Re: Vista beta vs. OSX

If security is all that just leave the computer turned off.
"Mr. T" <teelot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FBQif.46$yR5.11224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mojo <bil_gates_fudge_packer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
>> Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
>> that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
>> users.:-)
>>
>> Enjoy:
>>
>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
>
> excellent read. more proof MS is about to release a still born product.
>
> Windows Vista Beta 1 vs. Mac OS X "Tiger" (Part 2)
>
> In part one of my comparison of Windows Vista Beta 1 and Mac OS X 10.4
> "Tiger," I looked at three key aspects of each system: Look and feel,
> desktop search, and data visualization and organization. For the most
> part, OS X came out well ahead of Windows Vista, as you'd expect, since
> it's a polished finished product. Vista, meanwhile, is all knees and
> elbows, an awkward teenager on its way to maturity. Microsoft will iron
> out the details, I'm sure, but the end result will likely not change
> much. Specifically, OS X will always be elegant, and Windows will almost
> certainly lag behind in the fit and finish department. The only
> questions are how much Vista will improve when compared to previous
> Windows versions, and whether it will be enough to keep customers from
> moving to OS X.
>
> In this second part of the comparison, we'll look a little deeper, and
> examine security, networking, and power management. Whereas the features
> in the first part of the comparison where largely related to user
> interface issues, this time we're dealing more with the nitty-gritty of
> safety, connectivity, and productivity. Let's jump right in.
>
> Security
>
> Microsoft claims that Windows XP and, by extension, Windows Vista, were
> architected for security, thanks to their NT roots. That claim is,
> however, bogus. Windows NT was designed in the pre-Internet days, and
> though the system's architecture is extensible, modern Windows versions
> are further hobbled by the inclusion of the buggy and insecure IE Web
> browser and other design mistakes. In short, Windows is a house of cards
> that seems increasingly incapable of handling today's demands.
>
> Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks
> to its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture. And OS X, for
> whatever its worth, benefits from its relatively small market share,
> compared to Windows: Because the OS X user base is so small, few hackers
> ever bother to try and attack the system. Windows, meanwhile, is a
> minefield of constant hacks and attacks.
>
> Therefore, OS X is, in many ways, more secure than Windows is today. But
> Microsoft has spent the last several years re-engineering its operating
> systems and applications to be more secure, and that ongoing work will
> ultimately result in a system that is quite secure and more easily
> securable than any of the competition. Put succinctly, Apple can't rest
> on its laurels. Though some of OS X's security prowess can be chalked up
> to design decisions, much of it is because it is simply based on others'
> work. If hackers do turn their attentions to OS X, it's unclear whether
> Apple can respond as quickly as can, say, Microsoft. The evidence thus
> far is pretty damning.
>
> So how does the security of OS X Tiger really compare with that of
> Windows Vista Beta 1 and the subsequent Community Technical Previews
> (CTPs)? It's a tough call. The Vista beta adds some security features
> that OS X has had for years, and it does have a few niceties that OS X
> lacks. But it's hard to vote against OS X here. The Vista beta, after
> all, is still Windows. And though it's unlikely that pre-Beta 2 versions
> of Windows Vista will be targeted by a wide range of hackers, future
> releases most certainly will be. So in some ways, any discussion of
> security now is somewhat academic. We'll have to see how Windows Vista
> fares in the real world when it's released.
>
> All that said, we can at least compare some of the more important
> security features from each release.
>
> Logon
>
> Windows Vista, like XP before it, offers a Welcome screen for logging on
> to user accounts, by default, in non-managed environments. Optionally,
> you can switch this to the old fashioned Logon window style of signing
> in, which is the standard for managed environments. This is the screen
> where you need to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL to enter your logon credentials.
>
> It's hard to see where Microsoft is heading with the logon procedure in
> Vista. In XP, you can set up four user accounts during initial machine
> set up, all of which are administrative accounts without any passwords.
