Windows 7: Unimproved Security

[DaveP]

This article starts off positive for Microsoft/Windows 7

I can give you lots of reasons to switch to Windows 7 from Vista. It's much faster, more stable, and it's a much smoother ride.

However the real tone of this piece comes out in the second paragraph:

...Microsoft "will ship a total of 13 updates next week, eight of them pegged "critical," the highest threat ranking in its four-step scoring system, beating the previous record of 12 updates shipped in February 2007 and again in October 2008."Of these 13, five are for Windows 7...

and:

...If you really want a PC where you don't have to constantly worry about security, you need to switch to desktop Linux or a Mac. It's not that they're perfectly safe either, they're not. It's just that they're safer than the Windows alternative, and that includes Windows 7...

It goes on. However so far there have been three comments:

are you Kidding me?
was this a serious article? or was it a joke? so, your telling me because Microsoft releases patches? that makes the OS "no security improvement"???? are you really writing this drivel?

I kinda of get tired correcting people online, and it makes it worse when its a supposed professional IT writer, who thinks because software gets patched in less secure.

let me clue you in, *all* software and *all* OS's get patches.

that, is one peace, of the overall security model of a given peice of software. the simple fact is, Vista and Win7 have massive changes under the hood compared to XP. and, many of those are targeted towards security and stability.

if, you do not know this, then maybe you should write about something else.

and:

You are not a developer obviously. If you were you would know that Windows has been designed to be a single user, single task, no network operating system. On such a bad design they piled some cr!p and then more cr?p. The problem is that no matter how much cr$p you pile on a badly designed piece of software, that piece of software will remain a piece of cr%p (a bigger one for that matter, but still a piece of cr*p).

I feel that the article was written by a person who is NOT a fan of Windows. However I think that it does make some valid points. I thought that the comments were needlessly personal [attacking the author and not what was written]

Source: ITWorld.Com

[sted]

You are not a developer obviously. If you were you would know that Windows has been designed to be a single user, single task, no network operating system. On such a bad design they piled some cr!p and then more cr?p. The problem is that no matter how much cr$p you pile on a badly designed piece of software, that piece of software will remain a piece of cr%p (a bigger one for that matter, but still a piece of cr*p).

that is true of the now defunct win 9x line but 2k/xp/vista/7 are from the windows nt stable which was alwasy designed as a multi user network os as far as im aware hence nt 3.5/4 being used almost exclusively in server client environments rather than say single user home ones. Few programs more complex than

10 print "hello world"
20 goto 10

are error free with millions of lines of code its impossible and thats without some of the holes being just we diddnt think of that rather than straight errors

as to switching to mac dosent osx have abaout as many flaws but they take longer to be fixed?
and how anyone can say linux is much better worries me as there are so many versions out there any particular attack will probably affect at least one type (granted diminishing returns but you see what i mean)