FUD You! Vista vs. 2000 Security

[phernandez]

About.com's Tony Bradley takes PC Tools to task for their dubious claims...

Vendor Claims Vista Less Secure Than Windows 2000 - About.com

Based on the PC Tools Software results, one would expect to find 64% of all Vista PC's infected with some type of malware, however the data from Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool for the second half of 2007 show that the number is actually less than 3% (compared with 5% for Windows 2000 SP4).

Though many of us have a soft spot for Windows 2000, nobody I know that runs Vista has yet to be infected by malware. You?

[nihil]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The MS malicious software tool doesn't get to run against the majority of Windows 2000 machines because they are in a commercial environment.

The majority of Vista boxes are in a home environment, and what percentage of owners keep it up to date?

I would suggest that the Win 2000 boxes that were infected were probably mostly ex-commercial machines now owned by people without a clue? It was after all, MS's last business edition, and private users would have gone ME or XP.

I would expect Win 2000 to appear more secure but I think that is somewhat misleading. Win 2000 is really NT 5.0 and would normally be chosen by people with an above average understanding of security.

The real question should be "which is more secure out of the box?" and I think that Vista would win that one hands down.

I agree with the FUD angle............... after all my IBM XT with DOS 3.3 is more secure than Vista or 2000............... couldn't even connect it to the internet, and pretty much all of today's malware wouldn't run on it

Windows 2000 is an obsolete OS so why was it chosen? surely a more realistic comparison would have been with XP?

I bet they did it and didn't like the results...... like 37% more hits than Vista?

So, if Vista is more secure than XP, how come both of them are less secure than 2000? It just has to be a user population thing?

Lies, damn lies and statistics?

[brokencrow]

...nobody I know that runs Vista has yet to be infected by malware. You?

Nobody I know runs Vista!

[KorpDeath]

Maybe I'm misreading the article but I'd hate to base any argument on the data from Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool. If it doesn't detect it then it won't report it.

Seems to me arguing for either side is a non-starter.

And a blurb about it doesn't address much, no offense.

[jockey0109]

well, personally I do not go after statistics a lot specially when I am using the thing myself. Personal experience matters a lot for me.

I have been using Windows just as majority of other people. Even though now I have two machines (a desktop running Ubuntu 8.04 and a lappy with Vista Home Premium), i think that Windows keeps it easy for the new users. And of course you do not know what a firewall is, even all secure vista sucks!. Without comodo firewall, i had two viruses sitting there. once I installed comodo, I had the chance to manually clean them up. What the hell was defender doing? Yeah I use all the updated softies. MS has not changed.

And who the hell on earth says that Windows Vista is more secure than Windows XP? I do not think so. The increase in the number of viruses for the Vista is much similar to what was for Windows XP. In its new days, even Windows XP had recieved exactly the same feedback what Vista is recieveing today. Similar compatibility problems and Security talkabouts. And almost all of us here know how 'secure' windows XP was.

I think that it will take some time and nothing else is needed to show how secure can a Windows get. Now as far a compatibility is concerned, Just two days ago, my hostel warden called me up to fix his computer running a GENUINE Vista ULTIMATE. I could not find out the fault. The OS kept rebooting (actually abruptly crashing as if it was a power failure) and I was not even able to install SP1. His computer is quad core with faster memory and a HDMI 24 inch screen. i think that should be enough to run Vista? But MS cannot do anything about its very nature!

[brokencrow]

The increase in the number of viruses for the Vista is much similar to what was for Windows XP. In its new days, even Windows XP had recieved exactly the same feedback what Vista is recieveing today. Similar compatibility problems and Security talkabouts. And almost all of us here know how 'secure' windows XP was.

Interesting. After preusing some antispyware forums, Vista does indeed appear to suffer less infections. Is this attributable to market penetration, or a superior design? I've got my doubts about Vista, especially UAC, but anecdotal evidence does indeed suggest it's safer. For now.