Lately, Microsoft has been trumping the myriad of new security measures that have been included in Windows Vista. However, IT techs have been screaming their guts out that between the lack of any substantial changes (aside from a circular start bar), the forced User Account Control, and big brother like computing- That everyone should stay with XP. Well, now we have actual basis for this. Notice how that Microsoft is quick to shift ALL the blame to the incompetent user.
The claim that Vista is less secure than Windows 2000 was made last week by security vendor PC Tools, which said that over the past six months Vista had suffered 639 unique threats, whereas Windows 2000 has suffered 586. PC Tools's research was conducted by collecting data from customers using its ThreatFire behavioural detection software. "Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date," said Simon Clausen, the chief executive of PC Tools last week. "However, recent research conducted with statistics from over 1.4 million computers within the ThreatFire community has shown that Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware than the eight-year-old Windows 2000 operating system, and only 37 percent more secure than Windows XP," Clausen said.
However, Microsoft strongly hit back at the claims, blaming users for executing malicious code on their machines. On Tuesday, Technet blogger and Microsoft evangelist Michael Kleef said the number of infections found by PC Tools was an indication of poor user behaviour
639 unique threats? This coming from the billion dollar brain-trust that spent four years to develop a circular start bar? I am truly, truly stunned.
-
