Courtesy of OSWeekly.com

(Column) - One of the key advantages with Windows Vista is that it's supposed to be a lot more secure than its predecessor, Windows XP. Well, allow me to take a moment to remind everyone of something that you might not remember - XP was also touted as being ultra secure. Seriously, can anyone honestly look themselves in the mirror and say this is the gospel truth? You have got to be kidding me. Similar to XP, Microsoft promises to have the most secure Windows version to date yet again.

Once Burned, Twice Shy. If there is one single reality in Microsoft land, it has to be that the technology media is not their friend. Once you start "Googling" for the terms "secure OS," your browser screen will be filled with Microsoft horror stories. Regardless of the validity of any of them, the fact remains that Microsoft is in a very poor position to try and launch a brand new OS.

See, I think that for many people, it's a matter of trust. It would be a lot like offering your pet a treat only to turn and give it something completely nasty. This has been happening in the Windows world for a long time now. We keep seeing promises of better Windows security and yet this has only begun to happen with the release of SP2 for XP. Even then, we are still seeing exploits left and right with no end in sight with XP. And Microsoft wants us to use their latest products? Wait, it gets better…

Symantec vs. Microsoft: This Time the Security Industry is at Risk. I just love this. Symantec has made the very public claim that Microsoft is working to corner the Windows security market. How? By allegedly withholding critical information that security providers need to create the next suite of Windows security products.

Now, for those of you reading between the lines, let me ask you something. What happens if Vista really is as secure as Microsoft would like to have us believe? Simple, there would be no need for outside security products whatsoever. Do you see it? Yup, if you said Microsoft created unfinished code in the first place, you win a prize.

Rigged from the Beginning? Think about it. How can anyone design an OS so terrible that it’s vulnerable to attack after attack? Just as importantly, why? The answer to the first question is a matter of some debate but the circumstances leading up to the latter is becoming clearer. Microsoft keeps technicians in business repairing the bugs on their OS, which I must say, is very generous of them. Since I used to repair PCs for a living, Microsoft's lack of security and common sense with Windows 95, 98, ME and XP has quite literally fed a clothed me for a very long time. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, could this simply be an amazing coincidence? Could it be a matter of chance that an entire security industry built around the Windows OS has made such a fortune? I’m not going to state anything as fact here. In fact, I'd like each of you to come to your own conclusions.

Windows Vista and Trust. In the end, I think the whole issue of Windows security is going to come down to trust. Hopefully, Microsoft has a better handle on the security flaws that keep getting them into trouble.

What are your thoughts? Is Vista worth the risk when compared to switching to Linux or buying a Mac? I have made my case pretty clear, now I’m interested in hearing yours.