If I'm not a power user, should I upgrade XP?

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaside /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am come from old school of "if it ain't broke, ain't fix it" too. If XP does everything you want or if your computer is old one like mine, I don't see any reason for me to recommend you getting 7.

I agree. I find the adage especially applicable when dealing with Windows or any software made by Microsoft. I'm hanging on to XP until (a) I have no choice but to switch, or (2) I am convinced that the replacement will be be more troublesome than what I currently have.

In fact, I advanced by several months our company's purchase of some desktop PC's just so we could still get them with XP and not be forced to buy Windows 7. Windows 7 may be great for all I know, but I wanted to have the choice when to switch.

 

[Zaubertuba]

Keep in mind, XP is nearly 10 years old. I switched to the Win 7 RC when XP failed to even install on my newer hardware (and it wasn't even that new!). 7 was much snappier (which is a huge plus in itself, to me) than XP ever was, and turned out to be more stable. I have yet to see a BSOD--and I haven't even bought the official version yet.

That said, if XP is running good on your hardware, then no, there's no reason to switch. If you are able to use the same software without upgrading it or your hardware, and XP stays stable for you, there's no reason to switch.

However, it seems to me, if you continue to upgrade your software, you will eventually have to upgrade your hardware, and there's going to be a point of diminishing returns as far as how much longer XP can be made to function effectively.

 

[Jubei]

I don't really believe in upgrading an OS. If I build a new system, then yes, will buy Win 7, but I am happy with my Win XP rig and am scared an upgrade would cause havoc.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I supposed 7 is a more secure and stable OS than XP?

From user-related issues? It's supposed to be.
From hackers, viruses etc? Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatN /img/forum/go_quote.gif I could not for the life of me go back to XP. 7 feels more intuitive, snappier and is overall easier to work with. Networking is so easy with it. If you feel comfortable however with your current OS, then keep it. But I would advise you to upgrade to 7.

TBH I cannot agree with this.
I'm using vista and 7 throughout the house (vista on faster machines, 7 on slower machines), and going from XP to 7 makes 7 feel totally counter intuitive. If you were a competent user of XP, both 7 and vista will seem confusing at first because its been "over simplified" and a lot of filters have been added to prevent you from "accidentally" doing things you've been doing on XP for years. And microsoft feel the need to "hold your hand" (i.e. prevent you from doing things). It's easy enough to get around, but it adds more steps.

Networking was always easy, and IMO the user interface for networking in both vista and 7 are rubbish compared to the straight ahead networking interface in XP.

Seven isnt faster (or "snappier") than XP.

The main reason for me to move away from XP was 64bit support (If anyone here used XP 64bit they know exactly what I mean).

Windows Vista is more from a fresh install than windows 7 is.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

From user-related issues? It's supposed to be. From hackers, viruses etc? Nope.

.....what?

To Cankin: Yes, on all counts. The network stack is much improved, the services are hardened, and the firewall is better. ASLR and DEP make it MUCH harder to write an exploit - just ask the pwn2own winner.

I'm a huge fan of Win7. The UI is more more efficient for my workflow, it handles multitasking far better, and I could never give up the searchable start menu.

 

[Cankin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGreen /img/forum/go_quote.gif From user-related issues? It's supposed to be. From hackers, viruses etc? Nope.

Care to elaborate from a hacker's perspective?
How does Mac compare?
I want a secure system.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Care to elaborate from a hacker's perspective? How does Mac compare? I want a secure system.

I'm not a hacker.
Mac is not much for a target for viruses so its pretty secure. Linux even moreso.

Windows 7 has all the antiviral etc features that vista has although a lot of them are turned off or down on a clean install whereas vista would have them turned up to full. As such Windows 7 by contrast is compromised to the average user from a clean install. It is also more vulnerable to malware.

Heres a test that was run recently to test hte effectiveness of UAC on vanilla 7.

At this point I would like to mention I am not a big fan of 7 and would not have upgraded if I did not get it for free from work. It smells like windows mojave all over again.

I guess you could call it a little safer than vista in some things however the default security settings are way too low for the average user.


