how about dem 64bits?

[Yigal Chripun]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>   
>> I think the problem with Vista is that just that Microsoft finally got
>> things right pretty much right at last with XP in terms of the OS.  It
>> was the first time Win95 and WinNT really were integrated.  And that was
>> a big deal.  This time all they've got to encourage people to switch is
>> glitz and hype.  That's not enough to impress the folks in corporate IT
>> centers with the big budgets.  XP works pretty darn well.  That's the
>> biggest problem with Vista.
>>
>> --bb
>>     
>
> No they didn't. The big thing that Vista adds that XP/Server 03 didn't
> have is kernel security (and integrated OneCare, and that funny desktop
> search thing, and...). For people who know how to use it right (for
> example my dad just clicks accept on anything), it's a far more secure
> solution than anything any other OS has.
>   
you provide a counter-example for your own argument in your post.
Vista is _not_ a secure OS. on the contrary, most other OSes, including
ones who got extinct a decade ago provide more security than windows.
Would you consider your house secured if it had a door with a large lock
and a built-in key and a sign on it that said "Please do not enter if
you do not have permission to"?? What would stop a thief to just ignore
the sign and use the built-in key to steal your stuff? how is that
secure in your eyes?

*nix Oses and even OSes that were running on Mainframes in the 60's have
had a much *much* better security than the latest and best MS has to offer.

--Yigal

PS if you want real security at the kernel level than check out SElinux
for linux or even more advanced capability based micro-kernel approaches
such as coyotos or L4sec based on L4.