"Brian A." gonefish'n@afarawaylake wrote in message
...
| "Dan" wrote in message
| ...
| I will focus on your last question and I think Chris Quirke, MVP would
agree
| with me that Windows 98 Second Edition is safer than XP Professional.
Here
| are my web-links to prove my case:
|
| http://secunia.com/product/22/
|
| Vendor Microsoft
|
|
| Product Link N/A
|
|
| Affected By 192 Secunia advisories
|
|
| Unpatched 16% (30 of 192 Secunia advisories)
|
|
| Most Critical Unpatched
| The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
XP
| Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical
|
| http://secunia.com/product/13/
|
| Vendor Microsoft
|
|
| Product Link N/A
|
|
| Affected By 32 Secunia advisories
|
|
| Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories)
|
|
| Most Critical Unpatched
| The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
98
| Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical
|
|
| That is my case.
|
| I responded without question. The only way 98 is safer than XP Pro is
because it's
| not targeted, that's all and no more. When XP Pro is configured properly
it is by
| far more secure than 98. Soon enough XP will be forgotten altogether as
the full
| attack goes Vista, and so on.
|
| --
|
| Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
| Conflicts start where information lacks.
| http://basconotw.mvps.org/
|
| Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
|
|

I disagree. As XP is based upon the same base code as VISTA it will always
be attacked, and vigorously.
The coding differentials are so minuscule, that even if specific to VISTA,
the attack will work upon XP with equal if not more effectiveness, and even
less difficulty as there will be less to work-around. What hacks VISTA
*WILL* hack XP.
9X on the other hand, will receive less and less attention. One need look
no further than this group. There aren't many people who can even write a
simple batch file for 9X/DOS anymore.
Not saying there will be no attacks, as there is still sufficient viri,
hacks, and Spyware available [and targeted at installable 9X files]. But it
brings no recognition, and the OS is not being used now [very much anyway]
within supposedly secured areas and businesses as XP and VISTA are...

You can ignore these rather obvious aspects and continue to spout how
supposedly secure the newer operating systems are, but that smacks in the
face of the purpose of the attacks... glamour, fame, recognition, ID theft,
and all the other things now found with those NEW OSs... and the systems
which use them..

To say the XP is more secure is like putting your head in a paper bag and
claiming no one can see you...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________