro for quite sometimes and i have learned the ways of securing it is to disable useless services such as plug and play,remote control features,disable tcp ip(provided you are not using it),etc.No matter how secure Win OS are still cannot compare to a secure Linux Box.
-
I think you'll need to add 3.1 to that list before I vote :P
-
Dang Fabs you beat me too it. I was gonna be more specific and say 3.12 (Windows for Workgroups) but you still got there first.
-
I am going to have to second the argument that dos 6.2.2 is the most secure. think about it no remote exploits (no network connection). No torjins (non multitasking enviroment) So littel ram that if something (a virus) was trying t orun TSR you knew about it right away. No local security, so you didn't rely on it for local protection you phisacly restricted access to the box (so no escalation of privlages). Hell if you connected t oanother computer via a modem it was useualy asyncronis comunication so they couldn't take any thing from you/send any thing at you with out your knowladge.
Now which MS system is the most usefull is another story, but dos was by far the most secure and stable.
-
windows 98, imo, is the most secure because there are no remote vulnerabilities for it besides a netbios vulnerability which is rare to be able to exploit remotely.
-
Any OS is secure as long as you don't connect it to the Internet.
But we can't do that,right ? In my opinion an OS's security depends mostly on the
user.I think WinXP Pro is the perfect M$ hybrid their is ( security from NT and user-friendly GUI from Win95,98,ME) but I also tried Linux which as they say is best.But the securest OS is the one which you know best.The only advantage I see in *nix OS's is that the source is outthere and as soon as a bug appears it's fixed,instead of wainting months for Microsoft to come up with a patch and that's after their telling us that their is notjing wrong with their OS.
-
cire, windows 98 has tonnes of remote exploits for it. It's practically impossible to run any microsoft-based services on it, and even if you did you`d blue screen anyway!
Windows 98 was a travesty, not much of a big step up from 95 either, infact I prefer 95.
-
95 runs slow ass piss relik, 98 is better, its more stable and can still run games and also you can actually upgrade it, almost nothing works for 95 anymore and 98 at least you can upgrade to XP.
also, for that poll, count my vote for the most stable Microsoft OS as XENIX.
-
Missing from the poll:
DOS
Windows < 95
Windows NT 3.1, 3.5
Windows CE
PocketPC or whatever it is called at the moment
Windows 2003 Server
If possible I would vote dos :)