> In Vista Beta 1, however, you don't yet have the chance to create user
> accounts during setup, because this feature hasn't been implemented yet.
> So you have to logon initially with the Administrator account, for which
> you cannot specify a password during interactive setup. Lovely.
>
> Tiger, meanwhile, is secure out of the box with regards to user
> accounts. That's because OS X supports a better native security model
> than does Windows. In OS X, the root account (which is the equivalent of
> the Administrator account on a Windows system) is disabled by default.
> And even those user accounts with administrator-level privileges are
> safer thanks to a graphical version of the UNIX "sudo" command, which
> provides an authentication dialog box any time you try to do something
> that could harm the system (Figure). You provide an admin-level user
> name and password (which in most cases will be identical to the account
> you used to logon to the system in the first place) and the
> authentication is granted for just that single act. For all other
> actions, the system reverts to your standard user-level access.
>
> Not surprisingly, Microsoft is copying this system for use in Windows
> Vista. So Windows users will soon see the same kinds of authentication
> dialogs (Figure) in Windows as we see now in OS X. There are just a few
> problems with doing so this late in the Windows life cycle. First,
> Windows was never designed to accommodate this type of authentication
> process, so the entire system has to be retrofitted to work with user
> lowered permission levels and pop-up the dialogs when needed. Second,
> and perhaps most damagingly, the millions of available Windows
> applications out there today all assume that the user has total control
> of the system. So Vista will have to be kludged in an unprecedented way
> to accommodate backwards compatibility. The way it will do so is messy,
> and involves virtual folder structures that fool legacy applications
> into believing that they are accessing an older Windows version.
>
> Comparing that system with the cleanly designed OS X is almost comical.
> If Microsoft can pull it off--and this is an uncertainty at this
> writing--Windows will finally pick up security functionality that the
> Mac has enjoyed for years. My educated guess is that Vista won't be as
> secure as OS X, however, because cobbled together systems are rarely as
> foolproof as those that were designed correctly from the start.
>
> Parental controls
>
> One area in which Apple has done a commendable job is parental controls,
> which let parents set up and manage user accounts for their children. In
> Tiger, you can turn on and configure parental controls for a variety of
> system components, including Mail, Finder & System, iChat, Safari, and
> Dictionary (Figure). For example, if you turn on parental controls for
> Mail, you can configure exactly which people (email addresses) your
> children can correspond with and optionally send you permission emails
> when the child attempts to contact someone else (Figure). If you
> configure the Finder & System parental controls, you'll see a wide
> variety of options including a Simple Finder, and a list of acceptable
> applications (Figure).
>
> Windows XP has nothing like this, but Microsoft is jumping on board the
> parental controls bandwagon with Windows Vista. Now, when you create a
> new account, you can choose from Computer administrator and Limited user
> as before, but you can also choose to enforce parental controls and
> collect computer usage information about that user (Figure). Right now,
> there isn't a lot to configure, per se. Microsoft has built in a
> facility for controlling video game accessibility based on industry
> standard content ratings, but that's about it (Figure).
>
> Because it's not yet clear how pervasive Vista's support of parental
> controls will be, I can't really compare it accurately to OS X yet. But
> give Apple credit for delivering on parental controls well ahead of
> Microsoft.
>
> Data encryption
>
> Both Windows Vista and OS X offer a way for users to encrypt data on the
> hard disk, preventing data theft in the event that a system is
> physically stolen, and the hard disk is removed and placed in another
> system. The encryption facilities in OS X are bare bones, while Windows
> Vista (like XP before it) offers a much more well-rounded solution.
>
> In Windows Vista betas, you have a variety of encryption options. In the
> past, Windows supported the Encrypting File System (EFS), a feature of
> NTFS, which allows users to arbitrarily encrypt the contents of any
> folders on the disk. To do so, you must select a folder in Windows
> Explorer, right-click it, choose Properties from the pop-up menu, and
> then click the Advanced button in the Properties dialog that appears.
