ie8 fix
madison

Smartphones and Cell Phones

Matthew Miller
Home / News & Blogs / Smartphones and Cell Phones

Cage match: Windows Mobile vs. Google Android

By | February 3, 2009, 2:11pm PST

Summary: I posted on the status of Windows Mobile 7 that the Motorola CEO spilled out in a recent earnings call. This really wasn’t much of a surprise since it has been rumored for months, but this was the first public official acknowledgement of the upcoming OS. The Motorola CEO also talked about the Google Android OS during that earnings call and stated that Motorola was focusing on Android instead of Windows Mobile in 2009 because Android “is more competitive” this year than Windows Mobile will be. Since I have spent an extensive amount of time with both the T-Mobile G1 (see my review) and several Windows Mobile devices (see my HTC Fuze review) I think I can offer up a fair comparison between the two operating systems speaking from real-life experiences so that you can make an informed decision about which is the better OS to focus on at this time.

This morning, Motorola’s CEO spilled the beans that Windows Mobile 7 is coming in 2010. Another thing he mentioned during the earnings call is that Motorola would be focusing on Google Android instead of Windows Mobile in 2009 because Android “is more competitive” this year than Windows Mobile will be.

Since I have spent an extensive amount of time with the Android-powered T-Mobile G1 (my review here) and several Windows Mobile devices (see my HTC Fuze review), I think I can offer up a fair comparison between the two operating systems.

Here’s my breakdown:

Stability

Windows Mobile

There are people that jump on my Windows Mobile posts right away and complain about stability of their devices. There have been stability issues in the past with certain devices, and many of these devices are still available today. That said, every Windows Mobile non-touchscreen device I have used the last couple of years has been rock-solid, no reset necessary. Touch screen devices I have used recently — Apple iPhone, my BlackBerry — tend to lock up with lots of 3rd party applications. In fact, the only mobile OS I haven’t had lock up is the one on Symbian S60 devices.

Google Android

I started using a G1 before they were publicly released and have loaded up and removed over 50 applications and pushed the limits of the device. It has NEVER soft reset or required a hard reset, and that is saying something for a brand-new operating system. I have had 3rd party applications freeze and then start back up, and I have even had low memory issues (drives me crazy), but the OS has honestly been much more stable than I would ever have anticipated.

Winner: Google Android, which has been more stable and reliable than Windows Mobile.

Multimedia (Image and video capture, music listening, movie viewing)

Windows Mobile

There are very few Windows Mobile devices that have good cameras for image and video capture and the best current model is the Samsung OMNIA. Music and video playing is managed through the lame Windows Media Player mobile application. This is a desktop application that was brought to the Pocket PC and has only seen small incremental updates over the years. I personally can’t stand WMP mobile and think Microsoft needs to move quickly to getting something like the Zune multimedia interface on Windows Mobile. If this was done, I would be much more likely to use my Windows Mobile device for multimedia.

Google Android

The camera on the G1 is of typical HTC quality, but with no flash is very limited. It does have autofocus so it is better than some other devices and does surprisingly well with applications like ShopSavvy. There is no video capture capability either.

The Amazon MP3 store is integrated on the G1 and there is a fairly basic music player included. While there is a video player integrated into the Android OS, there is no native application that hooks into this. There are 3rd party apps that fill the video playing need at this time.

Winner: Neither. The G1 is not a multimedia powerhouse, and most Windows Mobile devices are not either. I think this area is open for groups to step in and improve in both operating systems.

Phone performance/integration

Windows Mobile

There are so many Windows Mobile devices on the market it is tough discuss their phone performance because it varies by device. Touch screen devices are definitely a bit more difficult to use as a proper phone (dialing, holding up to your head, etc.). Windows Mobile non-touchscreen devices excel in phone functionality and I can easily recommend them for people looking for a good solid standard phone.

Google Android

The G1, too, is a bit difficult to use as a proper phone, but where the G1 excels is in the notifications — and I haven’t found another OS that performs as well. The notifications on my Nokia E71 do come close to those found on the G1, though, and I would like to see them integrated across S60.

Winner: Tie. Both experiences vary device-to-device.

Software (integrated and 3rd party)

Windows Mobile

There are thousands of developers and software titles for Windows Mobile devices, and you can pretty much find an application to do anything you need with your device. Many of these improve on the software included with the OS so the sky is pretty much the limit with Windows Mobile.

Unlike Google Android, Windows Mobile has majorly failed in the “App market” area and it is sad to see they still do not have an on-device software store like the Android Market. We may see more on this at Mobile World Congress, but it may still be too little too late.

