Windows 7 Security Called Into Question
Okay, even we have to admit this is getting a bit insane here. Are you people never happy?
Everyone complained that Windows XP left much to be desired in the security department. So Microsoft made some changes, took some notes from the Mac OS X and Linux playbook, and required users to elevate privileges via the User Account Control (UAC) anytime changes were made to the system (resulting in constant pop-ups asking you for password and permission and the like). Now, to be fair, Microsoft got a little heavy-handed with the UAC in Vista. It often seemed to be stuck in a loop, asking, "Are you sure you want to do this?"
Since the overbearing UAC seemed to have a minimal effect on the actual security of the OS (often because users simply ignored the precautionary questions/approvals), Microsoft decided to scale back how often it asked the user to elevate privileges to make changes in Windows 7. Now security experts are crying foul and saying the less obtrusive warnings could pave the way for malware infections.
Beta versions of Windows 7 allow some changes to be made and privileges to be elevated without properly notifying the user. Microsoft has said that UAC restriction will be tightened somewhat when Windows 7 is actually released. In defense of their decision, the folks at Microsoft claim that the less frequently warnings pop up, the more users will pay attention to them. McAfee spokesman Joris Evers came to Microsoft's defense, explaining, "If you get heavier locks and security on your house, it often takes you a bit more time to get in and out. If it is too much work every day, you may end up removing some of the locks, or leaving them unlocked, for convenience."
UAC will be user configurable in Windows 7, however. Vista's version simply had an on-and-off option, but 7 adds a third, medium level to its own version. Those who didn't mind the constant barrage of dialog boxes in Vista can switch it to high, and those who have no regard for their personal safety can turn it off.
We're no Microsoft evangelists here at Switched; in fact, more than half of us use Macs and we have at least one dyed-in-the-wool Linux geek. But even we're cutting the folks in Redmond some slack on this one. Will you people please make up your minds? [From: CNET]
Related Links:
UAC will be user configurable in Windows 7, however. Vista's version simply had an on-and-off option, but 7 adds a third, medium level to its own version. Those who didn't mind the constant barrage of dialog boxes in Vista can switch it to high, and those who have no regard for their personal safety can turn it off.
We're no Microsoft evangelists here at Switched; in fact, more than half of us use Macs and we have at least one dyed-in-the-wool Linux geek. But even we're cutting the folks in Redmond some slack on this one. Will you people please make up your minds? [From: CNET]
Related Links:
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Andy K. said 5:15PM on 2-07-2009
I am satisfied with Windows(XP, Vista). My securtiy with them along with AVG is impeccable. What I don't like about Microsoft is the 22 tracking cookies that they add every time that you log on. AVG busts their aZZ everytime. I don't want or need their spyware.
Reply
Davidicus Lyndium said 12:44AM on 2-08-2009
I've had Windows 7 since the Beta get-go and I don't know what the hell people are complaining about...
Reply
sfcat said 4:41PM on 2-08-2009
I have used both macs and windows for a very long time. I've been a professional computer consultant for 19 years. My personal machines are both macs, switched from Windows to macs almost 2 yrs ago, I have parallels installed for when I absolutely have to run something on a PC (very rarely). Did you know that XP runs faster on parallels than on a Windows PC? I love my macs. They work so much better, almost never crash, no viruses, and sturdy as anything! I've dropped my macbook dozens of times, literally, and it's still working great. I can't imagine ever going back.
Reply
DarkLight said 9:15PM on 2-08-2009
Well, as a "professional", I expected you to know better. Obviously you have no idea of what's going on.
For one, since Apple switched to x86, Macs are nothing but _normal_ computers in a nice looking (and sturdy, if you will) non-standard form. You can also run OSX in a non-Apple computer (if you know what you're doing, wich I'm pretty sure you don't).
For two, XP in a Mac is absolutely no different from XP in an off-the-shelf computer. If it runs faster, it's because the Mac has faster components. But then again, you could just buy a higher end PC, get the same results, and still pay much less than you paid for your Mac.
Whatever floats your boat though, if you enjoy being ripped off...
As for the original topic, Windows will never, ever be as secure as Linux or *BSD
Linux and *BSD (and other Unix-style kernels/OSes) were designed from the ground up to be secure. That's why it works. Security is not something you can add to an insecure base. You have to do it from the ground up. So unless they make a new Windows kernel starting from scratch, meant to be secure for the end user, wich would likely break any compatibility with existing software and dramatically change the way software is written for Windoze, don't even bother dreaming. It won't happen. Not without at least resulting in something very annoying (like Vista's UAC).