Windows 7 Will Kill XP Ahead of Windows 8, It

[rajputwarrior]

Maybe you should take a break and look at what you're writing. Go ahead, pretend it happened, pretend XP is unsafe because you say it is?

It's surprising why you have to fall back to emotional appeals to argue your point. Things like these are simple facts that can be easily proven or disproven without having to resort to such an emotionally-charged arguments. It almost seems like you're angry because people don't accept at face value the preconceived biases you try to push onto them.

this +1

[hdood]

And the driver singing on Windows Vista and 7 used to 'stop rootkits' is actually used for DRM, but is sold as a security feature (most Trojans don't care about the kernel) and by mandatory singing Microsoft ensures no fake audio and video drivers are installed and the user gets access to 'premium content' .

It's optional for that. It just means a protected pipeline won't be built and the playback will fail.

What mandatory signing is mainly for is related to kernel patch protection, and it's not about security. Microsoft doesn't say it is, only their internet "representatives" do. What it's about is identifying the origin of a driver, so there can be feedback and accountability, and so that it can be blocked. The drivers in question don't belong to malware, they belong to legitimate software, mostly of the security type.

It's been a problem for a long time that these vendors mess with the internals of Windows, which affects reliability and prevents Microsoft from making changes and improvements (since doing so would break software.) They've wanted to stop this for a long time, and the transition to 64-bit was the perfect opportunity, because it meant they could do it without breaking compatibility. After all, 32-bit drivers don't work on 64-bit anyway, so you don't have to worry about anything breaking.

Any benefit it provides against malware is secondary, and Microsoft themselves will point out that it doesn't really offer any meaningful protection there since malware can simply patch the kernel (on disk) and disable both driver signing and patch protection. Legitimate software on the other hand can't really get away with going that far.

[treemonster]

solid rebuttal, I call you out for backing up anything you say, and you come back with with trolling :rofl:

it's ok when you call troll but noone else is allowed to do it?

Maybe you should take a break and look at what you're writing. Go ahead, pretend it happened, pretend XP is unsafe because you say it is?

It's surprising why you have to fall back to emotional appeals to argue your point. Things like these are simple facts that can be easily proven or disproven without having to resort to such an emotionally-charged arguments. It almost seems like you're angry because people don't accept at face value the preconceived biases you try to push onto them.

Last but not least, XP isn't safe because I say so, it's safe because I know it's entirely possible to use it and stay uninfected for years. You know, personal experience.

yeah keep believing it.

those extra security features in vista and 7 from the kernel up are totally useless. wtf would they put that **** in there for? honestly totally bloatware amirite?

i didn't get infected using xp either. doesn't mean i think it was safe to use compared to vista or 7. safe browsing habits help, but they aren't 100% when your number one mistake is using out of date software that is inhrently not matter how up to date from patches it is less safe than reasonably priced alternatives that use system resources better anyway.

but keep thinking with your sentimental attachment to xp for some strange reason as if you make any sense at all.

[Samurizer]

those extra security features in vista and 7 from the kernel up are totally useless. wtf would they put that **** in there for? honestly totally bloatware amirite?

i didn't get infected using xp either.

You've just answered your own question.

You don't get security for security's sake, you get it to stop malware. If your current security is enough to stop infections, any extra security beyond that is simply unneeded overhead. There's no point in piling on as much security as you can and then sit back at the end of the day and feel good about it. That's silly.

There's also a lot of variables involved in security. Some people may need the extra stuff that Vista and Windows 7 offer. Others can stay uninfected just fine without them. It looks like both of us belong to the latter group, except that I don't blindly chase after the latest and greatest just for the sake of it when it's obvious that it offers no extra value to me.

[rajputwarrior]

it's ok when you call troll but noone else is allowed to do it?

i called other people a troll for calling people who don't agree with their opinion a bunch of idiots, or brain dead etc etc.

calling someone a troll because they can't back up any argument, doesn't make sense. that's not a troll, the above is.

