Microsoft: Vista logged fewer flaws than other modern OSs

By on January 24, 2008, 6:48 PM
Microsoft is giving itself high marks in its first year Vista security report, at least when comparing the OS’s first year vulnerability and patch statistics to its Windows OS predecessor and other modern workstation operating systems, such as Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Apple’s Mac OS.

The report has been criticized for not taking into account factors like software quality, administrative controls, physical controls, or just how damaging each exploit can be. Microsoft’s Jeff Jones notes, however, that the report is not an attempt to prove which operating system is “more secure” than the others, but rather an analysis on how Microsoft’s improvements to the security update process and development process have reduced the impact of security updates to Windows administrators significantly compared to its predecessor, Windows XP.

That said, Vista still has a relatively small user base (compared to XP) and despite Microsoft and a number of security labs' best efforts, real world usage still seems better at finding bugs. Whether or not Vista is more secure will be determined overtime.




User Comments: 21

Got something to say? Post a comment
SlappyMcSlap said:
"You have encountered an error that is, in our estimation, not due to software quality, administrative controls, physical controls, or just how bad things are despite seven years of work. Report this error that is obviously in no way due to us in any way shape or form?...Cancel or Allow?"
c0mpw3rk said:
Vista sucks. It is as much of a turkey as "Windows ME" edition was.Vista's main flaw is summed up in 2 words: RAM HOG!Sure, Vista is pretty. But it is "all show, and go!"I service computers, and I get people who pay me to revert their computers from Vista back to Windows XP !The only way Vista would have less security flaws than XP would be due to the exodus people are making away from Vista to Xp, Ubuntu, or like I did to Fedora Core 8. Less users would equal less complaints.Microsoft made contracts with PC & parts vendors to not write drivers so users can revert back to XP, like my son in the Air Force whose Toshiba laptop could not get wireless XP drivers.Vista is "The Emperor's New Clothes": Microswish admires how beautiful the suit is, and consumers say "The King is naked!"Vista Sucks.-c0mpw3rk.
carl0ski said:
[b]Originally posted by c0mpw3rk:[/b][quote]Microsoft made contracts with PC & parts vendors to not write drivers so users can revert back to XP, like my son in the Air Force whose Toshiba laptop could not get wireless XP drivers.[/quote]Don't be foolish and give up on getting XP driversno matter what the model of the laptop Intel, Atheros, Broadcom and Realtek continue to make XP drivers available for their products.Head to their Sites directly looking for the Chipset Toshiba uses.I Have a HP Pavillion TX1000 Entertainment Tablet Notebook.MS paid HP Money to make this Vista only laptop to highlight the so called power of vista.However the Video, Wireless ethernet etc was identical to the HP DV6200 series of notebooks
jhill3d said:
Hey c0mpw3rk - I think you can get some medication for that.
windmill007 said:
Ya I also work on computers and I upgrade many people to XP too. The main problem they tryed to make it easier for people but in reality it is harder. If a newbie has trouble with vista that should tell microsoft something. I keep telling myself I need to try ubuntu but I really like XP. Someday I guess when they force vista or someother ME clone on me I will make the switch. People should have a choice. I am sick of hearing people say they had to get vista. Why? Shouldn't they be able to get it installed with XP? If some company would still sell there system in the big stores with Xp I bet they would make a killing. Any company listening? Not everyone wants ME II.>err I mean vista.
jesse_hz said:
Amazing that M$ still fails to realize that it isn't about the number of flaws, but how fast you patch them.
phantasm66 said:
You all need to drop this obsession with blaming Vista for your PC woes.Vista is just fine. Too many folks jumping on the "lets hate Vista" bandwagon.IMHO, Vista is a welcomed and needed update to Windows, which I have running on a number of machines with varying specs. No problems at all.The fault isn't with Vista - its with you.Going around recommending that people listen to your "expertise" and revert to XP is just plain ignorance, IMHO.
phantasm66 said:
[b]Originally posted by c0mpw3rk:[/b][quote]Vista sucks. It is as much of a turkey as "Windows ME" edition was.Vista's main flaw is summed up in 2 words: RAM HOG!Sure, Vista is pretty. But it is "all show, and go!"I service computers, and I get people who pay me to revert their computers from Vista back to Windows XP !The only way Vista would have less security flaws than XP would be due to the exodus people are making away from Vista to Xp, Ubuntu, or like I did to Fedora Core 8. Less users would equal less complaints.Microsoft made contracts with PC & parts vendors to not write drivers so users can revert back to XP, like my son in the Air Force whose Toshiba laptop could not get wireless XP drivers.Vista is "The Emperor's New Clothes": Microswish admires how beautiful the suit is, and consumers say "The King is naked!"Vista Sucks.-c0mpw3rk.[/quote]Wow... no offence, but that's a number of pretty sweeping and half baked statements, IMHO.