> Then, you click the choice labeled "Encrypt contents to secure data"
> (Figure). When you apply this change, Windows will ask you whether you
> want to apply that change to just the current folder, or to all of the
> subfolders and files it contains as well. Any files and folders you copy
> into that folder, or create within that folder, will be encrypted as
> well. And if you copy encrypted data out of that folder to another
> location on your hard drive or the network, it will be unencrypted.
>
> EFS is a great solution, but Windows Vista goes it one better with full
> volume encryption, which is part of Microsoft's Secure Startup
> technology. Available in the Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Windows
> Vista (see my Windows Vista Product Editions showcase for more
> information), Secure Startup requires a Trusted Platform Module
> (TPM)-based chipset on the PC motherboard and protects the entire hard
> disk. As you might expect, the feature is aimed largely at enterprises
> whose employees work on critical corporate data.
>
> On the OS X side, Apple offers a feature called File Vault that secures
> your entire home directory with encryption (Figure). The theory here is
> the same: If the computer gets stolen, thieves can't access your private
> data. However, File Vault isn't exactly granular. It's either on or off,
> and you can't specify which folders to protect; it just protects the
> entire home folder. The reason this can be a problem is that encrypted
> files need to be decrypted on the fly, which can be a time consuming
> process. Microsoft's EFS, though somewhat hidden in the Windows UI,
> offers more options.
>
> Firewall and system services
>
> While both Windows Vista and OS X Tiger include personal firewalls, only
> the firewall in Windows is turned on by default. This is somewhat
> curious, given the high profile problems Windows XP users faced before
> Microsoft turned on its firewall with the release of XP Service Pack 2
> (SP2) in 2004. The OS X Tiger firewall is easily enabled, but you have
> to find it first, and it's not clear at first glance where you'll find
> it in System Preferences. It turns out it's hiding in Sharing, and not
> the more obvious Security or Network options.
>
> In any event, Apple does a good job of disabling unnecessary or
> potentially dangerous system services when an OS X system starts up. All
> network services, for example, are disabled by default. Too, Apple uses
> a Keychain feature to protect different credentials in a single,
> encrypted location. The system Microsoft uses for storing credentials is
> bizarre because it's dependent in part on which edition of Windows you
> are using (XP Home and the other editions handle this differently) and
> whether you're using Active Directory. Looking forward, it's clear that
> users will need to store more, not fewer, passwords and other
> credentials. A system like Keychain would be a huge boon for Windows
> users, but I don't see anything like that happening (at least not yet)
> in the Vista betas.
>
> Anti-malware, or stuff Windows needs that OS X does not
>
> Part of me wants to laud Microsoft for adding anti-malware, antivirus,
> and antispyware features to Windows Vista. I've always argued that this
> sort of technology, unlike say, Windows Movie Maker, should be included
> in the base OS. But you have to kind of wonder why Windows users need so
> much help. Why is it that Windows Vista has to have all these
> facilities, plus Internet Explorer 7's Protected Mode, the new user
> security system, and all the other neat security features that Microsoft
> is adding? Is Microsoft really charging users for better security?
>
> Yeah, actually, they are. But before anyone gets all excited about that
> fact, remember that security companies like Symantec and McAfee have
> been making millions of dollars off Windows users for decades. It was
> only a matter of time before Microsoft added this functionality to the
> OS. Those companies knew this day was coming.
>
> That OS X needs none of the security refinements that Microsoft has been
> forced to add to Windows Vista is somewhat telling. As I noted earlier,
> OS X is more secure than Windows for two basic reasons: It has an
> excellent and proven security model, and because it's less-used than
> Windows, it's a much smaller attack target. But the fact remains that no
> one has ever written a successful virus for OS X. I wish the same could
> be true of Windows Vista. But it won't be, now will it?
>
> It would be irresponsible of Microsoft to not add extensive new security
> features to Windows Vista. I just think it's a shame that the system
> needs these features in the first place.
