36 ms·

"Windows 10 is no more secure than Windows 7" Two paragraphs later. "what do you call it when Microsoft fixes security holes in Windows 10 that it doesn’t pat

"Windows 10 is no more secure than Windows 7" Two paragraphs later. "what do you call it when Microsoft fixes security holes in Windows 10 that it doesn’t patch in Windows 7? I call it really, really stupid." So Windows 7 has security holes that Windows 10 doesn't, but Windows 10 is no more secure than Windows 7. Right.

inkubus 9y ago
'99 little bugs in the code, 99 littles bugs. Take one down, patch it around, 117 little bugs in the code' i prefer Win10 over Win7, btw
vintagedave 9y ago
He is most likely saying that Windows 10 does not have a more significantly inherently secure design. That is, Win10 is not less likely to have security issues than Win7. Whereas what you are pointing out is that when issues are found, they are left unfixed in one of those OSes. That's a different thing.
- coverband 9y ago
  But Win10 _does_ have an inherently more secure design[1], so much so that sometimes you have to turn them off in order to install stuff like VMWare. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/threat-protection/overview-of-threat-mitigations-in-windows-10 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/threat-protection/o...
- jrs95 9y ago
  Built-in anti-virus and Edge as the default instead of IE are pretty big improvements themselves, for the average user.
  - gokvokbok 9y ago
    With Microsoft, the anti-virus can give you more of an attackable surface [1]. Honestly the only approach I've found in light of Win10's telemetry and consumer-hostile approach is to finally bite the bullet and move to Linux. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/08/microsoft-windows-malware-protection-engine-rce/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/08/microsoft-windows-malwar...
dragontamer 9y ago
> So Windows 7 has security holes that Windows 10 doesn't, but Windows 10 is no more secure than Windows 7. Right. Windows 7 was released in 2009 and has received free support for years. In contrast, when did Ubuntu 9.04 (also released in 2009) lose security backports? Perhaps Ubuntu 9.04 isn't a "fair" comparison, since most Ubuntu releases aren't designed for long support and the community recognizes this fact. But even then, the Ubuntu 10.04 LTS release (long-time support) was in 2010, and its support ended in 2015. The mindset of "blame Microsoft" is quite annoying, when every darn Linux user is basically subjected to the "forced upgrade cycle" way faster.
- oneweekwonder 9y ago
  CentOS 5 was released in 2007 and had maintenance updates till march this year[0]. Nobody forces gnu/linux users to upgrade. I know of happy CentOS 4 users; atleast they have the source to their os. You are only forced to upgrade if you want the latest features and support for security fixes. Microsoft is getting "blame" because it leaves you with binaries and a broken upgrade path. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule
- slrz 9y ago
  If you care about long support times, you'd use an "enterprise" distribution and get exactly the same support periods (about 10 years) as with Windows or Solaris. This is no coincidence.

inkubus 9y ago

'99 little bugs in the code, 99 littles bugs. Take one down, patch it around, 117 little bugs in the code' i prefer Win10 over Win7, btw

vintagedave 9y ago

He is most likely saying that Windows 10 does not have a more significantly inherently secure design. That is, Win10 is not less likely to have security issues than Win7. Whereas what you are pointing out is that when issues are found, they are left unfixed in one of those OSes. That's a different thing.

coverband 9y ago
But Win10 _does_ have an inherently more secure design[1], so much so that sometimes you have to turn them off in order to install stuff like VMWare. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/threat-protection/overview-of-threat-mitigations-in-windows-10 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/threat-protection/o...
jrs95 9y ago
Built-in anti-virus and Edge as the default instead of IE are pretty big improvements themselves, for the average user.
- gokvokbok 9y ago
  With Microsoft, the anti-virus can give you more of an attackable surface [1]. Honestly the only approach I've found in light of Win10's telemetry and consumer-hostile approach is to finally bite the bullet and move to Linux. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/08/microsoft-windows-malware-protection-engine-rce/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/08/microsoft-windows-malwar...

dragontamer 9y ago

> So Windows 7 has security holes that Windows 10 doesn't, but Windows 10 is no more secure than Windows 7. Right. Windows 7 was released in 2009 and has received free support for years. In contrast, when did Ubuntu 9.04 (also released in 2009) lose security backports? Perhaps Ubuntu 9.04 isn't a "fair" comparison, since most Ubuntu releases aren't designed for long support and the community recognizes this fact. But even then, the Ubuntu 10.04 LTS release (long-time support) was in 2010, and its support ended in 2015. The mindset of "blame Microsoft" is quite annoying, when every darn Linux user is basically subjected to the "forced upgrade cycle" way faster.

oneweekwonder 9y ago
CentOS 5 was released in 2007 and had maintenance updates till march this year[0]. Nobody forces gnu/linux users to upgrade. I know of happy CentOS 4 users; atleast they have the source to their os. You are only forced to upgrade if you want the latest features and support for security fixes. Microsoft is getting "blame" because it leaves you with binaries and a broken upgrade path. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule
slrz 9y ago
If you care about long support times, you'd use an "enterprise" distribution and get exactly the same support periods (about 10 years) as with Windows or Solaris. This is no coincidence.