More Proof That XP is Less Secure Than Either Vista or Windows 7
Want proof? Microsoft just announced an interesting byproduct of its recently released Security Essentials anti-malware tool: Systems running XP are far more vulnerable than those running Vista, and Vista systems aren't as secure as those running Windows 7. Here's a summary from Computerworld: In the first week after the release of Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft says, the software was downloaded 1.5 million times. The software detected nearly four million security problems on 535,752 different PCs. The above chart shows the breakdown. As you can see, Windows 7 accounted for just 16% of the detected malware, while XP accounted for more than half. So once again this begs the question: Which is more cost-effective to an organization: ongoing investments of time, money, and manpower in fighting and dealing with security issues, or a one-time investment in newer, faster, more inherently secure PCs? Food for thought. |
For a long time now, we've been urging organizations to abandon Windows XP like the leaky, virus-infested ship it is. See, much as users and IT pros alike may like the OS, it's just 
Comments (4)
Why not just get a Mac and not deal with the malware/spyware game?
Posted by Tyler Montgomery | November 3, 2009 6:33 PM
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Macs aren't well-suited to the enterprise, if for no other reason than they're cost-prohibitive.
Posted by Simplify PC Solutions Blog Team
| November 5, 2009 2:10 AM
Doesn't this simply reflect the installed base of each operating system?
Posted by Mike | November 26, 2009 10:02 AM
No, because this doesn't make the claim that XP was attacked more often than Vista or 7. Instead, it simply shows the detection results across the three operating systems.
Posted by Migration Expert Zone Team
| November 30, 2009 6:02 PM