Over at Playfuls.com, they have an opinion piece on MS Vista, the latest operating system to roll out of Redmond. The piece centers on Vista’s security applications, and it frets that Microsoft will become the new security giant, and other security companies, like Macafee and Symantec, will be left to wither on the vine.
The author makes one big assumption: that Vista secuirty will actually work.
Ever since Win98, I’ve been skeptical of any promises MS makes. The first release of Win98 was such a disaster it’s hard to think any of their “first-run” products could ever do well.
The author over at Playfuls also rips into XP, and I have to call an exception here: XP is WORLDS better than 2000, ME, NT, 98, or 95. It runs smoothly. I especially like the “protected” systems, where if one crashes, it’s not an insta-death for anything else you’re running (unless it’s explorer). Oddly, one program that manages to wreck my XP operating system is…. Word 2003. Yep. Almost every time I use it at home, it nukes the OS. I think I know what the problem is (incompatability with Acrobat 5.0), but I am loathe to upgrade to Acrobat 6.0 simply because MS Office 2003 doesn’t want to deal with Acrobat 5.0. Suckorama.
The author also claims that Linux has less of a security problem than XP does. On the surface that is true. It’s also true that there’s a far smaller market share of Linux, so hackers, by proportionality, will spend less time on Linux because it’s not used nearly as much as Windows.
Which brings up the third variable: hackers. Hackers are persistent and clever, and regardless of what Vista presents, I’m sure that we’ll hear about viruses, worms, trojans, etc. that Vista is going to have to update. I think Symantec and Macafee are going to be at a disadvantage (they’ve been denied source code), but in about 6 months they’ll catch up and offer security alternatives to Vista.