I am not sure how network security on a Mac is complete with ‘keychain’ while Ubuntu (Linux) falls short with a plethora of ‘tools’. I sense that the author is very mis-informed about what the ‘network’ really is.

The user talks about personal settings in reference to personal files being secured… ok… lets stick to personal security. I can encrypt an entire disk in Vista or I can encrypt just a portion of the files system. They must have missed the option to encrypt folders that is gotten to by hitting the advanced button on a folders properties ‘general’ tab. For a note if you use folder encryption like the Mac your files are accessible because of ram, ram slack and virtual memory.

Safari as a default browser is potentially the worse pick of the bunch. It was the reason that the Mac was pwned in the pwn2own contest.

Sorry… but while the overall conclusion might be right the evidence given is in some cases clearly false.

I use Vista and Ubuntu, both at home and at work. I will admit that Ubuntu is faster to use that Vista. Vista is a turtle compared to XP. But I don’t think Ubuntu score should be higher at this point in time. Probably with the release of 8.04. At best it is at par with Vista when all the scores are taken in to consideration.

Trying to be easily accessible to everyone and trying to cover as many applications/programs has its drawbacks! When “accessability to all” takes preponderance to security is when the majority of people start to turning to “simpler” OS systems or open source OS systems. It is estimated that as of 2007 that 42-45% of today’s business has given up
Microsoft and turned to either Linux or Mac. That percentage will continually be going up with the increasing threat of Identity theft, hackers, and mostly by malware! Bill Gates said that the magnitute of malware was such that even Microsoft could not address the personal/corporation safety and that the only way to keep the threat of malware at a minimum, keep it “at bay” was to totally erase and reformat the computer system(s) at a monthly basis. Really! and how do YOU think most companies small or large would respond to that suggestion? For business, time is money and the idea of having to do this on a monthly basis would be a costly endeavor! I am afraid that the “easy accessability features” and the “Jack of all trades” of Microsoft has led to relative ease from hackers to access corporate files as well as potential ID theft from relatively insecure servers.

The old saying goes…”If its not broken don’t try to fix it.” It IS because of its simplistic emphasis on security from the ground up and its use of the Unix Server that BOTH MACS AND LINUX are continuing to grow within the business community and the Armed Forces.

Sadly, it seems that the last people to know about the growing trend away from Microsoft is the public at large. You know, those who use home PCs, those who use laptops, and those who use wireless!

It’s common knowledge that Linux based distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) are more secure than windows or Mac OS.

Fedora, for instance, is used by NASA. So, I guess, is quite good.

Almost all big corporations are running on UNIX, so the question will be why they don’t use MS or Mac OS. First their price is overrated, second their security sucks. Even better UNIX is open so if you are a big corporation all you have to do is hire few programmers and you will have fully customized OS, build for your own needs and with brand new security system.

p.s. The future is in open software, so it would be better to learn Linux now.

First Ubuntu is reserved for people who are good with shell. With Linux there is no GUI substitute for many things, leaving shell commands as the only option. Second, Linux’s variety of names will confuse most consumers. And lastly, Ubuntu is not packaged for most PC with all the core components such as drivers and supporting software for the hardware. Support for third party software is minimal at best.

With respect to Mac OS X, it is clearly built for simple people who want to interact with technology. There aren’t complicated commands nor confusing control panels. Everything just works…in certain environments. For the home office, Mac OS X is good for typing and printing the occasional documents, email, IM, google, youtube, and media but it’s usefulness is limited to that. There is some selection in games and applications but it is neither complete nor are the subsystems capable of running such intense software. Another limitation is that OS X supports a limited peripheral base.

Windows is the jack of all trades. While it is not the best in any specific category, it’s the best overall. It is a compromise between complete customization and controlled customization. Many of the security issues mentioned in this article are a non-issue. Users are by far the weakest flaw in the security chain. Windows has been tested in rigorous server and desktop environments by almost all companies while Mac OS X cannot even make a penetration into that world due to its fundamental limitations. As for browsers and third party software, the market leader gets to dictate the path. More websites are compatible with IE than Firefox. It’s as simple as that. Microsoft can be idealistic and create browsers like Safari but it would be nothing less than a mental exercise since it is horrible to waste the precious time of developers like Apple does with every generation of Mac OS X.

Under personal settings, the reviewer says that Windows security is bad because it only has password protection, that really is not a bad security at all. Anyone worried about the security of the data will ensure the password protection is hack-proof.

Macscan being better than Defender, I can quote plenty of credible security reviewers who rate Windows Defender as the best security tool. If nothing else, I will say that both Tiger and Vista are comparable in this point.

I have noticed that on every point Vista has fared near the bottom in comparison (barring one or two points where the reviewer really could not find anything negative to say).

It is one of the most biased review between OS that I have read.

I am not commenting on Ubuntu as I have never used it or read about it. But keeping in mind the treatment meted out to Tiger and Vista I do not think I will accept any rating given by this reviewer.