Microsoft Vista Needs No Anti-virus? Stupid Microsoft employee...

[Arbitrary 0]

This guy is saying that he lets his kid run Windows Vista without an anti-virus because of the parental controls. He thinks that since the new Windows has made such great improvements in security that he no longer needs an anti-virus. I think Microsoft has gone waaaaay too far in their PR, now they are flat out lying. They are getting to be like Apple (sorry Apple fans, but most of their ads are totally untrue). Vista will be a huge target for hackers because it is one of the most anticipated releases of an OS insofar. Sure, Apple OSX has it's moments, but Windows Vista will make a much bigger splash, for better or for worse.

Um...I'm pretty sure that this kid is entirely unable to access harmful sites. It's the parental controls here that are making the difference. A regular user is certainly not going to activate parental controls on themselves (that'd be totally weird), but in this situation, yeah, Vista would be very safe. Except that it's at the cost of the kid not being able to do much with their Internet.
But, if this article was aimed at the general population to convince them that Vista is flawless in terms of security, then they're creating a false impression. It's not flawless; I highly doubt any OS is flawless. This article is really only true for the kids whose parents decide to restrict their Internet playground.

[CaptainRon 0]

Guys, use Windows (whatever version) for entertainment and revert to Linux for the serious part of work.Frankly speaking, gamers have not many options other than Windows. Same thing goes for many of the multimedia guys.The day, say, Fedora becomes as popular as windows is now, then it would pave way to be the red flag for hackers/crackers, since most of them are not morally driven. Then we would be screaming on the discussion board to use some XYZ distro of Linux and so on...Anything that connects to the internet is not secure. Be it windows or Linux. However talking of windows vista, yes it seems to be more secure, since I use Windows Server 2003 and I know how peaceful my life has been since I gave away Windows XP. So going in the same lines, Vista is bound to be better than XP, more secure and stuff, but at the same time we have some work and data that we simply want to safe enough. That goes on my Linux.Just use dual boot and stay happy I say.

[toby 0]

You have a point until the "big splash of Vista". With these prices for Vista, and new computer for the high requirements, it won't be huge. It's been out here almost a month, and I havn't even seen it in shops.

[nightfox1405241487 0]

I laugh when MS says that Vista is the most secure OS yet. Isn't that what every OS producer says? Like if I make NightFoxOS, I'm going to claim that it is most secure and stable...even though you have to check for updates everyday and get hacked everytime you go online. MS said that 9x/2K/XP were the most secure when they came out. I don't think MS can say things like that without actually making the product available to the public. Also, a while back, I heard that MS decided to promote AVG free in Control Panel and to "weaken" the OS a bit because Symantec, McAfee, and Grisoft (maker of AVG) were complaining there would be no reason for their software and that MS was basically putting them out of business.[N]F

[Saint_Michael 3]

The good news about Microsoft Vista just keeps piling up I guess. Although I don't think this hasn't been done since windows 95 and 98. I do believe you can hack a computer through ports.Now correct me on this but from what I am reading in theses posts is that Windows kernel will only allow legit software or will it allow only Microsoft legit software?Because by the sound of it in order for the software to run properly it needs to make some changes to the kernel in order to run and update itself from time to time. I know the Business version of Vista is out I only can imagine what those business are going through right now. Spending millions in buying or updating their computers just to accept vista. Then of course find out any programs they made are now useless because vista is locking them out.But with the security thing with 8 different versions out you know that it will only take one of those versions to crack the system. Knowing Microsoft the coding will be the same and that hack could be universal. Bill gates will be making millions just on the fact that computer companies have to build computers just to be able to run vista with no problems.I was looking around and it was said that one of beta's up to RC1 is over 12 gigs. Man thats a lot and from what I am hearing most of what they are offering for applications are complete junk anyways. So the question is how many of those applications can be uninstall and still have vista run properly?Then the ultimate question would be which OS version of Vista will you get? by the sounds of it I am already looking at Business edition or the Ultimate edition as the one to get.

[KIC ION Storm 0]

As I said in my last post Vista is faster than XP for me. The one thing I didn't like (which I turned off) Was User Account Control, the thing that came with XP firewall that said block unblock or not sure, well its in Vista, you click run, it then asks you again so no wonder the kid was able to use it without AV.On the downside, I am still looking for a good AV that works with Vista, regardless of M$'s statements about Kernel lock down, as with my Xbox, that runs Linux ha ha

[issdiscovery04 0]

After many years of dealing with M$, there's one thing i've learned. DON'T LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT THEIR PRODUCT! Everything that was supposed to boost security with Vista doesn't exactly work. Also, M$'s 'new' security impliments are just annoying. If anyone has used Vista u'll be way too familiar with the annoying little box that appears each time u want to do something. I'll admit that this has gotten better but it's very annoying.

[Matoking1405241541 0]

Hahaahahaha! I'm laughing at Windows! They really need some brains. Every OS needs antivirus. Later somebody manages to create virus, that goes through Windows Vista's security, and possibly does some major damage to computer. Thats true, people. Anyways, I am sure somebody manages to create antivirus program. There are few already.

[ladychaos 0]

Windows OS s are hubs for viruses. That man obviously uses the parental control called "Unplug the Ethernet Cord". My fave story to tell: Microsoft is the bootleg version of Mac.Bill Gates steals the source code from Apple, who he was working for in the 80's, then releases Windows 12 months before Apple releases Mac software. What was Apple doing with that source code during the 12 month gap? Debugging it.

[tyƒoon™ 0]

lol, how can anyone say Windows does not need an anti-virus. I bet you even the great Bill Gates got an anti-virus eventhough he could be the one that gets any updates to Windows first . I don't care what Windows anyone has, in the future or on the past, ALWAYS get an anti-virus for Windows. Mac users - I wouldnt be thinking that Macs aren't hackable. Maybe it can take some time but i think one day even OS X would be able to get infected by a virus.

[whizkid1405241546 0]

I tried running Vista in 512 MB of RAm. It runs just like XP runs in 128 on 512!!!and 128mb external means atleast 128MB Graphics Card(some people might not understand it)and about mac...it is as vulnerable as XP Pro(i am not saying it but studies are!!!) but not in term of viruses but against hacker attacks(a professional)

Edited May 30, 2007 by whizkid (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

beatgammit and his predictionsMicrosoft Vista Needs No Anti-virus?

hey "beatgammit," you are a real lousy predictor !  Ha, ha! You said:  "Apple OSX has it's moments, but Windows Vista will make a much bigger splash, for better or for worse." Yeah sure.  Did that happen?  No!  So much so that MS had to come up with W7 to sweep the Vista embarrassment under the carpet!   You also said this cheap unsubstantiated remark: "sorry Apple fans, but most of their ads are totally untrue."  Most?  Most???  "Totally" untrue?  You do like to exaggerate, don't you?  Apple may have some spin on some of their ads, but having used computers for 38 years, and had dozens of my own PeeCees since 1985, and then several Macs since 2003, I can tell you from experience that most of what Apple says in their ads is actually pretty much true. Oh, and just look at how their stock has fared since 2002 compared to MS and that of ANY other tech company in the WORLD.  Then let's talk about "splashes."  Yeah, I know, it's not what you wanted to hear.

-reply by Morgoth