“Certainly when we broke a lot of the compatibility issues to lock down user account controls, to lock down the ability to manipulate states and all the things, that was a very painful process for us to grow through, but we had to do it. And the reason that Windows 7 will be successful is because of the pain we took on Vista. Because from a compatibility standpoint, if it works on Vista, it will work on Windows 7. If it doesn't work on Vista, it won't work on Windows 7,” Turner adds.
Yes of course becuase people didn't Microsoft becusae of Reliability and Compatibility Problems Miscrosoft had to go and Make a New OS, Thus Windows 7. > Just so that people can trust them again. But most of the problems have fixed in SP1. Vista and Windows 7 are so similar and are both written in the same CODE, so there are small differences that most people will not notice at all.(under the hood Modifications)
If you have Vista Skipp Windows 7. It's just for those who still have XP.(just to get them to upgrade) If you know how to work a Computer and know about how the computer works then there is no reason why upgrading to a newer OS is a pain. It should be expected for errors to come up.

Oh, so many thoughts on this. First of all...



Yeah, riiggghhttt.... It was also because Vista was a nightmare for users and techs and corporations, let's be honest here. A smaller majority liked Vista which is fine, everyone has an opinion but Vista is a resource hog. WAIT! If it is the most secure OS, why was it locked down to FIX security problems??? Oh, they mean NOW it's the safest, after SP2. Gotcha, so two service packs later and viola! Hmmmm.
Also, does anyone remember the nightmare of MS possibly locking out 3rd party apps in Vista? Secure? No, they tried to monopolize. Didn't happen but they tried.



The better choice is the latter 2? Uh, wait, how much money was sunk into making these OS's? Funny how XP still needs comparison and people to be told the later are the better. I would go with the latter of the 3.



Yes, it was a great OS. The compelling reason to look at change? Simple, Windows 7, which is likely the same reason MS created 7, because Vista stinks. Not to mention I've never had a virus "albeit I'm a safe user" but never had an infection in XP. Yeah, it's less secure, so simply take a few precautionary steps as with any OS.



No. It's because Vista stinks.

One last paragraph. I read the above and they are comparing windows to other OSs for safety rating. Ok, let's consider two things, one, Windows is dominant in the OS market, has MUCH MORE MONEY and RESOURCES at it's disposal to make a good OS and still failed. It also compares to a FREE OS that gets far less than MS and just NOW can they compare safety. As far as Leopard goes, it's no more safe than a standard Linux OS even though it too brings in a lot of $$.

That said, some like Vista, that's fine, I believe in free choice, me, I hat e Vista and can't wait for Windows 7.

Well, i bet it still needs Antivirus, anti-spyware and anti rootkit software, meaning it still fails at security.

It will be many years and loads of hard work and changes before any version of Windows is as secure as Linux. The security measures already built into Linux make it better than Windows from the moment it is installed (and I've used both so I do have the experience.)

Our "new, improved" soap powder will get your clothes perfectly clean! You must have noticed much better it is than the old one. Hey but didn't we say that about the old one when it was the new, improved one of a previous year?

Or to put it another way, we've heard it all before!

Give it up already... Just another case of false advertising. One of the only companies allowed to get away with it.......
But, unfortunately, the majority of consumers will once again, be dupped, and believe this load of crud from the company that has been ripping them off for so many years.

Wow! Now I know exactly why Microsoft makes craptacular software. All programming relies on math ... and they can't count to 8!

XP is NOT 11 years old. That would mean it was release ... the same year Windows 98 was released - 1998! Last I looked, XP came out after Millennium, in 2001. (Although you can't blame Microsoft for not wanting to remember ME, eh?) It's only 2009. At least according to my Windows XP computer at work, even my Vista laptop at home. That makes 8 years, not 11, and not 12 next year.

Now we all know why Microsoft can't code their way out of a wet tissue paper bag. They can't subtract 2001 from 2009 ... let alone figure out an equation. Mystery solved.

Its allways according to Microsoft..... everytime I see one of these articles on this site and others its allways according to Microsoft....

OF COURSE IT IS silly, M$ isnt gonna admit they are not more secure, and well, as long as M$ is on the majority of pcs out there they will allways be the #1 target for virus writers etc etc.....

LMAO "according to Microsoft" .....

Vista when it was released was supposed to be so secure that you could run it without antivirus!!!
The reality was somewhat different. 70% of viruses needed no modification to run on Vista. Workarounds for were easily found to circumvent Vistas security settings. SP1 failed to stop all the security issues.
I am unconvinced that SP2 will be the magic bullet for windows security.
Kevin Turner is just pushing the message out to reassure the ill informed that all is well. I am not reassured. I will stick to Linux for my serious computing. For now, Vista remains unused on a partition of my laptop hard drive.

Mike, that is because you will always have the idiot that falls for the pop up telling them they need something that actually puts spyware and who knows what else on their machines. In other words, blame the user for not making wise choices, not the OS. Meemaw, you're just a Linux zealot who wouldn't understand the fact that it hasn't, and probably never will catch on. Lastly, davecs, please shut your mouth before you make a fool out of yourself and actually read what people are saying that have used Windows 7. It's going to make all those thinking about leaving Windows wonder what was so great about the other two in the first place. Windows 7 blows any other operating system I've tried (yes that includies several variants of Linux and Mac OS) out of the water.

