According to an article in Computerworld, a security strategist at Microsoft says the company's Windows Vista OS has seen about half as many vulnerabilities in its first year of availability as Windows XP did in its initial year.
The strategist said Vista logged 66 bugs between November 2006 and November 2007, while XP had 129 vulnerabilities in its first year. Microsoft is using these figures to tout its opinion that Vista is more secure than XP.
Let's say that Microsoft's figures (and we don't have figures from anyone else) are correct. So, what does this prove? It does prove that Vista had fewer vulnerability problems in its first year than did Windows XP. It does not prove, however, that Vista is thus the more secure operating system.
Is the one-year-old Vista as secure as the much more mature present-day XP? I'm willing to concede that Vista certainly has more security features built in, but what effect has years of patching had on the venerable Windows XP? It would be interesting to see a side-by-side of the two products, especially since XP--even after Vista was introduced nationally with much fanfare--has refused to go away. For a while, you couldn't buy a new Windows PC with XP once Vista appeared, but now consumers in many locations are being offered a choice, and at least some are opting for the older system.
I'm not at all certain that XP would come out ahead in a direct comparison of security advantages with Vista. I am inclined to believe, however, that after years of patching, XP is not so unsafe as some folks would have us believe.
What's your take? Share your thoughts here!
Comments (1)
How many "units" of vista were included in the data vs. number of XP in the initial period for comparisan? I would assume it is a percentage difference, not a numbers game. Like purchasing a new car... You never buy the new model the first year until you see what happens. Is this the case with XP/Vista launch?
Posted by AZAZ | March 10, 2008 1:04 PM
Posted on March 10, 2008 13:04