Google Android

On the other hand, the G1 is a fairly new device and there are already applications that are available for it that beat Windows Mobile applications. For example, there is ShopSavvy that you can use to blow away your family and friends as it shows them the product you scanned, where to find it cheaper online, and where to find it even from a store close to you using the integrated GPS receiver. There are also decent mobile clients for Twitter, Facebook, and Shazam that are rare or nonexistent on Windows Mobile. It is tough to judge applications for the Google Android OS at this time since all are still currrently free and I think (and hope) the high quality application floodgates will open when commercial apps are made available in the Android Market.

Winner: Google Android, thanks to its inventive Android Market.

Exchange (enterprise) support

Windows Mobile

If you work with an Exchange server and Outlook it is very tough to beat a Windows Mobile device for the complete Exchange experience. Motorola needs to get back into the consumer game now and waiting until 2010 to get going with Windows Mobile and the enterprise market may be a low risk venture, since enterprise clients are generally slower to change and adopt new technologies.

Google Android

I purchased and am enjoying the TouchDown application on my G1 and every few days they have been issuing updates that is giving me a better and more featured experience with my Exchange server. Today’s update gave me the calendar views I wanted and I think the Exchange experience can be close to matched on the G1 with more work by third parties.

Winner: Windows Mobile, but Android isn’t far behind.

Display technologies

Windows Mobile and Google Android

Currently, Windows Mobile devices have non-touch or touch (resistive) displays while the G1/Google Android has a capacitive display. There are pros and cons to both — with the iPhone becoming so popular today, capacitive displays seem to be the future — and they are definitely easier to use from a UI perspective. However, you cannot use handwriting input methods and there are some limitations with selecting items on the display. There are also millions of people who like non-touch screen displays with navigation and selection performed from hardware keys and we could see Android in both flavors like we see with Windows Mobile and S60.

After using my iPhone and G1, I do think that overall the user experience with a capacitive display is a better experience and is the wave of the future. That said, I imagine we will see Windows Mobile devices with capacitive displays in the future too so either OS could be used from a display perspective.

Winner: Google Android, thanks to the capacitive trend, but it depends on the hardware.

Wireless capabilities

Windows Mobile and Google Android

Both operating systems support all the standard wireless modes that are available today, but currently the Bluetooth stack is very limited on the Android OS. This may be a function of the G1 hardware, but we won’t know for sure until more hardware is released. Both operating systems have 3G, WiFi, Bluetooth, and GPS capabilities.

Winner: Windows Mobile, by a Bluetooth.

Security

Windows Mobile

For enterprise mobile devices, RIM BlackBerry seems to be the best from a security viewpoint, but since I am not the IT guy, I can’t speak with certainty. From what I understand from research, Microsoft and Windows Mobile have come a long way with regard to security and security management through Exchange ActiveSync.

Google Android

The G1 is an “open” system that syncs with Google servers so the devices are not really manageable by the IT department. I am not sure what, if anything, can be done to make these devices secure for enterprise usage and will have to let others chime in with thoughts on Android security.

Winner: Windows Mobile, thanks to its closed-source nature.

Hardware form factors

Windows Mobile

Currently, there is no question that Windows Mobile has it going on with the hardware. We have some incredible hardware offerings like the Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1, HTC Touch HD, HTC Touch Pro, Samsung Blackjack II, and many dozens more. The nice thing about Windows Mobile is that you can find a device that fits your needs in both touchscreen and non-touchscreen flavors on virtually any carrier you want.

Google Android

Android has a long way to go. The only Google Android device currently on the market is the T-Mobile G1. While it is a solid first device, it is definitely geared towards the mobile phone geek, with a rather inelegant and clunky slide-up display, funky chin, HTC proprietary port for headphones and charging, limited camera, and poor battery life. The trackball is slick, the display is very nice and functional, and the keyboard is quite useful.

Winner: Windows Mobile, but based only on current Android offerings.

Conclusion

After looking over these different aspects of each operating system, I think Motorola should focus on Android if they want to target the consumer, and Windows Mobile if they want to target the enterprise.

What do you think of this comparison? Are there other areas where each OS stands out from the other?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Smartphones and Cell Phones”

Topics

T-Mobile G1, Google Android, Device, Microsoft Windows Mobile, Mobile, Operating System, Touch Screen Device, Trackball, Microsoft Windows, Operating Systems, Advertising & Promotion, Handhelds, Wireless And Mobility, Software, Marketing, Hardware, Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller started using a Pilot 1000 in 1997 and has been writing news, reviews, and opinion pieces ever since.

Disclosure

Matthew Miller

Matthew is a professional naval architect by day and a mobile gadget freak at all other times. He purchases his own devices and then sells them on eBay or Craigslist to buy more. Many other devices are sent for review on a 30-day loaner basis and then returned to the carrier or manufacturer. If any are provided as “long term loaner units” this will be clearly disclosed in his reviews.