Jared, I can agree to a point that it's not JUST the OS and users are part to blame, and that if Linux were the "main target" it would be much more vulnerable, however, the market is NOT putting out computers in order for people to become technicians, they are called users for a reason. There is a reason we have auto mechanics, not everyone is going to know how to troubleshoot a car nor have the time. Read through a Windows install and how it brags about ease of use, security, so friendly, etc... then a user gets on the internet and without proper security or knowledge of, gets hit by a virus and wonders what the hell just happened.

There is no way everyone can know you are not supposed to go to certain sites, or click on banners they have no idea about, heck, we take a risk just connecting to the internet. And no, not every infection is just due to a user making a bad choice. So you call people idiots, perhaps these idiots have a busy life, want 5 min of free time to use a computer like the rest of us but don't have technical training, experience or time to learn all the "extras" that go along with computers, are they idiots? No. Simply, people who were told "by Microsoft" or whoever, that they could do everything in the world on a computer, a standard user, boy were they fooled.

Do we blame the OS? The user? Funny how either one get the slam here, but maybe we should blame the malicious swamp rot bottom feeders who keep creating this crap to infect computers to begin with.

However, MS still throws the bull as above. Vista was bad for many reasons, with or without security issues. I still say bring on Win 7.

Jared, and any other M$ appologists...

Do you remember CONFLICKER? It didnt need a user to spread, infact, I recall hundreds of other viruses that simply install themselves by viewing a webpage...something to do with wmf files...something something...

But hey, Vista SP and Vista 2.0 will surely not allow these things to happens... or will we get windows X that is more secure in 2011... *mumble mumble*

TsueDesu,
For starters, it's CONFICKER (no L) but you screwed it up like half of the other sites out there. If Linux was a bigger target, (actually worth pursuing to the point that it would spread BURN) you'd see it was not as secure as the zealots claim. As far as your argument about simply viewing a website to get it, you'd still have to allow something to run. NOTHING executes THAT automatically without the proper priveliges. If you are a moron running full admin, where nothing ever asks permission, then yes it's automatic. This I still believe is the users fault though for leaving themselves more vulnerable. Notice I never once mention Vista as being great, as I still feel it's a huge resource hog and Windows 7 as I earlier mentioned blows Vista and XP out of the water. If anyone has any serious rebuttal to my post I'd be happy to talk with you, but right from the start I could tell you were not all there when you didn't even get the name of the worm right.

Windows is a more Secure OS than Linux !!!!!!!

This guy is not a serious developer but instead a very good Marketing guy.

Vista was rough because they "lockded down" the OS because of security!!!! Hey Redmond guys, do you think consumers are stupid? Vista was "rough" because you guys have not developed a good OS but instead a sales oportunity.

Let's get serious.

There is no secure OS. And if there is an OS that is more secure it will not be Windows. At this time, Linux is (still) more secure.

Nevertheless, a great percentage of insecurity is a result of the user and not the OS. The investment must be done on the user (secure procedures) and less in the OS.

Sure; I will believe it when I see it.
Vista was a failure because it was bogged down with drm, not security features.
The only way MS can make windows secure is to totally change the operating system and there is no indication that has happened.

you people are forgetting what linux wants, it doesnt want to be the most secure, it wants software to be free
vista sucked for plenty of reasons, mainly if youopened up note pad it would ask you if you're sure you want to
now how many of us have used windows 7? when vista was about to come out, everybody siad OMG its gonna be amazing and look at it now, lets wait till it comes out and then judge

also remember, the more secure an OS, the more resources it uses(usually)
linux is a very secure one for their budget, and im sure if it was a mainstream OS it would get upgraded much quicker then microsoft, and would not be a resource hog

im using xp sp3 and ive never had any problem with viruses, why cant microsoft make a simple OS and just tell people to get antiviruses etc?

I guess they are 10 days late with this post if it was ment to be an april joke.

Too all them saying that Windows 7 is good / bring on windows 7, etc etc . . . have they actually tried it ? Personally i thought it was Vista with a few modifications.
All the windows bugs / issues which have been around since windows 3.1 (first one i used) are still in it. Oh and i sent plenty of feedback to M$ about them. :)
The only positive feedback i managed to send about it, was that the installation went perfectly, and was nice and straight forward.

Actually yes, I have been using it "Win 7 that is". I also own Vista business and let me say, It has never seen my machine again.

You say it's like Vista with a few modifications. Could be, however, I don't recall being able to run Vista on 512 ram in VM with many things open, at least not smoothly. It's not so much the look of the OS, it's the functionality. I knew I hated Vista from using the beta version, Win 7 has been "so far" running great, very solid without resource hogging.


That said, what will the final release hold for everyone? I don't know. All in all, Win 7 is the light at the end of the tunnel for someone like me "IF" it stays as good as it has been, in order to actually upgrade and not have to use Vista.

Sure, it may turn on us and it may be Vista in disguise in the final release, I don't know. Hope not or I keep XP pro until the next round, lol.

Mike, I would like to know what bugs / issues you feel have been around that long. As far as actually using Windows 7, I'm in it right now and the footprint is MUCH smaller and more manageable on this 6 year old machine, than Vista ever was. If you consider the need for antivirus/anitspyware/antimalware et. all issues with Windows, than I wish you luck finding an OS that doesn't need any of them, as even Linux (if it gained enough momentum to make it actually count for something) could easily catch any of these and is no more secure in my books just because it isn't a target. In short, if you're a Linux/Mac zealot, give me a break and realize there is a reason Windows is so popular and that is price and application/game availability. The latter linux is not so great at and Macs are not a good deal financially speaking.