> 1. That is so clearly untrue. And you can read any security reviews > of any kind from any source, except Microsoft or those paid by Microsoft, to > verify it.
Every OS has weaknesses and exploits, even *nix. I read about them every day. At what point is something "secure?" Zero bugs? 10 holes? 100? > 2. Clearly making the user something other than admin is more secure. > That's why other OS have done this from the beginning and Microsoft has > started to consider it lately with Vista. Oh, so you do agree with me now. I thought you were just being a silly jingoist before. > 3. The eWeek story doesn't even claim that Microsoft Windows is > secure, so I don't see where you are reading that in between the lines. You're one to be talking about reading between lines. Again, define "secure." ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