Biography

Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller started using a mobile devices in 1997 and has been writing news, reviews, and opinion pieces ever since. He is a co-host with GigaOM's Kevin Tofel on the MobileTechRoundup podcast and an author of three Wiley Companion series books. Matthew started using mobile devices with a US Robotics Pilot 1000 and has owned over 125 different devices running Palm, Linux, Symbian, Newton, BlackBerry, iOS, Android, webOS, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating systems. His current collection includes an HTC Radar 4G, Dell Venue Pro, Apple iPad 2, HTC Flyer, Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Nokia N9, Apple iPhone 4S, MacBook Pro, and many more, along with tons of accessories and classic devices like the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100 and Sony CLIE UX50. Matthew can be found on various discussion forums under the user name of "palmsolo".
60
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Windows Mobile vs. Android, which is the better OS to focus on in 2009?
maascom 28th Apr 2011
I haven't spent much ti me in those forums. Thanks for the anecodote, that was basically what I wanted.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
I think its a fair comparison.
storm14k 3rd Feb 2009
I would not try to compare media capabilities however. That is always going to be a function of apps or third parties on any platform. They both are capable of playing the stuff if you have the app to do it.

Overall I believe Android is going to gain alot of steam especially if third parties take to customizing it. I'm looking forward to seeing the coming wave of Android devices including the Garmin device (GPS device I assume) and the Ipod Touch like tablet device. The apps seem to be rolling in at a steady pace with their quality improving and I imagine that there are many just waiting on the paid App Market to launch. Motorola might just be able to save themselves with Android if they are smart.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: .... fair comparison.
n0neXn0ne Updated - 3rd Feb 2009
" Motorola might just be able to save themselves with Android if they are smart."

"Motorola, Microsoft In Suicide Pact"
"So Motorola , too sick to rescue its own mobile division, is throwing over Windows Mobile OS for Google's Android (yes, those guys again!) in a last-ditch attempt at relevancy, while Microsoft watches its own inevitable slide into oblivion. They will be sorely missed."

^o^


0 Votes
+ -
Why even bother?
GuidingLight 3rd Feb 2009
Everytime you post, you show more and more that you know less and less.

Too bad. You where laughable at times, now just plain..........boring.
0 Votes
+ -
Can you quote me? Didn't think so.
n0neXn0ne Updated - 5th Feb 2009
"You where laughable at times, now just plain..........boring."

Glad to hear you read my post(s). wink

You are an id!0t

devil
0 Votes
+ -
Agree, fair
honeymonster Updated - 3rd Feb 2009
If anything I think you are being a little nice to WM.

I use a HTC Touch HD. I don't like it much. The screen is awesome (the reason I chose it - so that I could read books online) but the device - especially browsing - is slow. WM is only saved by Touch Flo, but you don't have to dig much before the WM rears its head (windows 2000 style - wtf do I need scrollbars to take up screen realestate on a mobile??).

Mobile IE is a joke. No, strike that. Mobile IE is an insult. I'm very happy HTC decided to bundle Opera on this device. Otherwise that device would have had an appointment with the parking a long time ago - arriving directly from 7th floor.

Microsoft needs to up the ante - soon. Or leave the game.
0 Votes
+ -
Closed source = more secure?
Fred Fredrickson 3rd Feb 2009
To rate an OS as more secure because the source is closed is irrational. If that were so, Windows desktop should have fewer viruses than Linux, which it clearly doesn't.

I'm not saying Windows Mobile is less secure than Android, only that the closed nature of the source is an irrelevant criterion. If you can't provide relevant criticism or analysis of the security of either OS, score them equal (or leave that criterion out).
0 Votes
+ -
It's teh market share, stupid
honeymonster 3rd Feb 2009
If that were so, Windows desktop should have fewer viruses than Linux, which it clearly doesn't.

Nah, number of viruses has nothing to do with with how secure an OS is and everything to do with market share of that OS.

Linux has approximately 2 times the number of vulnerabilities of Vista and XP. OS X has 3 times the number of vulns.

I agree that open source/closed source has nothing to do with how secure an OS is. Rigid QA, testing and developer education has much more to do with it.

But as you can see, even the OS with the fewest vulns is still the most targeted OS. "It's teh market share, stupid".
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting...
rikasa 4th Feb 2009
Tried to google this one, but couldn't find anything really conclusive regarding your comparative vulnerability statistics. Out of curiosity, what was your source?
0 Votes
+ -
Research by well-respected independant IBM X-Force labs
honeymonster 4th Feb 2009
Read about it here:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-265701.html
0 Votes
+ -
Disclosures != Secure OS
aeriform 4th Feb 2009
If OS A has 10% of the share of disclosures but reports all disclosures found and OS B has 5% of disclosures but only discloses 5% of vulnerabilities it knows about, which is the more secure OS?

OS B is likely more vulnerable to someone researching security. OS A is likely more vulnerable to someone using unfixed disclosures as a starting point to breaking a system.