>
> Security updates
>
> Both Microsoft and Apple provide regular security updates via an
> automated or semi-automated OS-level service. Curiously, Microsoft has a
> much better record than Apple in this category, and has actually
> pioneered OS self-updating with Windows Update, Automatic Update,
> Software Update Services (SUS), and, most recently, with Microsoft
> Update. In the Windows space, Windows Update and Microsoft Update are
> essentially the manual software updating tools, providing users with
> access to critical security updates as well as less critical updates
> such as new versions of Windows Media Player. Automatic Updates (AU), of
> course, is the service that will automatically download and (optionally)
> install critical security updates as they become available. Windows
> Update and Microsoft Update are actually ActiveX-based Web sites, which
> is most bizarre. This type of critical service should be native to the
> system, and not be based on exploitable Web code, in my opinion. That
> said, I'm unaware of any successful Windows Update spoofing attacks.
>
> On the OS X side, all of this work is handled through the Software
> Update application. While you can check Software Update for new updates
> manually, you can also configure it to check for updates on a regular
> basis (say, daily) and download important updates in the background
> while your working, just like AU. However, Software Update cannot be
> configured to automatically install security updates, which I find
> somewhat confusing.
>
> Configured correctly, Software Update will alert you when new updates
> are ready to be installed, whether they are security updates or minor
> changes to iTunes.
> Final security thoughts
>
> In short, Mac OS X is more secure than Windows today, and will likely
> remain so even after Windows Vista is released. That said, Microsoft is
> making some valuable and concrete changes to Windows Vista with regards
> to security, and while it remains to be seen how this system will fare
> in the real world, I have little doubt that Vista will be far more
> secure than its predecessors.
>
> Networking
>
> Both OS X and Windows include powerful networking features that make the
> systems equally valuable for home and corporate networks. And both Apple
> and Microsoft offer competing technologies that seek to make it easier
> to discover and access devices that are connected to a network. For
> example, Microsoft has pushed an ill-fated technology called Universal
> Plug-n-Play (UPnP), while Apple has touted a similar technology called
> Bonjour (previously called Rendezvous). I'm not so much concerned here
> about the low-level networking features that both OSes offer--I think we
> can all agree that both Windows and OS X support TCP/IP reasonably well,
> for example. No, I'm more concerned with home each system exposes
> networking functionality to the user.
>
> Let's take an obvious example. I have a wireless network at home and I'd
> like to get both a Windows Vista-based notebook and an Apple PowerBook
> connected to it. Which is "easier" will depend largely on your
> definition of ease-of-use. Windows Vista, like it's predecessor, is
> notification-heavy, providing you with constant updates on the state of
> the wireless network, which often makes me think that it's going on and
> offline all the time. Meanwhile, OS X is quiet about wireless
> networking. If the system spies a network to which it can connect, it
> will do so, and quietly. The only indication you'll get that anything
> happened is that the wireless networking menu item will change to
> indicate the connection.
>
> As with everything Windows, the wireless networking tray icon in Windows
> Vista is a front-end to a wide range of functionality. If you click it
> or double-click it, you'll get the Status dialog box for that connection
> (Figure). From here, you can also link to the Wireless Network
> Connection applet that debuted in XP SP2 (Figure). If you right-click on
> it, you can access various options (enable, disable, repair, status),
> launch the Wireless Network Connection applet, change Windows Firewall
> settings, or open Network Connections, through which you manage all of
> the wired and wireless connections on your system (Figure). Whew.
>
> OS X, by comparison, is much simpler. If you click the wireless
> networking menu item, you'll get a drop-down menu to enable and disable
> the wireless networking adapter (called Airport), choose which wireless
> network to which to connect, create a new wireless network, and so on
> (Figure). Simple. Plus, there's one thing OS X can do that Windows
> can't: Share a wired Internet connection via wireless. Why that's
> impossible on Windows, I'll never understand.
