Security software vendor: Vista less secure than Windows 2000

Mon May 19, 2008 11:33AM EDT

See Comments (16)

In stark contrast to previous research commissioned by Microsoft, security software company PC Tools (which develops the exceptional Spyware Doctor, a tool I commonly recommend) has blasted Vista in a series of reports saying that Vista is hardly as secure as Microsoft claims it to be.

After analyzing 1.4 million computers it says it's found that computers running Vista contain 639 infections per 1,000 machines running the OS. That's worse than the ancient Windows 2000, where 586 infections impact every 1,000 computers. The bright spot: It's better than Windows XP, which features 1,021 infections per 1,000 computers.

There are some obvious reasons behind Windows 2000's good showing, of course: As an old operating system with only a tiny market share, malware developers aren't likely to be actively targeting Windows 2000 any more, instead setting their eyes on Vista, the up and coming prize for those looking to compromise PCs. But the numbers are nonetheless troubling, considering Microsoft's claims about Vista's rock-solid security.

One Microsoft evangelist's response to PC Tools' claim was a baffling post implying that users are probably at fault for going to "probably dodgy" websites and allowing spyware to be installed on their machines, but that Vista was nonetheless more secure than Windows 2000. The official response from Microsoft points to the "success" of Microsoft's near-worthless Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) as evidence of Vista's superior security while pointing to some other, genuine improvements in Vista's architecture.

On Friday, PC Tools released additional data backing up its claims and slamming the MSRT as "not a comprehensive anti-virus scanner," and it's right. In fact, all PCs in the PC Tools test were running security software already.

The fight is likely to continue, but whether or not Vista is "less secure" than Windows 2000 is not really of much importance in the end. The bottom line is that no matter what version of Windows you're running, you have to protect yourself with up-to-date antivirus and anti-spyware software, period.

POLL: Do you use antivirus software? 

Comments on Security software vendor: Vista less secure than Windows 2000

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by quad.core4 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:24PM EDT Report Abuse

    hey! warezkid1 this isnt about politics and second no matter what operating system you have if its windows 95 or 98 or even XP ect... hackers will always hack anything nothing is "rock solid secure" hackers will always find a way for example bill gates made this windows vista to what he sees is safe everyone has a different idea of safe on the topic of computers hence everyone thinks differently which is prolly true people who visit bogus sites dont know whats out there on the internet its like going out to a war zone blind and deaf not knowing the risks there will always be hackers out there and yahoo will not lose in this fight to stop microsoft taking over and warezkid1 " how can you know if you have a virus or malware if theirs no antivirus to tell you thats true" well anyways god bless you all and good luck yahoo and great Job microsoft with windows vista " it has a very stable good future" and thanks for service pack 1 keep up the good work

  • 7 Posted by jczippay on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:31PM EDT Report Abuse

    When I first read the article, I thought it would be about the operating system's vulnerability to attack. It isn't; it's about an unprotected computer being attacked, with no statistics about the status of the computer's virus protection and no information about how security-minded the users were. The article was nearly useless, since it completely omitted the effects of the security breaches, where they occurred, and what could be done to prevent them.

  • 8 Posted by metallica101987 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:16PM EDT Report Abuse

    What I have a question about is what AV program were these vista machines tested with?

  • 9 Posted by xlt3zz on Tue May 20, 2008 12:09PM EDT Report Abuse

    I've made the switch to Mac! No anti-virus, no firewall, no PROBLEMS! With still a relatively small market share and a rock-solid UNIX foundation I compute with no worries.

  • 10 Posted by deviousrosie2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    I don't think this is totally true. Iam running Vista Home Premium on all my desktops and laptops and have had no different problems with it than I had with XP,2000,98,95. Everything be said Vista has given me more stability than the other and so far no problem with security.

  • 11 Posted by gusty99 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    Try turning on the automatic updates and get an antivirus program. It's fixed every issue i've seen. Oh, BTW, Spyware Doctor is terrible and I can't believe you have to refer to some niche product. Just another blogger on the web giving his two cents with no credibility.

  • 12 Posted by aicomputerservice on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    639 infections per 1,000 computers.What a load of cow cookies. Those numbers don't mean anything. I've had customers that had over 1,000 infections on ONE computer. Most of the times people either don't use any type of anti-virus or anti-spyware software or they choose to let their subscription run out. Easiest way to avoid any headaches is to get yourself a good ant-virus/anti-spyware software with realtime monitoring. Keep it up to date and scan your computer every week or two.

  • 13 Posted by jsantodonato on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    Those Microsoft defenders must be working for the company.

  • 14 Posted by lennyogarc on Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    There are many reasons that win2k and vista shouldnt be compared. The kind of users I feel is most important. Vista is mainstream and win2k is not... "regular people" don't use win2k. And as everyone knows, casual websurfing... leads to nasty spyware

  • 15 Posted by rkr1995 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    To kupriaa1: Are we naive or what? I am quite certain rogueist is revealing a little reality here. Yes, let's explore this one ...linking to a new thread might be appropriate though.

  • 16 Posted by rkr1995 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    PS. though in the interest of fairness/justice rogueist nay have exagerated to make a point. OBVIOUSLY not EVERY application and not ALL DLLs have so-called 'back doors', yet if anyone doubts their widesread existence I have 3 used cars, a bridge and some swamp land for sale...

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.