Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Jul 2007 14:38 UTC, submitted by mikemuch
"Way back in November 2006, when Windows Vista went from beta to RTM, Microsoft's Jim Allchin suggested that users might not need an antivirus program, thanks to the new OS's stronger security features. While the statement was subsequently clarified until it lost all its meaning, the question remains: Do Vista users really need an antivirus program running in the background at all times?"
Thread beginning with comment 256171
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-04-20
Vista 64 in particular has a lot of security features besides UAC, such as randomised address space (makes it very hard for malware to insert itself into memory), an improved firewall, kernel patch protection (might be removed in SP1 to placate third party anti-virus makers) and requiring signed device drivers (makes rootkits unlikely).
Also, being a 64 bit OS, a lot of code just won't work anyway (16 bit code won't run at all), which is a bit of added protection, at least until 64 bit operating systems become more of a target.
You could definitely get away with not using antivirus software on Vista 64 if you are careful about what executables you allow to run.
Of course, Vista 64 Ultimate has it's own compatibility issues that mean it might not be suitable for everyone, and a price tag that might put a few people off, so YMMV.