Test: Windows 7 better than Mac OS X and Linux

Article : Test: Windows 7 better than Mac OS X and Linux
Print this article
Email this article

Stay Updated
News gadget on your Google homepage
Subscribe to a news feed in Google Reader

Just Because windows has a better defence system doesn't say much for the core of the OS. It shouldn't be able to get viruses like most macs and linux's because no matter what modern OS you're using as long as it isn't windows, you're running on top of Unix or a Unix-like core that proves to be almost impenatrable. This is the way Windows should be in order to get everyone to use it. Don't Blame Apple and Linux OS's for being more secure, they should be that way already, and so should any OS meant for serious use which people say Windows is made for. Industry standard software like Final Cut Pro and Shake can run on certain Linux OS's with tweaks because it is stable enough to house it, but try rendering HD content on a Windows Machine, it's just no made for it.

I think the way to go is Linux. Linux gives you the freedom to use your computer the way you want, rather than worrying about licensing restrictions and payments to Microsoft.

http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux

Look how mad the mac fanboys get when someone writes an article saying windows is better. What's the number, I forget, how many pcs are there for every mac? It's shameful how badly you're outnumbered isn't it?

Now with a decent operating system (windows 7), we can expect mac sales to dwindle again. Get it straight mac fanboys, you'll NEVER outnumber Pcs, NEVER, just because you pay more for something, doesn't make it better.

I see Windows 7 wins in the security department!! ???!?!?!??!?!? Is this a JOKE???? any Mac user our ther who have had ANY viruses in say, the last 15 YEARS?? Any Windows users who can say the same??? Sheez,, what a fair comparison!!

I know as soon as I laid eyes on the title of this article it was going to be bad, but I couldn’t help reading it, just like people can’t look away from train wrecks. The comparisons are naïve at best, they may as well have called it bananas are better than star fish and vacuum cleaners.

It is true Linux is attack less then Windows. But let’s say a scripting attack compromises a web browser on a Linux system. It can really only write to your home directory and a very limited number of places such as /tmp, making it fairly easy to logout and cleanup. Escalating your privileges to try and attack the OS directly for a virus is a whole other level of difficult in Linux when compared with windows. The virus would have to do something like “Hello I am a destructive virus, please enter your root password:” or some other type of social engineering attack to get the root account but mimicking other applications. Privilege escalation is possible in some cases up these are usually quickly patched.

Windows needs to warn you that software is trying to write to your system dir. Linux does not need additional software for this because average users can not do this by default.

"The element that won the day for Windows 7, however, was security. Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either. 'Windows comes under fire every day, but also has the best defence," the testers noted.'"

By the same token, the guy released last week from the mental institution is healthier than you, because he has an official certificate saying he is sane, and you don't.

Pity it doesn't run any of the applications I use every day. Surely "Better" is purely subjective ... If I can't use it to run the applications I work with, it doesn't matter how "good" it is.

He he he.... Windows under fire every day... Tht's why it needs to be restarted twice a day (minimum), he he he. This testers received god pay for their words..... That's perodism nowdays....

Windows and Security, since when do they go hand in hand...ammmmm never !!

I've been using 7 since the RC came out and it is slightly better than Vista. It uses less RAM but still 3 times more than Ubuntu at desktop. I would also need 5 licences to service our needs, so that about $1000 here. I could buy an awesome machine for those $.


Ubuntu serves all my needs fine and will continue using it on all five machines here.

Shy should I use a insecure, slow and rather less than perfect OS like Windows. Ubuntu may not be perfect but its a damn side better proposition than 7.

I have to think this is just MS FUD or simply a joke, cos they cannot be serious about this one !

Windows7 is the same old Microsoft garbage with a polished Areo interface. It sucks, give it 6 months and see how it starts to crawl just like XP and Vista. Plus you got to spend a ton of cash yes $150 - $300 for an operating system. NO NO. People don't let these companies take your hard earn money Go download Ubuntun www.ubuntu.com and see how good it feels to have a truly secure and Free operating system. I've been using it trouble free for the last 2 years after my Vista debacle(yeap I lost $150 on an upgrade). This clown also lost me when he stated that Mac OSX and Linux don't posses any real security "WTF" is this guy stupid, Linux and OSX are built on Unix Tech which is the most secure operating system on the planet. People don't let these idiots fool you do your research and spend your money wisely. Windows7 is full of Digital rights management software which controls everything you listen to and watch, and lets Microsoft know. If you value your privacy go with Ubuntu(DRM Free) or get a MAC at least they removed their DRM from itunes.

