[zzarg]

at a risk of causing some harsh words... has anyone done an analysis of which of the two commercial OSs (leaving Linux out coz I've never paid for it !) are actually patched more often ?

Thinking back over the last few months about how often I've rebooted my PowerBook because of security updates and OS patches compared to how often I've had to do the same for my Windows machines it got me wondering....

Is WinXP patching less often, OSX patching more often or... is it just an optical illusion brought on my the sneaky WinXP updates via BITS so I'm not really noticing them ?

[mac15]

There is definately more WinXP update, they're released every month and there is usually about 8-10 updates to grab. WIth Mac OS X it's usually every 1-2 months

[chris v]

You gotta consider the definition of "patch" and "update" too. Windows has frequent security hole patches, but 10.3 has had 3 or 4 in the last year, and 8 updates that actually added functionality to the OS. So you could be running 10.3.0 with 3 or 4 security patches if you wanted. That's not a bad year.

How many of the Windows patches actually add new features or fix other bugs not related to security? I ask because I really don't know.

[jzdziarski]

I've run XP, Linux, OSX, and plenty of other OS's long-term. XP updates are by all definitions polishing the pig's butt. A majority of their updates are just patches to fix the thousands of gaping holes in their software. The remaining "updates" don't really buy you any special enhancements; they save these for the service packs to which there have only been two as long as Win XP has been out.

OSX being built on BSD is one of the most secure operating systems you could ask for. The updates they've provided have made *noticeable* differences in my system. I wouldn't even try to compare the two.

I know you omitted Linux, but having run Linux on my former thinkpad for two years, I must say I'm much more impressed with OSX's updates. For one thing, there are sometimes new patches to Linux on a *weekly* basis to fix holes. For another, getting and installing the new kernel usually meant having to also recompile any drivers or kernel mods you may have, then delete the old kernel...all in all it was just too much of a pain in the rear, which is why I moved to OSX. Linux is great, but if you need something just as secure and well built that "just works" without countless hours of dicking around, OSX is the answer.

XP isn't even worthy to be in this thread IMO.

[Millennium]

Truth be told, it's difficult if not impossible to compare the two, because you have to consider what goes into each patch, how soon after a vulnerability is announced that a patch is made available, whether the flaw is the company's code or some third party's, and so on. There are quite a few people who would consider more frequent patches to be a Good Thing, on the grounds that since all software inevirably has bugs, the better software is the one that fixes those bugs more quickly.