The more popular system is usually least secure not only because there are a greater number of computers, but also because knowledge of the OS inner workings is likely more well known.
0 Votes
+ -
Security == Security
storm14k 4th Feb 2009
Theres just no way around it. You can have 10 vulns or 100 vulns. The question is what can be done with those holes. Thats the question no one answers.

Your last statements tends to make a case for Linux. All knowledge of the inner workings of that system are in the public eye. If you wanted to find a hole then you can easily look for one. However you can't expect the hole to remain open that long as everybody can see what you see and everyone can suggest fixes. Its more advantageous to find something that no one knows about yet and exploit it. It gives you the jump on your exploit taking root before people can find and fix the problem.

You simply aren't safer due to a vuln being unknown. Its still there and still exploitable.
0 Votes
+ -
I've heard this a lot
Joeman57 4th Feb 2009
and it makes sense on the surface.
"However you can't expect the hole to remain open that long as everybody can see what you see and everyone can suggest fixes"

How many actually do though? How many people actually look through the code?
There probably is not a hard number or reporting, but do you have a sense of how many people actually do contribute in this manner?

0 Votes
+ -
@eb276
storm14k 4th Feb 2009
Go to the community sites and see for yourself. I was just looking researching an issue on Ubuntu and saw the user community research and propose more fixes than the Ubuntu or Canonical team. And this wasn't even a security issue. You can look at almost any major FOSS project and see this behaviour. Once something is exploited people begin sharing information so they can try to get their systems closed rather than just trying to go it alone or wait till the devs find it.

You said you've "heard" this but have you spent anytime in a FOSS project community to see for yourself?

0 Votes
+ -
Thanks Storm
Joeman57 5th Feb 2009
I haven't spent much time in those forums. Thanks for the anecodote, that was basically what I wanted.
0 Votes
+ -
At least Microsoft and Linux report 100% of discovered vulnerabilities
honeymonster 5th Feb 2009
I don't know where you get the idea that it is
not so. I believe that Apple also have been
forced to me more forthcoming and less
secretive about their vulns.
0 Votes
+ -
Does Linux really have 2 times the vulns...
storm14k 4th Feb 2009
...or do you just know about ALL the vulns in Linux while the MS ones have yet to be discovered or reported. Anyone can see and report a vuln in Linux code.

You also fail to address what can be achieved with these vulns. If all you can do is cause a buffer overflow that does nothing or just cause a DoS then whats the point when you can create a botnet on another system. Market share has little to do with the value of a vulnerability.
0 Votes
+ -
not everyone
Azathothh Updated - 5th Feb 2009
but only people with the knowledge, time and will to do it (without any payment) which are very few
0 Votes
+ -
What makes you think
honeymonster 5th Feb 2009
that all Linux vulns have been discovered and disclosed while the Vista/XP ones haven't?

I'd say that since this statistic has looked like this for the past 3 years, I could make a good case arguing that it is a sustained pattern which goes to code quality and QC/QA more than anything else.

Market share has little to do with the value of a vulnerability.

What planet are you living on??? Market share has everything to do with the value of a vulnerability.

You also fail to address what can be achieved with these vulns. If all you can do is cause a buffer overflow that does nothing or just cause a DoS then whats the point when you can create a botnet on another system

What makes you think that the composition of Linux or OS X vulns are different from Vista/XP? Source?

On the contrary, I could argue that since at Vista is the OS with the most defense in-depth (more than Linux kernel and OS X), vulns on Vista tends to be much less critical than on other OSes. Cue IE7 protected mode.
0 Votes
+ -
Not All About Market Share
CFWhitman 4th Feb 2009
Nah, number of viruses has nothing to do with with how secure an OS is and everything to do with market share of that OS.

Well, web servers are not operating systems, but it would seem that the same principles should apply. However, we see many more worms and other exploits for Microsoft IIS than for Apache even though Apache has a greater market share. This seems to contradict the assertion that it's about market share.

It's difficult to explain why the claim that Linux and OS X have more vulnerabilities than Vista and XP is likely false when no sources are cited for it. However, in the past claims like this that I have seen have been very misleading. Usually they are based on numbers of patches issued by Microsoft and Apple and some particular Linux distribution. There are several problems with using these numbers.

First, the number of patches may not equal the number of vulnerabilities patched.

Second, with Linux at least, the patches issued by a distribution include those for a plethora of additional applications available from the distribution besides the operating system itself. These applications have their counterparts on Windows which are not included because they don't ship with the operating system. On any particular system they are probably not all installed and almost certainly are not all in use, especially since several may be alternative applications for the same purpose.

Third, the number of patches has even less reflection on the severity of vulnerabilities than it does on the number of vulnerabilities.

Fourth, the number of vulnerabilities is not the sum total of operating system security. There are several other factors involved.