You shouldn't have any problem with any windows OS though if you run third party antiviral software etc (which a lot of people do not - which is precisely the issue here)

Windows 7 was comprimised day of release because of its similar architecture to windows vista.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Mac is not much for a target for viruses so its pretty secure. Linux even moreso.

Safe != Secure. If you live in the Middle of Siberia but don't lock your doors, you're safe because no one's going to get near you to break in, but you're not secure because you don't have locks. Macs are safe, not secure.

That list proves nothing. Of COURSE if you run a virus written for Windows on a Windows box it will run. There's no replacement for an educated user. If you can get the user to run your code, you own their box - any machine, any operating system. Name me one remote exploit for Win7.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif That list proves nothing. Of COURSE if you run a virus written for Windows on a Windows box it will run. There's no replacement for an educated user. If you can get the user to run your code, you own their box - any machine, any operating system. Name me one remote exploit for Win7.

Now you're just trying to defend the operating system. These sorts of things are of interest to poorly educated users who they are more likely to effect (which I clearly stated). The issue with the list is that the protection mechanisms in 7 did nothing to stop these randomly selected viruses.

1. UAC is not doing its job.
2. Namedropping remote vulnerabilities has nothing to do with the above
-Win32/Conflicker A and Win32/IRCbot.BH affected 7 RC.
- SMB2 affected RC (Not sure about RTM)
-VBootkit 2.0 can be used to sieze total control of a computer that has someone physically accessing it (whether they intend to or not).

I can't actually think of any strictly remote vulnerabilities off the top of my head because I honestly dont care (and there are some people that legitimately DO).
edit: Although you could coax an inexperienced user to activate remote desktop/assistance (which is an awful addition to windows) and computers will still execute malicious scripts on websites (which could install worms, backdoor trojans, whatever) without the proper knowledge of using third party software which a lot of people dont have.


Just because experienced users will have a great time on 7 doesnt mean that the inexperienced users should be ignored. Their computer security is comprimised in 7 vs vista because of the scalebacks of default settings.

Pedantic semantics are childish, as is your 'challenge'. If you care so much go find one yourself www.google.com is a great place to start.

 

[fordgtlover]

As already mentioned, if you are happy enough - don't upgrade.

Personally, I won't upgrade until I absolutely must. I have all the applications I need and they run fine on XP. I just want the OS to run applications; otherwise stay the hell out of my way.

 

[MCC]

Windows 7 or at least Vista are an absolute must for me. I've found that both NVidia and ATI video drivers can be quite unstable. In XP, a display driver crash invariably leads to a bluescreen. Vista and 7 recover completely on their own within seconds.

Just yesterday the ATI driver on my Thinkpad locked up while I was in the middle of a difficult part of my physics homework and I would have had some data loss if I had been using XP.

Also, the new start menu offers a huge increase in productivity for me. If I want to start, say, Altera Quartus II I can hit the windows key, type "alt", and hit enter. Much easier than navigating the terrible XP start menu IMO.

Stick with XP if the above doesn't bother you, upgrade if you value stability.

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

In XP, a display driver crash invariably leads to a bluescreen.

I haven't had a BSOD for years, except when I'm overclocking. Have owned both ATI and Nvidia cards. XP has been stable

I can't stand the Win 7 start menu, it's designed for idiots. I want the see the whole lot not just what I used last or recently.

 

[MCC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't had a BSOD for years, except when I'm overclocking. Have owned both ATI and Nvidia cards. XP has been stable I can't stand the Win 7 start menu, it's designed for idiots. I want the see the whole lot not just what I used last or recently.

I never actually look at the start menu, I just use it as a search bar as described in my other post. It is indeed useless if you try to use it in the traditional way.

XP had always been a source of headaches for me in the past which is why I exclusively ran Ubuntu Linux for a couple years. Vista SP1 was the OS that made me switch back to Windows.

If I'm going to use a legacy OS for something that OS will invariably be Windows 2000. Infinitely better than XP IMO.

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

If I'm going to use a legacy OS for something that OS will invariably be Windows 2000. Infinitely better than XP IMO.

rofl this isn't 2001.

 

[MCC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif rofl this isn't 2001.

Windows 2000 release date: February 17, 2000
Windows XP release date: August 24, 2001

Not a very strong argument there.