How is Windows 7 Safer?

[BRANDONN2008]

Is Windows 7 any safer from malware? My college teacher said something about how in computing, you use an application, and it accesses the OS, and the OS accesses the hardware. I think he said in Vista the applications access the hardware more directly, and in Windows 7 they changed that. Is it true?

[Hermite15]

ask your teacher to describe the process 

[bob3160]

See if the following answers your question:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173835/windows_7_safer_from_malware_than_xp_vista.html

[scythe944]

Please excuse my ignorance!

In my opinion, and I'm not a programmer, just another computer/networking guy that has yet to have the privilege to use Win7 , but as far as I'm concerned Windows 7 is still running the same kernel as Vista.  It's just a "fixed" version of vista with a new name.

Of course they may have changed the code around a little bit, but I highly doubt it's much different.

I guess I'll read Bob's link after I post to see if I'm correct or not.

[Sesame]

In my opinion, and I'm not a programmer, just another computer/networking guy that has yet to have the privilege to use Win7 , but as far as I'm concerned Windows 7 is still running the same kernel as Vista.  It's just a "fixed" version of vista with a new name.

Of course they may have changed the code around a little bit, but I highly doubt it's much different.

I'm not a programmer, either, but quite many people would agree with you.  As I have already written somewhere, basically, Vista is Windows NT 6.0 while Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1.  So, it's minor version up.  However, what's wrong with it when the usability is improved?  In fact, Windows XP, the most popular OS at the moment, is Windows NT 5.1, which is another minor version up from Windows NT 5.0, or, Windows 2000.  I even think it is rather wise to get minor version-up OS rather than major version-up one.

From information I have gathered, basically, there is not so much technical improvement from Vista in Windows 7 but Windows 7 seems to be more stable with higher usability.  So, there is no wonder in some people calling it what Vista should have been.

Since I haven't gotten Windows 7 or even Vista, please correct me if I'm mistaken...more detailed information from the users would be welcome.

BTW, er...privilege?  Now, you should be able to buy it anytime.

I guess I'll read Bob's link after I post to see if I'm correct or not.

Bob's "info" is from MS, based on information gathered through yet another of their product Microsoft Security Essentials anti-malware.  So, it's hard to separate it from their campaign for Windows 7, since there are clear incentive for MS, IMHO.

[YoKenny]

@Rumpel

Your description of the updates of the Windows kernel was interesting.

I'm running Windows Home Premium 64 bit now and it works great.

Endorsment by Bill Pytlovany of WinPatrol fame

Should I Upgrade to Windows 7

Vista Users:
Many readers have told me they’re going to wait for the first service pack before the upgrade to Windows 7.  If you’re currently using Vista think of Windows 7 as the ultimate service pack. Don’t wait.

http://billpstudios.blogspot.com/2009/10/should-i-upgrade-to-windows-7.html

[Hermite15]

@ Rumpel: I agree Seven is Vista, just an enhanced version. They could have called it Vista SE. It runs better and faster than Vista on most computers, that's the main point of upgrading, but this is not a "new" operating system.

[bob3160]

@ Rumpel: I agree Seven is Vista, just an enhanced version. They could have called it Vista SE. It runs better and faster than Vista on most computers, that's the main point of upgrading, but this is not a "new" operating system.

I considered Vista the beta version of Windows 7 or, Vista is what MS needed to figure out how to get it right and once they did, they released it as Windows 7.   

[Sesame]

Thanks for the info, everybody.  While gathering information about Windows 7, I was so fed up with "articles" which are, in fact, advertisements that it made me feel the needs for cool-headed user-based information.

As for those who bought Vista...well, at least, if someone has bought Vista at all, his/her system must be enough to run Windows 7, means, his/her "prior investment" on hardware was not wasted.  Bob did it well since he managed to get Windows 7 Ultimate version for free, though.  

I guess I belong to the "Happy with Windows XP?" group below according to the article YoKenny kindly linked.  The timing of changing Windows OSes may also depend on how we update our systems.  When my system begins to be outdated, I first try to delete unnecessary activities before upgrading the components.  Unavoidably, this makes the system even obsolete.  The oldest computer in our house works fine on XP but it wouldn't be like this if it were on Vista or even Windows 7.  Since most of the components on the system are several year-old, I guess I'd better use it till it ends up with a mere junk and replace it with a new machine.  If I had chosen to upgrade the components gradually, this wouldn't be happening (This is probably often the case with notebooks, with which upgrade options are limited, though).   Then, again, I guess it must have cost me much more than the total replacement plan and I don't think the computer is too slow for daily tasks due to the optimization in the software department.  So, I guess it ultimately depends on how we deal with Windows OSes.

[YoKenny]

On this Windows 7 64-bit the Internet is about instantaneous.

My "prior investment" on hardware was not wasted but I did not get Windows 7 for free.  :'(

Anyone want to buy an XP Pro system from me?
It still works but its like 2 seconds to display what the Windows 7 system displays amost instantly.

[Sesame]

On this Windows 7 64-bit the Internet is about instantaneous.

My "prior investment" on hardware was not wasted but I did not get Windows 7 for free.  :'(

Anyone want to buy an XP Pro system from me?
It still works but its like 2 seconds to display what the Windows 7 system displays amost instantly.

Just two seconds?  That's not my standard to replace OSes with cost since the obvious bottleneck here is the speed of my reading and writing.  If I played games, and/or were working on graphic design department, the story would be different, though.  Of course, it won't take two seconds for even the oldest PC to show each character while I type.

Just in case you are serious, why not try online auctions if you haven't got local computer stores?  There are some risks but I think it's a viable option to get rid of something we don't need.

[YoKenny]

I am not talking about the characters that appear on the screen as I type but the characters that appear on the screen when I depress Enter after submitting something to the Intenet.

It depends on Internet speed but the XP Pro system uses the same Internet connection through the DSL modem.

My local PC store is great and only a 10 minute or so wallk from me.

If the system works for you and meets your needs then that's great.

[Sesame]

I am not talking about the characters that appear on the screen as I type but the characters that appear on the screen when I depress Enter after submitting something to the Intenet.

It depends on Internet speed but the XP Pro system uses the same Internet connection through the DSL modem.

I see.  Ours are cable, which is probably why we don't have complaints about the speed.

If the system works for you and meets your needs then that's great.

Agreed.  Gathering info, I have asked myself if I need to upgrade OS and/or components of our systems and I guess the answer is obvious no...at least, for a while.  Thanks for the info, in any case.