| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
One year later: Did Vista's focus on security pay off? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:19 EST/05:19 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft's emphasis on improvements to security features in Windows Vista may have undermined business adoption of the OS as many business and enterprise customers are still holding off on upgrading to the OS nearly a year after its release to them. Microsoft spent a good deal of time and money to ensure Vista's security after Windows XP and applications running on it proved susceptible to devastating worms like Blaster, Slammer, and MyDoom. Though Microsoft released Windows XP Service Pack 2 to remedy some vulnerabilities, the company decided that security would be a top priority for the next major Windows release, said George Stathakopoulos, general manager of Microsoft’s Response and Product Centers. "The security part of Vista was talked about a lot because it was a primary concern all over the world," he said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:59:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 11/22/2007 11:59:29 AM |
| The security in OS X 10.5 is not unlike Vista's level of security. How can a more secure system be a mistake? Few companies moved to XP its first year either. Wait. Business will come around. |
| #2 By 2231 (72.5.151.4) at 11/23/2007 7:31:23 PM |
|
#1, using the XP upgrade pace is not a valid comparison. Back then the alternative for most was sticking with Windows 98.
If the reviews of Vista SP1 are accurate then a lot of businesses will wait until the next version of Windows. And if the economy slows down then any opportunity to reduce expenses will be jumped on. The business case to upgrade just ain't there this time around. |
| #3 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 11/24/2007 3:17:17 AM |
|
#2, I assess that the business case in favor of Windows Vista and Office 2007 is found only when one considers the client in the larger context of the servers and management systems which are there to deploy and support it.
Vista and O2K7 really shine when one, no matter the scale [small business to large enterprise], uses the servers and systems to manage all of them. In this larger context, Vista is a dream. It is very easy and quick to deploy and it is butter smooth to administor. There are appropriate systems and tools for every level and it is easier than ever to do it right. And heck yes, Vista is way more secure and much less of a drain to harden and keep safe. Every user, regardless of level actually runs as a restricted user - the root level admin account is disabled by default. Th efirewall alone is worth the upgrade - it is smart and it works and despite teh BS press, it does perform out-bound filtering. Vista is most definately more secure - cornerstone [secure startup] in Enterprise and Ultimate add to one's peace of mind. There is just so much there in terms of security - Jim Allchin and crew really did it - they really did succeed in making Windows a secure OS, and that, as I understand it, was the main objective. This post was edited by lketchum on Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 03:18. |
| #4 By 2231 (72.5.151.4) at 11/24/2007 1:09:44 PM |
|
#3, this is all pie in the sky for the bean counters. They will start with the known upfront costs for upgrading the hardware, software and training, which are easily calculated. They will then want to see tangible ways in which expenses will be reduced or revenue will increase.
You can't see a marked improvement when you've got a solid infrastructure based on XP, office 2003 and windows 2003. |
| #5 By 10022 (74.69.114.228) at 11/24/2007 3:42:05 PM |
|
The problem with Vista isnt the security features- those are great and have so far held up pretty well. Since XP SP2 and now Vista, when was the last time you heard of a major incident like Blaster or Slammer on the headline news??
One problem with Vista is the bloat and overall responsiveness. Even Vista x64 performance is bad. Another problem is that Microsoft really needs to have some sort of introduction to Vista Secuirty tutorial that is targeted for each of the diferent types of users - make them watch it (or at least bug the crap out of them untill they do like every other little annoying feature) If the end user doesnt understand the problem they will simply see it as annoying and dismiss it. One thing to remember with Vista is that it is a bridge. Bite the bullet now- going from XP to Windows 7 isnt going to be easy if Microsoft is really serious about finally getting rid of the majority of legancy code and support. And hopefully if more companies take the time to understand Vista the need for UAC will be reduced in Windows 7 (which really, if you havent used it, isnt really noticible after the first few day of setting up a computer - i just hope they fix/implement command line elevation and fix the fact that even elevated Administrators are NOT as powerfull as the built-in Adminsitrator Account) |
| #6 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at 11/25/2007 2:05:39 PM |
|
Along the lines of performance, my early tests of WHS show some REALLY bad performace issues if a share folder is set for duplication.
I copies my Music files (22GB of MP3) to the Music Share on WHS.... With Folder Duplication On: 2-3MB/Sec. Without Folder Duplication On: 16-18MB/Sec. At first, I thought Vista was crapping the bed again, but then I copied some files to a non duplicated folder and it was fine. The moral of the story (so far), is if you are going to populate a folder with a lot of data, and have it duplicate for redundancy, copy the files FIRST, then turn on duplication. TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Sunday, November 25, 2007 at 14:07. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:59:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