It would be easy enough to make an argument as well that open source code is exposed to more QA than closed source source code ever can be. Of course, you could also argue that greater market share exposes code to more testing.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yes
honeymonster Updated - 4th Feb 2009
Well, web servers are not operating systems, but it would seem that the same principles should apply.

Yes.

However, we see many more worms and other exploits for Microsoft IIS than for Apache

Bzzzzzzzt. Fail. It been a long time since any worm successfully attacked any of these products. Back to IIS 4/5, I believe. IIS6 and IIS7 is easily the most secure webservers out there: IIS6: 4 recorded vulns in its entire lifetime, IIS7: 1 (one!) recorded vuln. Apache2: 23 vulns (apx. as old as IIS6).

No, what is being attacked is web applications and it has nothing to do with webservers. And here PHP has a large market share and has certainly been attacked. As have popular products based on PHP (it's a hillarious piece of error-prone s...!). But then again they both have large market share and have been extraordinarily vulnerable (Joomla, Wordpress, Drupal).

It's difficult to explain why the claim that Linux and OS X have more vulnerabilities than Vista and XP is likely false when no sources are cited for it

The source is the publicly available CVEs. You can find them through secunia (who adds their own rating to them). Unsurprisingly, the CVEs at secunia show the same pattern.

However, in the past claims like this that I have seen have been very misleading. Usually they are based on numbers of patches issued by Microsoft and Apple and some particular Linux distribution. There are several problems with using these numbers

In this case the researchers have analysed the publicly available CVEs, thus avoiding double-counting for Linux distributions.

First, the number of patches may not equal the number of vulnerabilities patched.

Indeed no. Many vulns from 2006 have still not been patched. The "big" players all perform considerably better than the average, though.

If you are somehow suggesting that MS may patch without telling anyone about vulns, think again. MSs patches always refer to knowledgebase articles describing the vulns. This is crucial information for sysadms.

Third, the number of patches has even less reflection on the severity of vulnerabilities than it does on the number of vulnerabilities

Howso? Do you suggest that Linux, Solaris and OS X vulns are less severe than Windows' on average? Think again. A lot of the "critical" MS patches are mitigated if you have UAC turned on.

Fourth, the number of vulnerabilities is not the sum total of operating system security. There are several other factors involved.

Oh yes. Like extra defenses. Like process integrity, load address randomization, no-execute stacks and heaps, heap/stack encryption, safe exception handling etc. All of which are on by default in Vista (post SP1). Only some of which are available and enabled in Linux/OS X.

It would be easy enough to make an argument as well that open source code is exposed to more QA than closed source source code ever can be.

Yep. But it appears to be false. Or they are doing a poor job. Not that I believe that open source is nessecarily more prone to security problems than closed source. I believe it has everything to do with QA process and developer culture and education. In that light the current results are not surprising. Microsoft was bitted badly at the start of the century and after that they put in place a pretty rigid process called SDL Secure development lifecycle. I believe what we see here is the result of exactly that process.

Of course, you could also argue that greater market share exposes code to more testing.

It certainly means that the bad guys put more effort into finding vulns.
0 Votes
+ -
Seems illogical
robsku 4th Feb 2009
"Bzzzzzzzt. Fail. It been a long time since any worm successfully attacked any of these products. Back to IIS 4/5, I believe. IIS6 and IIS7 is easily the most secure webservers out there: IIS6: 4recorded vulns in its entire lifetime, IIS7: 1 (one!) recorded vuln. Apache2: 23 vulns (apx. as old as IIS6)."

Indeed, servers are more often attacked by crackers, not worms. Say, what is the number of unpatched vulns on apache? No software with complexity of web server can achieve zero vulns unless it's development is stalled for yers of only bugfixing, however a high number of found&fixed vulns sounds security vice good to me.

"No, what is being attacked is web applications and it has nothing to do with webservers. And here PHP has a large market share and has certainly been attacked. As have popular products based on PHP (it's a hillarious piece of error-prone s...!). But then again they both have large market share and have been extraordinarily vulnerable (Joomla, Wordpress, Drupal)."

Personally I dont know any exploit that uses vulnerability in PHP - not saying there isn't any but usually the exploit is based on SQL injections that are not made possible by PHP but the code made with it - or *any* other language. That is, the exploited vulnerabilities lie mostly in the web applications, not in the platform and/or language made to create them.

I dont see how PHP is any worse on this than others (perl, java, etc...).

"Howso? Do you suggest that Linux, Solaris and OS X vulns are less severe than Windows' on average? Think again. A lot of the "critical" MS patches are mitigated if you have UAC turned on."

Linux and other FOSS vulns, overally, propably are of lesser severity in stable releases. As example (from secunia I believe), firefox has a whole load more vulns found that IE has but they are not rated very high is severity while IE has only few but it's security problems are rated highly critical. This info was from 2007 or 2008.

