Tiger vs. Vista (Thurrott’s Part 2)
¶ by Rob FrieselPaul Thorrott over at “SuperSite for Windows” posts part two of his Windows Vista Beta 1 vs. Mac OS X “Tiger”, breaking down the key parts that are to give two cents about. Best line out of the whole thing:
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.
His round-up is a good one and takes a lot of important factors into account w/r/t/ “getting what you pay for” out of these two competing OSes… Highlights:
- Security. It’s safe to say that he calls OS X a more secure OS, overall (as quoted above). He makes a specifically compelling point in this regard though: OS X’s inner security genius is due in large part to FreeBSD/*nix under-pinnings – – thus “standing on the shoulders of giants” – – but could make them slower to respond to threats.
- Data Encryption. FileVault is better than EFS in terms of raw encryption and usability. But FileVault’s failing (as I’ve commented many times before) is that it’s not atomized enough. Jury is still out on this one.
- Built-in Maleware Protection. Lauds to Microsoft for bundling these features right in to Vista. But shameful shakes of the head that this should even be an issue. On that note, why is the OS X firewall OFF by default?
- Networking. Vista will be easier but not as easy as OS X. (Paul doesn’t comment too much though on the different frames of mind that inform how the two OSes treat network shares, boiling it down instead to …when you want to access individual shares, you do so from a weird Connect dialog. /shrug)
- Power Management. OS X wins (despite not having a true “Hibernate” mode – – but honestly: WTF?)
Leave a Reply