[Ashmir]

It's optional for that. It just means a protected pipeline won't be built and the playback will fail.

What mandatory signing is mainly for is related to kernel patch protection, and it's not about security. Microsoft doesn't say it is, only their internet "representatives" do. What it's about is identifying the origin of a driver, so there can be feedback and accountability, and so that it can be blocked. The drivers in question don't belong to malware, they belong to legitimate software, mostly of the security type.

It's been a problem for a long time that these vendors mess with the internals of Windows, which affects reliability and prevents Microsoft from making changes and improvements (since doing so would break software.) They've wanted to stop this for a long time, and the transition to 64-bit was the perfect opportunity, because it meant they could do it without breaking compatibility. After all, 32-bit drivers don't work on 64-bit anyway, so you don't have to worry about anything breaking.

Any benefit it provides against malware is secondary, and Microsoft themselves will point out that it doesn't really offer any meaningful protection there since malware can simply patch the kernel (on disk) and disable both driver signing and patch protection. Legitimate software on the other hand can't really get away with going that far.

WHQL testing for the drivers isn't mandatory to receive a digital signature... so it basically boils down to DRM.

[Subject Delta]

10% is a ton of people.

It is when you are talking about an OS with hundreds upon millions of users, that has been a staple in the market for nearly 10 years. The uptake of Windows 7 is vastly higher than uptake of Vista in its first year.

Running XP as a standard user is a much more secure setup than using UAC (which sacrifices security in the name of user friendliness.) That is of course ignoring the fact that administrator rights don't really matter, since malware can do everything it wants without them.

Running 7 as a standard user would be more secure than running XP as a standard user as well.

I said that it's less secure than running XP as a standard user, not an administrator. This is a fact. Obviously the reason standard users aren't the default in 7 is as you say because it would annoy users. So Microsoft chooses to intentionally make the default configuration less secure in the name of user friendliness. A necessary compromise.

The default setup in XP is that the account that you start using the PC with will be an administrator account, same as with 7, new accounts are made as administrator by default unless you select the non admin option, so in reality that argument is kind of redundant as the setup of both OSes for creating new accounts is not that different in reality.

[nub]

sorry that not everyone is a bunch of computer nerds and can still do everything they want and more with their 3-4 year old hardware that runs windows xp... not everyone needs to throw down $100 - 1500 for an upgrade or knows how to pirate their own copy of windows 7.

/thread

[x-byte]

The default setup in XP is that the account that you start using the PC with will be an administrator account, same as with 7, new accounts are made as administrator by default unless you select the non admin option, so in reality that argument is kind of redundant as the setup of both OSes for creating new accounts is not that different in reality.

No it's not.

[ViperAFK]

No it's not.

yes, it is.

[lalalawawawa]

Whatever.

Happy Windows 7 user here. :wub:

[Ci7]

yes, it is.

wrong !

[hdood]

WHQL testing for the drivers isn't mandatory to receive a digital signature... so it basically boils down to DRM.

I explained to you what the purpose is in making it mandatory on 64-bit (which had nothing to do with WHQL). If you can't read, then there's little I can do about that.

[tomjol]

I...why the hell do so many people care which OS other people are using?!

[hdood]

Running 7 as a standard user would be more secure than running XP as a standard user as well.

Yes, but the point was that my XP setup is actually more secure (in this context) than the first guy's 7 setup that he praised so highly.

The default setup in XP is that the account that you start using the PC with will be an administrator account, same as with 7, new accounts are made as administrator by default unless you select the non admin option, so in reality that argument is kind of redundant as the setup of both OSes for creating new accounts is not that different in reality.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. In both versions the first account must be an administrator, and Windows provides no guidance and information about what this means or what you should do after creating this account. The result is that ~100% make the administrator account their one and only account, something that was essentially a requirement anyway because of compatibility with Microsoft's disasterous other line of OSes where it was accepted that everything just did whatever it wanted.