Snow Leopar beats Windows

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31012_7-10319612-10355804.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Oh yes... windows has interesting security... is very interesting because criminals likes windows and runs windows to attack windows and gain control of machines with windows

Best Regards

"he element that won the day for Windows 7, however, was security. Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either. "Windows comes under fire every day, but also has the best defence," the testers noted."

Someone send these idiots to school... that has to be one of the most ludacris comments i have ever heard....LOL

@ Roger Mercer,
Yea if I wanted to beat my competitor, I would have them use Windows as well. I assume that was your point. If that wasn't your point, read this article: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/10/avoid_windows_malware_bank_on.html

He basically suggest not to use Windows due to their weak security.

OSX is built on BSD Unix, read about it and you will understand what sits under the hood of OSX. Then you won't need to make idiotic statements, such as: "Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either." If Windows want to compete in the area of security, they first need to do a complete re-write of their underlying system, or do what Apple did, use and tried and true foundation to build on.

Is this article meant tongue in cheek, or are they smoking some really serious stuff in Munich!?

I like how the author hides behind his initials. This is so nobody will know who he is when he puts out bad gouge, like he does in this pathetic article. It's unfortunate he is not willing to stand behind this piece of garbage, and I can understand why. This article is the product of laziness, lack of integrity and down right foolishness. Hey DPA, do the world a favor and find another hobby, you have not credibility.

"Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either."
You need to google SELinux.

And why on earth would Kubuntu be used for this test instead of Ubuntu?

The test tells the truth at last. Windows wins the day. It is far better than Mac OS. I always urge my competitors to use Windows.

You are right. Windows is the best. Microsoft rules. I encourage all my competitors to use Windows.

Unix was built as a networking OS-- it's inherent design is a client/server model. The Windows NT model was built to copy the networking capabilities of UNIX and still be compatible with DOS and a variety of processor architectures. UNIX IS A BETTER OPERATING SYSTEM. Patch after patch, Windows security is a FAIL. There is an entire economy built around trying to protect and patch the security holes of windows. Trying to argue that this makes it more secure is just plain stupid! (There also happens to be an entire underground economy built around the exploitation of Windows' weak defenses.)

I see. Windows needs to have tons of anti-malware help, and because it includes some it's a better OS than those that are more secure by design.

What a joke!

I hope the reviewers were well paid by Microsoft for this drivel.

Just a couple of items:
1. Windows wins on security? That's just plain absurd. There are millions of WIndows zombie computers out there and hundreds of thousands of active viruses (at last count). There are none in either category for the Mac. The 'there aren't enough Mac users' is also nonsense. There are viruses for Linux on iPods (with perhaps a few hundred or thousand users). WIndows 7 has viruses - even though its installed base is much lower then Mac OS X. The Unix security model is a strong underpinning, but it's irrelevant. If you want to buy a secure computer today, it's going to run anything BUT Windows - the made up reasons that you attribute this to are irrelevant.

2. Windows wins on features? On which planet? For starters, almost everything in Windows was copied from other OSs and are therefore already in other OSs. More importantly, both Linux and MacOS will allow you to do virtually ANYTHING with the computer - again due to the Unix (Unix-like, in the case of Linux) core. There's not a thing that Windows will do that a Mac can't do (other than propagate viruses in the wild at this point).

3. They were impressed with Microsoft's backup system? I guess they never bothered to learn about Time Machine. There's nothing else out there like it. Or, if they want to do it manually, use 'Restore' in Disk Utilities and you'll get a complete, operational hard disk. If your main disk fails, you just boot from the backup.

4. Startup time? They must have been comparing a 10 year old Mac to the latest Windows computers to say that they're comparable. Most tests show Macs to start up at least 30-40% faster than Windows - and to shut down in half the time.

