Yeah I wondered when this would turn from an attack ebay thread to attack Microsoft thread..
You guys are wrong about this, and I'd direct you to these statistics..
Here are some statistics from Jeffrey Jones Report. I suggest you sit down and read the entire report. You will see that this isn't political, but a fair and honest assessment. It's just tracking of the numbers of patches/vulnerabilities and what actually happened. You can download it right
HERE...For those who want to read the reality of this..
These graphs tell the story (and these are just recorded numbers of the actual number of reported exploits/vulnerabilities that were made public by all of the companies.. There are a number of non-public updates from each, but this tells the story, they couldn't make this up..
As you can see from the graphs RedHat and Ubuntu had the most and Apple well, this is year one comparison..
The facts speak for themselves, Apple OS X 10.4 was worse than Vista build 6000 for patches during it's first year...For reported problems that saw public updates (these are the numbers for public updates that were pushed to customers)..
You guys need to get the facts straight about all of this.. Advertising doesn't always hold up to reality..
If you still don't believe this..
Check out this computerworld/Yahoo article..
Who Patches Bugs Faster Microsoft or Apple..QUOTE:
"Researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology looked at how many times over the past six years the two vendors were able to have a patch available on the day a vulnerability became publicly known, which they call the zero-day patch rate.
They analyzed 658 vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft products and 738 affecting Apple. They looked at only high- and medium-risk bugs, according to the classification used by the National Vulnerability Database, said Stefan Frei, one of the researchers involved in the study.
What they found is that, contrary to popular belief that Apple makes more secure products, Apple lags behind in patching.
"Apple was below 20 [unpatched vulnerabilities at disclosure] consistently before 2005," Frei said. "Since then, they are very often above. So if you have Apple and compare it to Microsoft, the number of unpatched vulnerabilities are higher at Apple."
It's generally good for vendors to have a software fix available when a vulnerability is disclosed, since hackers often try to find out where the problem is in order to write malicious software to hack a machine.
For a vendor to have a patch ready when the bug is detailed in public, it needs to get prior information from either its security analysts or external ones. Otherwise the vendor has to hurry to create a patch, but that process can be lengthy, given the rigorous testing needed to test the patch to ensure it does not conflict with other software.
Apple only started patching zero-day vulnerabilities in late 2003, Frei said. " ...
"However, the study proved to be such a glowing affirmation of Microsoft's increased focus on security in the past few years that it prompted Cushman to ask Frei, "Did Microsoft fund this research?"
"This is independent academic research," Frei replied."
The sad realization is Apple's TV ads are fun but LIE about many things.. By the way I love OSX and own a Mac Mini in addition to a number of PCs (including my new Core2Quad, with GeForce 9600GTX), I just want to keep this "REAL" in everyone's mind.. The facts are the facts and I don't really see one OS as being more secure as the other with proof that can be demonstrated.
Of course Swiss Federal is not a USA based organization. I just live in the USA, you could attack Swiss Federal but would they lie? That have an impeccable reputation for honesty.