icye said:
I'm with phantasm66 on this. All my machines at home have Vista installed and there is absolutely no problems running on a computers that are 2 years or older. There is no such thing as a perfect OS because each OS has flaws. Since Microsoft has the biggest share in the OS field, we hear more about exploits, etc.
windmill007 said:
[b]Originally posted by phantasm66:[/b][quote]You all need to drop this obsession with blaming Vista for your PC woes.Vista is just fine. Too many folks jumping on the "lets hate Vista" bandwagon.The fault isn't with Vista - its with you.No the problem isn't with us or you. The problem is with Vista. I'm not jumping on any bandwaggon. I'm just stating facts from my 20 years in the pc/windows field. I've used all the operating systems. Is vista the worse.No....windows ME was. Why was Me the worse..crashing and bloatedness. Why is vista bad? Bloatedness ... usefullness ... does it do anything better than XP? I have yet to see one single thing. Does it slow you down trying to do the same things. Yes. Is it more confusing for new users. YES. Just because you got a shinny free version with your brandnew spankin pc doesn't automatically mean you have to love it or that its the best for you. Sure you may like it but it has many problems... not just drivers.. but usefullness ... so that is why many of us complain. Hopefully to make microsoft see the error of there ways and actually put out a good operating system, which will be comming out very soon BTW.
shl0791 said:
wow, i guess the old saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is true. Some people need to learn to adapt. If we let the people decide, we'll be stuck with xp forever. Let us move on.
windmill007 said:
Yes c0mpw3rk you are right. I seen first hand microsoft attempts to make pc vendors not put out XP drivers. They dont' want people going back to vista. To bad there are ways around that...Nice try microsoft! I will keep loading XP over your crappy ME II till you give me XP II :)
windmill007 said:
I just want to know why do we need to move on? Why not just update xp with new features? Its just a stinkin operating system. Since XP is so good why not make it better? Why try to start over?
icye said:
To suggest that Microsoft will put out a good operating system is the same as saying that the next president of the USA will fix all the problems in the USA.
iraedei said:
It's seems to me like those people who claim to be "computer techs" in this forum have issues. I have my copy of Vista running fine and I'm far from being a computer techie. I run a number of different applications with limited problems. I've had to upgrade my OfficeSuit but that is to be expected with an OS update. All of my old games run fine, all of my brand new game run fine, but games that came out between '05 and early '07 needed hotfix patches for some reason (but no big deal).And what is with this crap about Vista being called ME II? I suggest taking a deep breath, maybe drinking some water, and laying off the heavy narcotics. Vista has added security that XP could not offer me. I can run up to 8 gigs of RAM instead of 4 gigs (which in fact XP could only make use of 2). RAM hog you say? I'm sorry, but like I said before, I'm not a compTechie I'm just a laborer... I don't make much money and I can afford 6 gigs of RAM. Vista isn't bloated you're just starving it. I get the impression some of you people live in a third world country. 2 gigs of RAM isn't considered very much anymore. Wake up!What also makes me laugh is all you kids out there. You think you're so smart. I've seen the birth and death of god knows how many Microsoft operating systems. And I've read the same crap about EVERY single one of them when they were first released; from magazine articles to forums like this one.Everyone just wants to be cool and hate something. Get a life you people. If you're having problems running Vista buy a "dummies.." guide to Vista or something. I had to do that when DOS6 came out there's no shame in it. Instead of getting angry about the problem... figure out a solution that doesn't involve reverting back to the stone age. You're like a bunch of scared little cave-men.AND ABOVE ALL!!!!! REMEMBER : Everything you are saying bad about Vista has been said before about XP (and up until SP2 mind you... and how long did that take to come out). I'm BETA testing SP1 for Vista and what few issues I've run into as a casual user that I am I've seen corrected already.
Per Hansson said:
