Consumers now are getting more for less of their money when they buy security software. Microsoft's entry into the consumer security software arena in late May has made PC protection cheaper, according to data from The NPD Group. At the same time, security products are becoming more comprehensive, analysts said.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
XP (="NT 5.1") is based on the NT kernel. A fresh XP installation, unpatched, is compromised online within minutes. How can anyone claim that that system has "equal or better" security than a.o. openBSD or OSX? Isn't giving users admin. priviliges by default part of design or something?
XP is only compromised if you don't enable the firewall or have a hardware firewall for your environment. The same could happen to older versions of *n*x with known vulnerabilities. Again, MS made the mistake of thinking that just providing the tools was enough. They've since learned that you can't trust the user to secure themselves, you have to provide the most secure environment by defaultm then also try to keep them from creating an insecere environment.
This type of incorrect and unfair reasoning is what leads to the endless flaming that people are so tired of. I'm looking forward to hear of Windows' good sides as a Fedora/OSX user. I'll be the first to admit that Linux can be compromised. But let's stick to facts here, instead of fiction.
There is no fiction in my assertions. The fiction is in believing that Windows can't be secure or that it had no security until XP/Vista. The tools were always there. They were more advanced than Unix when introduced. Businesses have used them for years. The problems came in MS expecting home users to be able to secure their systems like the businesses had bee doing.
Member since:
2006-08-09
NT has had and does have equal/better security than the OSes mentioned above, [these OSes mentioned being BSD, OSX, Linux] it's just a matter of using what's already available and also protecting the user from themselves. In the beginning, they figured that just by the tools being available users could take care of themselves. This proved not to be the case.
XP (="NT 5.1") is based on the NT kernel. A fresh XP installation, unpatched, is compromised online within minutes. How can anyone claim that that system has "equal or better" security than a.o. openBSD or OSX? Isn't giving users admin. priviliges by default part of design or something?
This type of incorrect and unfair reasoning is what leads to the endless flaming that people are so tired of. I'm looking forward to hear of Windows' good sides as a Fedora/OSX user. I'll be the first to admit that Linux can be compromised. But let's stick to facts here, instead of fiction.