Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jan 2006 20:12 UTC, submitted by mono
Windows "On Wednesday morning, I met with Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin, the man most directly responsible for Windows Vista and Longhorn Server, the company's upcoming client and server operating system releases. Allchin is a soft-spoken, intelligent man with decades of industry experience, the last 15 years of which were spent at Microsoft. I've run into Mr. Allchin at various events throughout the years, but the last time I sat down with him for a one-on-one meeting was in August 2001, when we discussed the then-upcoming release of Windows XP. With Windows Vista on track for a late 2006 release, Allchin hit the road to meet with members of the technical press."
Thread beginning with comment 90695
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Security ...
by WorknMan on Sun 29th Jan 2006 20:47 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, they're touting security as the biggest addition to Vista. However, if you're running XP w/SP2, a virus scanner, a non-IE browser, and a little bit of common sense is really all you need. Been running Windows (in one flavor or another) since '93, and have had one virus so far (New York virus from a floppy disk .. many years ago.) Other than that, no major issues with securiyt, ever.
As for the average user, let's just hope Vista is as secure as they say it is. Otherwise, it's XP all over again and the single biggest advantage they claim Vista has will be for nothing. Only time will tell, I s'pose.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Security ...
by glarepate on Mon 30th Jan 2006 00:07 in reply to "Security ..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Otherwise, it's XP all over again ...

One might even say it's w95/w98/NT/2k/xp all over again.

Time will tell if they have finally learned the lesson of history. W2k3 looks pretty good so far in terms of security and stability. Hopefully that will prove be an accurate indicator of what's coming in Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Security ...
by hraq on Mon 30th Jan 2006 04:39 in reply to "Security ..."
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"Other than that, no major issues with securiyt, ever." How could you tell you have no viruses in your system (active or dormant) when Antivirus softwares on the market fail to detect 80 % of infections. Besides, how can you be sure there are no security holes in your network when even the top windows servers do; finally how can you be sure no one is spying on you while you use your IE.

"if you're running XP w/SP2, a virus scanner, a non-IE browser, and a little bit of common sense is really all you need."
That's what I did but then my system went coco when I played a wmv file which turned to be a virus underneath.

In computer industry you cannot be sure of anything; but one thing you can which is to use the more trusted less demanding OSs like OSX or Linuxes not to be secure but to reduce your chances of getting nailed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Security ...
by -earthdog- on Mon 30th Jan 2006 06:08 in reply to "Security ..."
-earthdog- Member since:
2006-01-30

I agree with you on Vista, XP, and security issues. Proper prevention and a little common sense will take you a long way with Windows. I personally don't consider it a bad OS. XP does everything I need it to do and has always been very stable for me. Plus, I can always play the latest games, -yadda yadda- hardware -yadda yadda- all the other platitudes you hear in almost every thread.

All that said, I'm looking forward to Vista. Mostly. I still have a few political/social problems with what is going to be in it (DRM) and the fact that we can no longer buy a Microsoft OS outright. I don't even like to lease cars or apartments.

However, my biggest question to Microsoft will be if software that is installed on the machine (through user accounts, not the superuser) will be allowed to change system files. I'm not an OS expert, but it seems to me if Company A can come in and swap out a .dll at will, you're just whistling past the graveyard as far as stability and security goes.

Now, on XP, I've noticed user accounts have their *own* WindowsSystem file, though I've never seen any software I've installed make use of it. Could this be used to solve the .dll swap-out and security probs? Sort of like all the .directories in *nix /home accounts?

If I'm off base here, let me know.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Security ...
by biteydog on Mon 30th Jan 2006 10:55 in reply to "RE: Security ..."
biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

3rd-party software is surely one of the problems - it's too tempting for developers to open up the system as much as they can so that installation and use are as universal and simple as possible (even at the cost of security) because <easy> = <less calls to the support lines> = <lower overheads> = <more profit>.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Security ...
by WorknMan on Mon 30th Jan 2006 13:41 in reply to "Security ..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

"Other than that, no major issues with securiyt, ever." How could you tell you have no viruses in your system (active or dormant) when Antivirus softwares on the market fail to detect 80 % of infections. Besides, how can you be sure there are no security holes in your network when even the top windows servers do;

I fixed a lot of friends' computers who have been infected (and taught them a thing or two about security along the way), so I can generally spot when a computer has been infected with something, especially spyware.

finally how can you be sure no one is spying on you while you use your IE.

Simple - I don't use IE.

That's what I did but then my system went coco when I played a wmv file which turned to be a virus underneath.

Where did you get the wmv file? Do you remember the part I mentioned about common sense ? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Security ...
by Hands on Mon 30th Jan 2006 17:47 in reply to "Security ..."
Hands Member since:
2005-06-30

As far as I can understand (I don't have a beta copy of Vista to play with), the security model of Vista doesn't necessarily make it more secure than XP being run by someone who knows what they're doing. Vista makes security more convenient for everyone including those who don't really know much about security. Vista is supposed to take all of the advances that XP got from SP2, add a few more, and make them more transparent to the user. Vista has a different user policy that should make using a computer as a non-administrator user less painful than it is now. Vista even looks like it will have a few tools that were only available on XP through third party vendors, such as parental controls.

I remember when some people actually argued that if you knew what you were doing Win9x could be a stable OS. They were right to some degree, but few would bother with that argument now. Just as stability was probably the best argument for people to upgrade from Win9x to Win2k or XP, a new security model might in fact be a compelling argument for people to upgrade from Win2k or XP to Vista. This is nothing more than speculation at this point, but I'm going to hold my judgments until we are all able to see the final product.

Disclaimer: I doubt I'll ever have a need for Vista personally, but I'm hoping that when I encounter it at work (might be a long time off), it will be an improvement over XP.

Reply Parent Score: 1