Windows XP SP2 a coat of paint on a rusty car; Apple's Mac OS X much safer 




"Microsoft made noises about security in Service Pack 1, and with Windows XP when it was first released several years ago. The promises have had a hollow sound, in part because ever since those products were released, Microsoft has been issuing one 'critical update' after another, plugging this security hole and that security hole," Dan Gillmor writes for The Mercury News. "But there's no question that the company with an operating-system monopoly is finally confronting the scandalous quality -- at least in terms of safety -- of its products, a reality that has been a constant pain to users and threatened to have an impact on the bottom line. (I, for one, keep wondering why the trial lawyers haven't noticed the target Windows must surely represent.)"

"Unfortunately, due to the basic nature of Windows -- even XP, which is definitely sturdier than its predecessors -- Microsoft's efforts to make it safer remind me of the old days when I owned a car in snow country. You can't paint over rust and expect the car to last," Gillmor writes. "This is one reason why I continue to prefer my Macintosh computer, which is my primary machine for everyday use. The Mac operating system, OS X, is based on a form of Unix. It's relatively secure but not absolutely safe, either. But Apple has been more careful to make the default settings less open to troublemakers."

"There's little doubt, of course, that if Macs suddenly had Windows' market share, the malevolent hacker community would turn to the Mac for their nasty kicks. But for basic architectural reasons, it seems at least probable that the bad guys would have a somewhat more difficult time making trouble if the Mac was the target," Gillmor writes.

Full article here.
 

Posted: Sun - August 15, 2004 at 04:02 PM        

©