"Oh yes. Like extra defenses. Like process integrity, load address randomization, no-execute stacks and heaps, heap/stack encryption, safe exception handling etc. All of which are on by default in Vista (post SP1). Only some of which are available and enabled in Linux/OS X."

Perhaps because Linux has already reached higher level of security without any need whatsoever for some of these?

"It certainly means that the bad guys put more effort into finding vulns."

Indeed - that's why crackers are more interested in apache knowledge than IIS. Still I would not choose IIS, it is common enough to gather enough interest and on top of that it runs on ineffective and unstable OS only (wanna jump to stability fight? wink
0 Votes
+ -
Prove it
robsku 4th Feb 2009

Nah, number of viruses has nothing to do with with how secure an OS is and everything to do with market share of that OS.



That is partially true, but claiming that security of OS and number/severity of viruses made for it has _zero_

Linux has approximately 2 times the number of vulnerabilities of Vista and XP. OS X has 3 times the number of vulns.



I'm asking you to cite a source for this information - I dont think you can provide any basis to back up those numbers.

Btw, OS X is not FOSS even though based on open OS.

I agree that open source/closed source has nothing to do with how secure an OS is. Rigid QA, testing and developer education has much more to do with it.



This is highly debatable. There are very strong arguments that with open source work on enhancing security and finding flaws can be much more efficient - the more popular the program is the more advantage you get from FOSS model.
0 Votes
+ -
Source coming up
honeymonster 5th Feb 2009
I'm asking you to cite a source for this
information - I dont think you can provide any
basis to back up those numbers.

Research by well-respected independant IBM X-
Force labs:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-265701.html

Is that good enough for you?
0 Votes
+ -
worthless.
robsku 9th Feb 2009
"Updated 2:25 p.m. PST to add that report does not list which vendors and operating system platforms had the most unpatched vulnerabilities."

Worthless.
0 Votes
+ -
teh market share?
dimonic 18th Feb 2009
Counting vulnerabilities is a nonesensical way of measuring security.

Microsoft themselves have stated that the number of severe vulnerabilities would be reduced by 75% if users used lower priviledge than Admin rights. Admin rights has been the default up until Windows Vista. Linux has never offered "out of the box" admin rights to ordinary users. By Microsofts own admission, that makes Linux intrinsically more secure than anything prior to Vista.

Additionally, I would challenge your vulnerability counts, and ask for a breakdown by severity, as well as counts of "in the wild" exploits as more realistic measures. It sounds as if you are using a Gartner "paid for by Microsoft" study, which frankly is not worth the pixels it is displayed upon.
0 Votes
+ -
On further research
dimonic 18th Feb 2009
Quoting from the study you selectively quoted from:

The operating systems with the most vulnerability disclosures in 2008.
(Credit: IBM X-Force)

Updated 2:25 p.m. PST to add that report does not list which vendors and operating system platforms had the most unpatched vulnerabilities.

You are counting DISCLOSURES, not vulnerabilties. So what you are saying is that apple disclose more than linux, who disclose more than MS.
0 Votes
+ -
Security through obscurity
frizbeano 5th Nov 2009
I agree that open source/closed source has nothing to do with how secure an OS is. Rigid QA, testing and developer education has much more to do with it.

I would disagree here. Security through obscurity makes a system less secure.

0 Votes
+ -
If you'd read the paragraph, you would have understood
NonZealot 3rd Feb 2009
Read the whole section and you would have seen that "closed-source" had nothing to do with the code. To be fair to you, it was a poor choice of words but to be fair to Matthew, he was very clear about what he meant in the paragraphs above.

Windows mobile is more secure, from an IT perspective, because IT has 0 control over Googles servers:
The G1 is an "open" system that syncs with Google servers so the devices are not really manageable by the IT department.

It has 0 to do with source code and 100% to do with who controls the servers. Is there even remote wipe on the G1?

Security in this sense isn't about viruses, it is about the data on the device. Read next time, it'll help prevent you from writing responses like you just did. happy
0 Votes
+ -
AGREE
spacetree@... Updated - 4th Feb 2009
It is one of the security basics!! compromising the system must not compromise the secret (knowing how the door lock mechanism works does not make keys useless!!!)
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
ekeefe41 4th Feb 2009
Saying open source is less secure is showing
you have no real understanding on how it works.
Read this and you will have a better
understanding.
http://opensourcestrategies.blogspot.com/2005/0
7/is-open-source-secure.html

Also think about it, Windows is closed... yet
holes are foind all the time. When was the last
time you read about a major Linux security
breach?

0 Votes
+ -
Let's put this match on hold.
General C# 4th Feb 2009
Perhaps we should have a rematch after the release of Windows Mobile 6.5. Frankly, I think Microsoft will only begin pulling ahead from Windows Mobile 7.0, but we'll have to wait quite a while for that one.