>
> Mac OS X can also easily access network shares on Windows PCs and
> servers, though I don't quite get why the system can't supply simple
> shortcuts to the actual shares. Instead, you can navigate Windows
> networks and machines directly from the Finder. But when you want to
> access individual shares, you do so from a weird Connect dialog. It
> would be handy if this were more integrated into the system, as is the
> handy Network special shell folder in Windows Vista (called My Network
> Places in XP), which lists all of your locally available shares by
> default.
>
> The fact that OS X can access Windows shares at all is, of course,
> excellent. So I'm nitpicking here. Overall, I'd say that both Vista and
> OS X offer excellent networking capabilities, as you would expect of any
> modern OS.
>
> Power management
>
> Both Windows and Mac OS X also offer a wide range of power management
> options. However, OS X has always had an advantage in one key area: When
> a Mac system goes to sleep, say when a user closes the lid on his
> PowerBook, the system goes to sleep instantly. And when that system is
> woken up, again, the change, again, is instant. This is most decidedly
> not the case with Windows. That said, Windows does offer a Hibernation
> mode that is quite handy, especially for notebook users: When configured
> to enter Hibernation mode, a Windows system writes the contents of RAM
> to the disk and then restores that RAM image when the system is
> "restarted." The end result is a system that boots more quickly than it
> would from a cold start, and one that is still running all of the
> applications that were running when it went into Hibernation. Another
> advantage of Hibernation is that, unlike Sleep mode, it doesn't trickle
> down the battery. Your system is literally off when it goes into
> Hibernation.
>
> In Windows Vista, Microsoft is attempting to get the best of both
> worlds. In addition to all of the power management features it offered
> in previous Windows versions, Microsoft is adding two key features to
> Vista that will make it particularly appealing to road warriors. First,
> Vista will include an instant-on function that will return Sleeping
> system to a usable state in about 2 seconds, or roughly on par with Mac
> OS X systems. Second, Microsoft is bundling a new Mobility Center
> control panel (Figure) in Vista that seeks to combine all of the
> functionality PC makers had been providing in those bizarre third-party
> mobility management applications. In its current form, Mobility Center
> is rough-edged, but we'll see how it develops over time.
>
> Microsoft has also changed the way a mobile PC notifies users of power
> management functionality in Vista. The new Power Management notification
> icon in the system tray, confusingly, provides access to four different
> interfaces (seriously). If you mouse-over it, you'll see a pop-up window
> describing power consumption (Figure). If you single click it, a
> different pop-up will appear, letting you select a power plan (Figure).
> If you double-click it, the confusing new Power Options dialog appears
> (Figure). And if you right-click it, you'll get a contextual menu
> providing access to options confusingly named Power Options and
> Properties. Sigh.
>
> Power management in OS X is much more straightforward. Mac portable
> systems typically display a battery status meter in the menu bar, which
> provides you with the amount of charge left or, when plugged in, the
> amount of time left until the system is fully charged (Figure). Power
> management options are configured in the Energy Saver preferences panel,
> which lets you choose between plain English modes like Better
> Performance and Better Energy Savings, or fine-tune power management for
> both battery-based and plugged-in systems (Figure).
>
> Overall, I find Mac OS X to be easier to use with regards to power
> management, and I give Apple the nod for its instant-on/instant-off
> functionality. That said, I use Hibernation exclusively on my PC laptops
> and love it. If Microsoft can pull off instant-on in Windows Vista, then
> that system will be at least as functional as OS X, if not as good
> looking.
>
> So what have we learned here? Once again, the maturity and refinement in
> OS X has won out over the still-in-development Windows Vista. This
> shouldn't surprise anyone really, and of course Vista can only improve
> over time. At some point, however, features will be frozen and we'll
> know where the two systems stand. At that point, it might be fun to
> update this comparison. But we're not done yet, of course: In part 3,
> I'll examine the different printing architectures employed by each OS,
> the unique features found only in Windows Vista, and the unique OS X
> Tiger features that Windows lacks. And then we can declare a winner, of
> sorts, at least until we have a more feature-complete version of Windows
> Vista to evaluate.


.