I wonder why journalists bother writing garbage. It's obvious that the author of this comparison doesn't have any idea what he's talking about, so why bother?

The element that won the day for Windows 7, however, was security. Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either. "Windows comes under fire every day, but also has the best defence," the testers noted. Ha ha, ha ha, ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha,ha ha. That's the most convoluted judgement I've ever heard. How much were you paid for that assessment? This is a classic FUD piece just in time for Windows 7 release.

By the way, the future is in mobile computing, where is Windows Mobile in the scheme of things? It's ball game baby........

Is Chip magazine a reprint of The Onion? If they concluded that Windows 7 is the most secure then they are either lying or incompetent.

Consider that billions of dollars are squandered every year because of Windows viruses. Consider that nothing is lost as a result of Mac OS X viruses, which mostly exist only in labs or in limited outbreaks.

So anyone who thinks that Windows is better is an utter fool.

Gene

Lol--I didn't realize this was a joke article until the "the element that won the day for Windows 7, however, was security" statement. Haha--you got me!

"Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either. "
1/ Linux IS a very interesting target for attacks : for example pirates would be very interested to break into googles'servers (under linux). If they rarely do attack linux, it is because it is a lot more difficult:
1/ Linux users have better knowledge so they detect pishing more easily
2/ On most linux installation, the users don't have administrative right by default : If they want to install a software they are asked the adminstrative password.
3/ Most linux users install all their software from officially supported repository (like if you run ubuntu, you will install your software from ubuntu's servers). At the opposite windows users are often not afraid to install cracked software from unreliable source.

True :most linux users don't use an antivirus software : they just don't need one. An antivirus is just like a condumn when you use a contaminated system.

"The testers found that Kubuntu is hardly a pushover, especially for tech-savvy computer users. Even so, the review ultimately turned into a duel between Mac OS and Windows 7."

Kubuntu is an Ubuntu derivative, for people who likes a desktop environment called KDE. There is another derivative, called Xubuntu, which is also different from the official Ubuntu.

They should have tested Ubuntu, which runs Gnome, and is the official version of... er, Ubuntu.

That makes me think that the "test" was designed to make Linux look bad.

Then, let's see what each operating system brings, out of the box. Ubuntu brings a full Office suite, Windows 7 brings nothing. Ubuntu is always ultimate. Windows 7 comes with several crippled versions. Ubuntu is free, Windows 7 costs hundreds of dollars.

And we could go on...

"Mac OS and Linux are rarely attacked, but don't possess any real protective system, either."

Actually, Mac and Linux have a much stronger security system built into the design of the operating system. It is called the Unix Model. Permissions and concepts of file ownership prevent viruses from harming the system in the case that they actually were installed. Also, the likelyhood of downloading a virus on linux is far reduced because almost all of the software run on those machines is downloaded from trusted sources through a built-in package manager.

What rubbish.
Not only did they compare two finished operating systems with a pre-release alpha version of Kubuntu, the offshoot KDE version of the mainstream Ubuntu distribution, but it is inaccurate as they say that Linux doesn't have a firewall, the Linux kernel has had a firewall built in for over a decade which is by default more secure 'out-of-the-box' than MacOS & Windows.

In other words guys, get a clue.

It's a lie! The permissions system makes the Linux the operating system more secure.
This evaluation has been made by Micro$oft.

Somehow you pull one line from a German language magazine and that's going to prove that the most insecure OS in the world is now more secure than Unix? Of course your whole article goes against the thoughts of the entire tech industry but I'm sure you are right.

>Linux.. don't possess any real protective system

Say what? By design Linux has Unix style permissions that foil most attacks. Also operating as root is universally discouraged. And.. since most apps come from community vetted repositories the odds of getting infected by installing software is much much less.

I'd say for most people Windows is like operating with a screen door vs a 3" oak door with a deadbolt.

You have got to be kidding me right.

So the US and London Stock exchanges along with NASA, Google and every other corporation in the world should just run Windows 7 on their servers and not Linux.
Because they just have it all wrong.

Linux is exponentially better than Windows in every way ESPECIALLY security. This article is ridiculous.