Many people are not too aware that you get two types of Windows Mobile, and that a WM experience can vary quite a bit from device to device. WM is built on Windows CE (Compact Edition), which is extremely rock solid to start off with. Non-touch devices are called Smartphone and touch devices are called PocketPC.

The problem with WM is the user interface, and this is because Microsoft never really had much competition until Apple's iPhone came along and people now want more from the UI. They're taking really long to get around to it, but it seems like WM6.5 will make some progress. Other than that, I can honestly say that I love Windows Mobile and I wouldn't have anything else.
0 Votes
+ -
Time waits for no one...
storm14k 4th Feb 2009
...and I think thats what he's getting at in this article. Motorola has dropped WinMo all together for now. Samsung is about to release an Android device along with Dell in the next couple of weeks. HTC says they have more Androids devices planned for this year along with LG, Garmin and other manufacturers.

You are right in saying that Apple pushed the UI expectations. Now I've seen some custom UI's on top of WinMo but it looks like not all of them can get a true custom feel from top to bottom. Google has given manufacturers the base toolset to get full customization from top to the core with many of the things already done for them such as the App Market. Androids success will somewhat be tied to the IPhone as manufacturers want to be able to compete with the UI and App Store.

MS really may not have the time to wait and may find themselves out of luck. They may have to look at locking up the business market as this doesn't look like the direction of Android. However Android is open and any manufacturer could turn it into a rock solid business platform to go along with the consumer jazz if they wished. Its the ability to turn Android into whatever you want it to be that may doom WinMo.
0 Votes
+ -
You need the 3rd Dimension
dascha1 4th Feb 2009
You need a third comparison on who got the market going
for 'content' in the first place-

Mediabroker(r) - Turning Mobile Phones into Media Players
April 18, 203 (Cover Story: THR/PWC Media Analysis)
http://tinyurl.com/5v4f9x


0 Votes
+ -
Your comparison is fare, but consumer market is influencing business
TJGodel 4th Feb 2009
Consumer technology is invading the business market
and not the other way around, which does bode well for
Windows Mobile. Look at the Blackberry, the king of
business smart phones, over the last few years. The
Blackberry design and user interface is more
influenced by the iPhone features and functions, so
even business smart phone users choosing phones based
on consumer driven features more than "business"
features such as integration which Apple and the
Android phone are adopting over time.

Motorola in the end will focus it's resources and
reduce losses and develop phone with Android and not
Windows Mobile, because that is what consumers and
businesses will purchase.
0 Votes
+ -
It's still Motorola - so the OS is irrelevant
Chip Moody 4th Feb 2009
Windows Mobile, Android, or otherwise - Motorola is going to throw another kludgy, non-intuitive interface to their hardware on their phones. So why bother when more usable - or even "nice" - UIs exist on other manufacturer's phones?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows Mobile vs. Android, which is the better OS to focus on in 2009?
miguel.villela@... 4th Feb 2009
Motorola isn't representative in mobile phone market neither in USA, and its cells phones has the worst interface I ever seen.
You aren't a IT professional, so you don?t know what run inside the system. Your opinion are not neutral and your preference to Windows Mobile is evident since your older articles I read. I used PalmOS devices for years (since 1996) and migrate to Treo, and after Treo I started use iPhone, I gave support for windows mobile devices since its first version, and its syncronize method always was clunky. And say that windows mobile is more secure based in its closed source architecture isn?t a intelligent affirmation.
0 Votes
+ -
Desirable features for smart phone in 2009
expertmagician Updated - 4th Feb 2009
I personally want a:

1) real keyboard vs. a touch screen keyboard
2) Nice large screen (senses direction you are holding the phone)
3) Touch screen
4) Video capture in reasonable room light (ie. 1 or 20 (60 watt bulbs))

I will be buying a new phone late spring of summer, so I looking to see who has the best features by the happy
0 Votes
+ -
Windows mobile worst choice for enterprise
putt1ck 4th Feb 2009
Because enterprise != Microsoft, or Exchange. A mobile device should be capable of working with multiple platforms or it becomes yet another cost of exit (a bit of the TCO rarely included) for monoculture IS systems.
0 Votes
+ -
Burned by WinMo to many times to ever consider it again
lkarnis@... 4th Feb 2009
Sorry, mostly negative experiences with WinMo... the worst being no operating system support or updates.
0 Votes
+ -
Android Security Problems
wurtis@... Updated - 4th Feb 2009
Thanks for your blog posting... this was an interesting shootout.

Android developers might be interested in this Android security toolkit here: http://mocana.com/NanoPhone-Android.html

You can get a free evaluation license of the Android security software at http://www.mocana.com/evaluate.html The package is called "NanoPhone".

