Originally Posted by Takayanagi-Phoenix
Software that is more readily supported is less prone to security threats (people should drop the virus term to begin with) in theory. It isn't the end user's responsibility if a new security hole is found in an operating system and remains unfixed longer due to lack of support from the developer. It is only the end user's responsibility to defend their system as best they can, and neither end users or security software firms can fix exploits in operating systems, all they can do is defend against them. So your point is inaccurate.
Additionally, there is more to Windows 7 than a fancy GUI. Between this and your other topics, it's clear you are an XP fanboy. The only thing I can agree with you on is Win 2k, but I'd still take Windows 7 over it. I used Windows 7 on my old amd dual core with 2GB RAM and a crap GPU. It still booted as fast as XP and had a negligible difference in performance after booting, gaming included.
Oh and before I get accused of lolstalking you, you were on this last page I loaded.
Definition of a fanboy: someone who mindlessly supports a certain company and their products. We're comparing 2 products made by the same company, how does me choosing one of them make me a fanboy? Did you even know what this meant before I typed it up for you?
Between this and your other posts, it's clear you are a troll: your reply here is as worthless as they were in other threads.
The vast majority of viruses do not get onto anyone's PC without the end user giving it the go ahead (opening attachment/downloading through dodgy websites) or by downloading it. If I take a clean XP and 7 install and install say Zone Alarm or Comodo firewall on both and leave them as they are for a week without any user interference (both with auto updates on), neither will get a virus. That's a fact.
Instead of mindlessly bashing my choice, try and support your argument with some valid points to have a reasonable discussion: you're trying to start another flame war where there's no reason to do so. Win 7 has features like ReadyBoost to get normal everyday performance comparable to XP, among other features that aren't VITAL for a PC to function. Both though, have DEP, basic firewall protection (7s is slightly more strict, still not as good as 3rd party ones like Comodo), Windows Essentials AV etc. Both are comparable but I prefer any OS that's cleaner and has as little as possible running by default (why I use Linux a lot). As for performance, like I said before it is debatable as to how much better one runs than the other. If I use an SSD, Windows 7 will win by a long shot in performance, if I use some moderately low end system with a decent HDD, XP will not use as much CPU/RAM to get similar performance in everyday tasks.Edited by Am* - 4/29/11 at 7:22am