May I ask what is the real differences between NT based and unix based?

Hi I've a silly question to ask.
What is the main differences between NT based and unix based? I have heard unix based did not make OSX more stable. OSX is more stable than Windows OS because OSX does not have as much drive & software. I am also curious... what happen if Windows uses unix based or OSX uses NT based. Will that make Windows more secure or make OSX less secure?

 

Windows Vista is a very secure product already. It will never be Unix based.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking...you seem to be asking for two things rather than one (secure and stable)

Of course, any answer you get is going to be somewhat subjective when it comes to a windows vs. mac question--which this essentially is. So, as a user of both, my take is woth about 2 cents

Let's hit stable first, as that is the easy one. You are on the right track when you talk about drivers and stabilty, but the real core of stability can be traced to hardware. Apple as a manufacturer of hardware and supplier of software has an iron grip on hardware supplied with a machine. They determine what pieces go into a machine, and how often this hardware is upgraded.

The vast majoirty of problems with computers is directly traceable to hardware issues. Because Windows is more open as far as adding hardware, and reliant on third party vendors to supply drivers (the software that allows the hardware to interact with each other), they are inherently less stable then Apples. Since Applie controls what hardware goes in its machines, it has the luxury of testing and double testing its software against a known hardware base. However, the drawback is that Apple hardware is usually a little behind cutting edge.

From a security standpoint, OS X is based on FreeBSD, one of the more secure unix variations available. The kernal is tried and true, tested and retested throughout the open source community before Apple even beings playing with it--and then Apple adds another layer of testing.

But, that is the kernal--Apple adds many layers of usability to the FreeBSD base, and this is where the many exploits that have been discovered come from--not the FreeBSD kernal, but what Apple has done on top of it.

That said, Mac OS X is very secure, without a doubt, but this is really because the OS X variation has such a small user base, it is a smaller target. The vast majority of the blackhat hacking community focuses its efforts on the Windows because its efforts are rewarded due to the large user base.

the vast majority of these attacks come from low level attacks like script kiddies who viruses/trojans/worms--these kind of easy hacks are going to go after the easy target which is quite naturally the biggest target.

It is inaccurate, though, to think that the Apple OS is more secure to sophisticated attacks.

Let's take one month, Dec 2007 (so far)

So far this month, the security organization Secunia has issued a number of security vulnerabilities for each OS.

Max OS X: 6
Windows XP: 4
Windows Vista: 5

These numbers vary from month to month, with different OSs having better months and worse months.

the truth is, they are all more or less the same. Macs probably do have a slight advantage over a year's time, but I don't know if that ought to make you feel all that more secure.

 

There are already a lot of different posts regarding this issue.

Yeah, *nix systems are more secure, but not impenetrable. There are viruses that exist, but they are not built and used by script kiddies. Real hackers know they have to exploit vulnerabilities in *nix systems to get real information and cause real problems.

*nix systems will pretty much block any script kiddies... but as gerry pointed out, more sophisticated attacks are targeted and designed to execute based on specific flaws. It won't matter the architecture as much.

Then again, the favored form of hacking into the system doesn't require any software at all
Just some good, old fashioned social engineering :-D

 

The NT operating system was developed by Microsoft and IBM in the late 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

UNIX was developed in the late 1960s by AT&T employees at Bell Labs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

The kernel is merely a layer that sits between the hardware and the software. Which kernel (NT or *nix) you use determines what software you can use.

In the home user market, Windows is much more popular for a variety of reasons. In the business/security world, *nix operating systems are used for highly sensitive data where multiple security levels are required, as in Trusted Solaris.

In the home market, since Windows dominates most machines, it goes to reason that it would be targeted by hackers more than any other operating system. Does this mean Windows is less secure than *nix based systems? That is debatable, and I don't have an opinion one way or the other. There are companies that devote all of their resources to find exploits in operating systems, but remember that unless an exploit is, well, exploited, it doesn't mean much to the average user.

As has already been stated, Apple won't use NT and Windows won't use *nix.

 

Vulnerabilities are one thing. Exploiting them and getting malware to propagate is completely different. The two 'malware' OS X has had have both failed to actually propagate. Getting malware to actually propagate on OS X would be very difficult just because of users rights and passwords. That was one of the two main problems with XP. It seems as though Vista's limited user accounts are actually usable. Couple that with a firewall that is turned on by default (listening Apple?) and Vista seems much more secure. In fact, since XP SP2 there have not been any real malware breakouts.

 

To answer the questions in short, OSX is better in the two categories you mentioned.

but as stated you are asking two separate quetions:

first, which kernal (unix or NT) is more stable - less likely to fail on its own, and

second, which kernal is more secure - less likely to be susceptible to attack

but, because OS X and Windows are each fundamentally their own, the real question you are asking is which operating system is more secure and more stable.

the unix kernal is more stable (less likely to fail on its own) and more secure (less likely to be susceptible to attack) than the NT kernal. This is in large part due to the fact that it has had a long time to develop and mature compared to the NT kernal.

That said, both NT and unix have come a long way since their inceptions and both are relatively stable on their own. I would still consider unix more secure than NT, though. However, Windows does end up also being less stable than OSX in general due to the extraordinary variety of hardware windows can run on. As stated before, most of the instability in windows comes from driver conflicts.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say--other than we seem to be agreeing.

A properly updated XP, VISTA and Mac are all, more or less, equal when it comes to vulnerability.

 

I would say, like other have mentioned Windows supports a much wider range of hardware, and this is a key factor in stability and security. Especially since Mirosoft does not control any hardware and only some of the drivers.

There is a gap....a leap of faith between say Microsoft and HP for example. Microsoft does not engineer or make HP hardware and Microsoft might make some generic drivers to support some HP hardware but HP makes their own drivers for Windows.

Apple makes the hardware, the OS and the drivers. On top of that Apple has a limited range of hardware and alot of it overlaps. That is to say Apple has two basic notbook models that probably share the same network card, sound card, isight camera, Hard drive types, CD/DVD...etc. The macmini and Imac share some of that same stuff since they use the mobile CPU', RAM and hard drives. This makes it easier for Apple to make its system more stable and secure. It a much more controlled environment.

Both have problems with stability at any given time. Windows has more.

That said a good high end HP Proliant server running a now stable and secure Windows 2003 server at some company that has layers of network protection is very stable and secure. Big companies like HP support their high end Windows server hardware very well. The spend more money on engineering and testing the server than say a bargin HP notebook with Vista on it.

As others have said Vista is more secure, because is more UNIX like when it comes to users having less or restricted permissions.

XP defaults to to every user having full control. Because XP is like this be default, and the install base is bigger than anything it is a big FAT target and will be for some time. It can be setup to be just as secure, with limited users, automatic updates and ant-malware software. That said some programs in Windows (mostly older) have to be run as Administrator because MS did not enforce its own standards and the programs were written poorly. This in one of the major reasons for software compatibilities with Vista. Vista is trying to be UNIX/LINUX/OS X like and run programs with limited user access via UAC. Some programs crash and burn. Its not really Microsoft's fault. Of course you will have some real geniuses in these forums tell you step #1 with Vista turn off UAC.....lol