I'd agree, the new Android platform and operating system for phones is generating a lot of excitement from developers and consumers alike. But the significant barrier to widespread enterprise adoption of the Android platform is its lack of enterprise-grade security tools.

Carmi Levy, senior VP for strategic consulting at AR Communications, said that "Android has little chance of an enterprise play until security concerns are settled."

BlackBerries and Windows Mobile smartphones have been embraced by the business community in large part because of their more robust security. However, consumers? satisfaction with their BlackBerrys is much lower than iPhone: 54% vs. 79%. The STORM might move this number, but not from the problem reports I've seen.

I think Android has a chance to merge the security of a Windows Mobile phone with the "wow!" factor of an iPhone, if Android can just get its security act together.

0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows Mobile vs. Android, which is the better OS to focus on in 2009?
Atari800 4th Feb 2009
What iss RIM and Palm chopped liver?
0 Votes
+ -
Did you read the first paragraph?
NonZealot 4th Feb 2009
This morning, Motorola?s CEO spilled the beans that Windows Mobile 7 is coming in 2010. Another thing he mentioned during the earnings call is that Motorola would be focusing on Google Android instead of Windows Mobile in 2009 because Android "is more competitive" this year than Windows Mobile will be.

This blog post is clearly being made in the context of the Motorola decision as to which OS to focus on. Until RIM and Palm express a willingness to license their OSs to Motorola, they simply aren't relevant in the current discussion.
0 Votes
+ -
Not terribly objective
psiEnergos 4th Feb 2009
I would have a easier time believing this is a fair and unbias'd comparison if the author didn't detract from Windows Mobile wins everytime with a 'but Android'this or 'just barely' (or equivelent 'by a bluetooth').

It was clear from reading the guys in love with his Android, which is fine with me but don't try to pass this off as a 'fair' comparison since it is clear he already stacked the deck with his bias'd comments!
0 Votes
+ -
Matthew Miller's reputation is spotless on ZDNet
NonZealot 4th Feb 2009
When you compare him to other bloggers here, Matthew is one of the least biased bloggers here. Okay, that might not be saying a lot considering we are comparing him to the likes of Paul Murphy, David Morgenstern, Jason O'Grady, and Robin Harris. happy Still, Matthew shows much love (and criticism) for all the mobile platforms out there.
0 Votes
+ -
What a "smartphone" really needs, or what Android needs to kill WM
NegativeElectrons Updated - 4th Feb 2009
Honestly, the real reason to have a "smartphone" is to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING SMART!!! I hate the iPhone as it's just a piece of eye candy, no copy/paste, no keyboard, and no productivity apps. Who cares if I can get an email if I can't copy part of it for later??? (Oooh, but I can tilt my screen by moving the phone! Who cares?)

If Android had a Open Office like solution (like WM has w/ their versions of Word and Excel) and the ability to do VPN stuff's, I would ditch my HTC Mogul in a heartbeat, which is really the only reason I keep the thing. (As I constantly write code snippets, keep my budget in the spreadsheets, and sync it w/ outlook all the time.)
0 Votes
+ -
I've gotta believe...
storm14k 4th Feb 2009
...that someone is working on porting Open Office right now. It would be silly not to but somehow I imagine the community has not made the connection here.
0 Votes
+ -
my bank's website has got budgeting etc built in
stevey_d 5th Feb 2009
I don't need quicken or msmoney, or a spreadsheet to budget. I'd suggest you look around for another bank that gives you a richer web interface.
I'm surprised my (new) bank didn't sell itself to me based on the web interface, it really is that good!
You mention iPhone which isn't one of the two subjects of the article.
Android does have copy and paste, and has the excellent gmail interface.
It also (killer feature) replicates data, so if you lose your phone, no problemo.

Quickoffice and Androffice run on Android (plus probably many more):
http://www.androffice.com/tag/spreadsheet/

And it has a keyboard, so you don't need HTC after all.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows Mobile vs. Android, which is the better OS to focus on in 2009?
michael.j.dobbs@... 4th Feb 2009
I don't know about Android but I have been using Mobile 6 for about 6 months and have had 4 hard resets and many soft. The media player is particularly bad for locking and requiring a hard reset.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know android, but the fun really starts
TedKraan 5th Feb 2009
with a touchscreen version phone with Windows Mobile. I saw one guy having adventures with that. happy
0 Votes
+ -
licence
bannedfromzdnetagain 5th Feb 2009
but the question remains: why should a handsetmaker pay
redmond a licence of $15-$25 per unit if they can get an
equally good or even better OS from google for free. the
problem with wm is not alone that it is 5 years behind iphone
OSX and android but that its business model has become
obsolet.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows Mobile vs. Android, which is the better OS to focus on in 2009?
maascom 28th Apr 2011
I haven't spent much ti me in those forums. Thanks for the anecodote, that was basically what I wanted.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix