At the platform level, it's not been difficult since inception. From the app level, it wasn't until XP that MS consolidated everything on the NT kernel, which supported all of the security mechanisms that Win 95/98/ME did not, and those OS's which were the 32bit migration path from 16-bit Windows represented the VAST majority of their user population. Apps were written largely for the subset of the Win32 API supported on Win95 code base.
It takes time to transition 100's of millions of users and 10's of thousands of aps to the new model. Did MS take their time and fumble even some of their own apps? Yes. But since about the OfficeXP era, it hasn't been difficult to do so for MS apps. Incidentally that predates OS X's existence by about a year. Transitioning 3rd part apps to a new model that requires changes to support new feature sets takes time. Ask Apple when they moved off of MacOS 9.. lots of stuff still ran, but it took a while to get the 3rd party apps to take advantage of new OS X features. And I'd suggest the Apple had 1/10th the application base at the time... Again, the OP is comparing Win 7 and The Mac. Not apps. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:28 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > While it's a nice debate, there's really no way to prove which is better. > However, let me ask you this, Steven: If the Microsoft security model is so > good, why did it take them so long to make it harder to run as a local admin > by default? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:20 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that it probably wouldn't be as > bad. > > I'd also suggest that there's a significant anti-MS sentiment that makes it a > specific target. Along with the fact that I suspect that gunning for the #1 > platform makes extrapolating OS share to virus infection target rate a non- > linear exercise. > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:13 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > I started to reply to that remark too, then I had a little debate with > > myself whether I could make a good point... given that Macs have had a > > non-admin user default for some time, while Microsoft did nothing to > > encourage users to not be admins until Vista. > > > > Certainly if the tables were turned and Macs had 92% of the worldwide > > market share, the infection rate of Macs would be much higher than we > > see today. But it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad as Windows overall is > today. > > > > Carl > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:00 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is obviously > > > much better than Windows > > > > I'd suggest that's an ill-drawn conclusion. > > > > -sc > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:19 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > > Are there any reports out there that show Windows 7 running with UAC > > > that its minimizes the infections of spyware. > > > While I am not a huge fan of MACS, their security model is obviously > > > much better than Windows. I am hoping that with Win 7 and their > > > requirement to run as admin similar to the Unix model that it will > > > help minimize this. Even with users not in admin group in Windows > > > XP, Vista I have seen malware get right on and hose a machine. > > > Of course with Windows 7 if you make someone a local admin and > > > disable the UAC you are back to the XP model of security. > > > > > > Of all our support requests I would say 40% at least are malware > > > related probably higher.. > > > > > > I see this as an OS security issue not a 3rd party program issue. > > > > > > Greg > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tammy [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:11 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: WTF? Fake AV > > > > > > Everyone seems to be having these issues of the rogues slipping through. > > > Not just any one AV. > > > 70 thousand or so new ones released daily so it is difficult for > > > anyone to keep up. > > > More explained here by Eric Howes > > > > > > http://www.sunbeltsecuritynews.com/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tammy Stewart > > > Malware Removal Specialist > > > Sunbelt Software > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