[Flawed]

pezzonovante either works for Microsoft or has shares in Microsoft.:laugh: Maybe it's Bill undercover:woot:

He/she must do, else why bother with trying to get everyone to buy Windows 7 even when they don't need to.

Haha, I think you're right lol.

[ViperAFK]

wrong !

ah I missed the 'same as with 7' bit I was talking about xp only. :blush:

[Udedenkz]

1. Windows 95 uses like 16mb of RAM. I guess that makes it a better choice than even Windows XP by your logic! Oh, wait, you can't install it anymore. Know why? Cuz hardware has made massive advancements since then. RAM capacity has drastically increased, by the time XP came out systems regularly had 256-512mb of RAM in them for XP's needs. Windows 7 uses a little bit more memory, whoopdie-do, guess how much an average system has nowadays in the modern world? 2gb~6gb. Go to wal-mart or best buy and look for yourself. Percentage-wise, Windows 7 actually uses LESS of the total system memory in an ideal modern system than XP did at it's launch date. You are pretending that we all still use old pentium 4 systems with low RAM, and trying to put 7 on them. Don't use a netbook as a comparison, either, as they are much lower spec than standard computers and laptops are. There's a reason they still come with XP installed (though not for much longer). Even with Windows 7's ram usage, the memory management is so much better than task switching with low remaining memory is still much better than XP was with PLENTY of remaining memory... I have personal experience to back this up on MULTIPLE machines.

2. I don't even use WMP, but any time I did look at it, it never lagged and I have a c2d. There are far better media players, such as foobar and mpc-hc, both of which run even better on Windows 7 than they would in XP, especially MPC-HC since its BEST renderer ONLY works in Vista/7.

3. I have never had explorer lag on me. Where do you get this from?

4. I personally tested performance on the same game between an XP install and a 7 BETA install back in 2009. The Last Remnant. Not only did XP have graphical glitches/crashes that Windows 7 did not, it also had 10 less FPS on average than Windows 7 did for me. Same nvidia driver, too. Where do you get that XP is faster? Do you have a source? Didn't think so. I however, have personal experience and testing. This was on the same system, as well, via dual boot.

5. XP tears because it constantly has to redraw any time a window is moved around the desktop. There is no composition engine in XP that allowed window contents to be remembered in GPU memory for smooth graphics transfer operations. It literally had to repaint EVERY part of the window if you even moved the window one pixel in any direction. Moving a window really fast over another one caused redraws, and even on a fast system, it would leave split second white splotches or trails or tearing as it redrew it constantly super fast as you moved the window. This is a fact, it's how GDI works. Paints elements top to bottom each time something changes. You'll see it even more on older computers with weak CPUs. Go, load up XP in a virtual machine and move windows around alot.

6. I noticed instantly the moment I used 7 with Aero that the UI was much more responsive. Window movement was much smoother. I did not notice any artifacts or lag in window movement. It was completely smooth and completely responsive. Windows XP looked glitchy and ugly in comparison, and DID lag a lot sometimes. With aero, I never notice a window drawing, it just appears with a nice, smooth fade-in effect that lasts 0.5 seconds and that animation can be disabled for an INSTANT window pop-up if that's your thing. I can disable the same animations in XP, and i can still notice the lag of a window being drawn. Oh and your argument about Windows not using the full CPU... you're thinking of a very intelligent and useful power saving feature that actually exists at the level of the CPU itself, Windows 7 just has the tools to CONTROL it. Realistically, Windows 7 is very smart about it in the default profiles. If you're running an app that's not even GOING to use your cpu fully, it won't have the CPU running at full power. This saves energy. You don't need to drive 120mph when you're going down the street to say hi to a friend, even tho you could.. it would be pointless. When you run an app that demands high amounts of CPU power, Windows bumps it up to 100%. Check the power profile yourself, min processor state vs max processor state. You can set both to 100% if you really want it to always use your full clocks, but realistically you would NEVER NOTICE the difference. The clock can change literally in an instant the moment it's needed.

