OK, but what about Windows 98, which is the Windows version I prefer when Windows is required?
On Fri, 9 May 2008, John LaCour wrote: > It says 'vulnerable to malware'. Here are the stats from PC Tools in > the article: > > "According to statistics gathered from users of PC Tools' ThreatFire > security service, Vista let 639 threats per thousand computers > through, compared with 586 for Windows 2000, 478 for Windows 2003, and > 1,021 for Windows XP. " > > > So XP systems have more malware on them than Vista according to PC Tools. > > I think it's just a common issue of a correllation vs. causal. > Perhaps folks running 2K > these days are better at protecting their systems? Or Vista is > generally used by > folks with new computers who may also be new to learning how to avoid malware > or downloading special codecs for their new 'puters. > > -John > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Alex Eckelberry > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm still trying to get my mind around this one. Is this a confusion > > between malware and vulnerabilities? > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle > > .jhtml?articleID=207601217 > > > > Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Vista operating system is more susceptible to > > malware than Windows 2000, and though it's 37% more secure than Windows > > XP, it's still too vulnerable. > > > > Alex > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