phantasm66; If I am to be open I find your (and some others) constant praising of Vista as hard to read as those that continually bash itHere is my intro with it, my 7900GT does not work, I get a bunch of lines accross the screen when changing resolution. This has been known for over a year but no one cares, not MS not nVidia. It can be fixed by overclocking the card, thus vioiding the warrantyWhen the card is working as it should XP is 60% faster than Vista in Crysis on my PCMy Creative soundcard experience has been nothing but problems (this is to be expected from Creative tho)The final drop in the bucket was when the thing did not output more than stereo sound to my 5.1 speaker setup once I upgraded from 2GB RAM to 8GB RAMYou say we all bashed about XP when it got released, well, I still do, I franly think it appaling that a OS which is basically 2000 gets released as a new OS and that people actualy pay money for itIf you want a frigging face update download some visual addon thing, there are even addons now that make XP look just like Vista, including all the Aero stuffBut pay the price of a new retail XP license? (since the OEM is bound to your PC's mainboard) no thank youThe reason people don't want to switch to Vista is because they went from Win98 > WinXPWhich was a very good upgrade, one that gave them a very stable and well built OSI just did that switch 3 years before, when 2000 was released, and I never complained, I ran dual boot with Win98 for the old DOS games that required itBut this Vista thing is nothing like it, nVidia and all other are only opimizing the drivers for their top of the line cards for Vista, the older series are being left in the dustDo I care? Not really, I've now got a 8800GTS G92, Auzentech Souncard and Q6600With this setup my performance is the same in Vista as in XP basically (when gaming)The OS is still too annoying for me to run tho, even with the admin account brought back to a real admin account and UAC turned offRight now I'm using XP x64, so for the poster above who said XP only supports 2GB RAM, well, congrats on being taken by the MS hype or whateverTo pass the 4GB virtual address space does not take Vista, it takes a 64 bit OS and Vista is available in both 32 and 64bit, yet another big blunder by MS. 64bit should have been the only choiceI just don't see what gets better with Vista, going from the Win9X kernel to the NT kernel back in 2000 sure made a difference, but going from NT v5.0 to v5.1 was just a joke (2000 > XP)Now I'm running NT 5.2 (Windows XP x64 which = Windows Server 2003 codebase)Vista is NT 6.0But what works better in Vista? I have not found one single thing to be perfectly honestOh yea, I do dual boot now too, I.e. I have both Vista and XP x64 installedThe difference now compared to when I was dual booting Win98 with Win2000 is that then I ran 2000 mainly (with sometimes weeks of uptime) only occasionally switching to Win98 to play some old legacy gamesBut now I'm basically never using Vista, because unlike Win98 vs 2000 in Vista vs XP I already have a 100% stable system in XP, that I can get weeks of uptime on without it ever crashingAnd that is atleast for me the reason to switch to a newer OS; to be able to get more work done with more stable multitasking etc.Sorry, I just don't see the reason for Vista, even without all the driver problems that still exist but somehow the people that praise Vista magically seem to ignoreOh, I left out one part, I have Win2K Advanced Server in my dual boot list too. Guess which I like most of the three?
phantasm66 said:
Clearly this is a topic pretty close to people's hearts.Thing to remember is that we are all folks here who love computers, and despite some pretty big differences in opinion, its great that we still seem to manage (on the whole) to discuss these things maturely.Some of my earlier posts on this thread here could perhaps have been a tad more diplomatic.That said, I find many of the negative comments as regards Vista quite unfair.
icye said:
XP a well built OS? People's memories must be foggy with all the headaches SP1 for XP gave
jesse_hz said:
I can remember _trying_ to use ME and barely getting 5 mins of uptime. Vista is definitely no ME.
atk spade said:
Im alot like Per. I have no problem with Vista per se (other then compatibility issues but that is expected with a new OS sadly) But I just dont see the benefit. I suppose DX10 support is the biggest reason for the switch.
9Nails said:
Windows 95 sucked. Windows 95 R2 was good. Windows 98 sucked. Windows 98 SE was good. Windows ME sucked. Windows 2000 was good. Windows XP was good...Vista? Well, unfortunately, it follows XP which broke the pattern. But Vista is quite excellent, provided with one caveat; it needs the right hardware with the right drivers. That's been the problem all along, 3rd party support and solid drivers hasn't been matched Microsoft's excellent efforts. This has happened with each of the major milestones from Redmond. Vendors catch up on the second release.New features, such as WinFS, would have made Vista truly revolutionary. Unfortunately we missed those features and are left with the "Windows 2000" version of a solid platform. Vista is a really good OS - but it's typically not everything to everyone.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.