7. Ok, this is where I know you're just making stuff up. Where on earth did you assume that Windows 7 comes with norton? Seriously? Microsoft does NOT ever supply Norton or McAfee or any other software suite like that with Windows 7. OEMs bundle that software with their machines AFTER they install Windows on them. You cannot pin this on Windows 7, you must pin this on Compaq, Acer, Toshiba, HP, and other manufacturers who believe Norton's supposed security will make people buy their products cuz they'll feel super safe from those evil viruses out there. You HONESTLY believed that if you bought a box of just Windows 7 Home Premium off the shelf, that it'd magically have Norton when you installed it fresh on a system of your choosing? You're really uninformed, and nothing you say here is credible. A fresh copy of Windows 7 installs within 15-20 minutes and the default settings are more than enough to provide a fast, responsive experience for anyone who wants to just go and use it, save for a few driver installs perhaps.

1. We are comparing XP and 7. This is a difference and a negative one.

2. Performance wise the best renderer is Haali. I do agree that EVR is pretty cool. Video playback comes down to driver support actually. I think Intel is an example of that - I heard that h264 will only be hardware accelerated in Vista/7 which is epic fail, but eh. I am actually talking about scrolling the list / thumbnail views - they are slower than they should be.

3. Testing and benchmarks. Someone here preached the gospel of 7... so I had to do benchmarks 7 x86_64 vs. XP x86_64. XP obviously won.

4. You really think this is the 1st XP vs 7 thread? 7 is better GUI wise, feature wise. Worse performance wise. No I am not digging back a year or so to find that thread.

5. See 4 and 3. Same thing, surprisingly it is slower. Maybe when the whole GUI will use D2D, but I don't know when that will happen.

6. I am not sure who you are talking to. It is fast enough, it is just not as fast. I never noticed any problems with either XP or 7 when it comes down to a slow GUI. Only without drivers XP GUI is hell on earth. With them, smooth - stable - problem free and fast. And I am not talking about the 7/Vista eye candy effects that slow down productivity and annoy me. I did notice the difference - performance wise it is best to run everything the fastest to avoid the switching of the clock speeds on the CPU (switching clock speeds actually at that moment performance will be degraded).

7. This was a response that said something ignorant about W7 not needing an AV. It does. It comes with Norton pretty much everywhere unless you buy it separately from the PC.

These are the times I wish I had a camera at hand. I have recently got Processor AMD Athlon II P340 Dual-Core Processor, 2200 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s) laptop. I could have just recoded me scrolling my system32 folder and the CPU jumping around between 33-77%... If you read my response, then you know I am running at 100%-100%.

EDIT: I don't have any positive comments about XP power management when it comes down to battery life.

[tablet_user]

Windows XP is an insecure, fugly and unsuable OS. It has been dead for a long time -- except among brain-damaged people.

Im a firm believer in windows 7 but seeing this comment i couldnt find a fail picture to suit you.

[Subject Delta]

wrong !

I was referring to the way accounts are setup by default in XP, and 7, I wasn't aware 7 set accounts to be standard user by default, but my point was that the first account you always setup is an admin account on both OSes

Yes, but the point was that my XP setup is actually more secure (in this context) than the first guy's 7 setup that he praised so highly.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. In both versions the first account must be an administrator, and Windows provides no guidance and information about what this means or what you should do after creating this account. The result is that ~100% make the administrator account their one and only account, something that was essentially a requirement anyway because of compatibility with Microsoft's disasterous other line of OSes where it was accepted that everything just did whatever it wanted.

My point was that you made a reference point that was invalid, because in the side by side comparison of any level account of security Windows 7 would win, because of its extra security features. Saying that a limited account is more secure than an admin account would be like saying that a Formula 1 car is faster than a family sedan. Point is however, that if a limited account where to be used in 7 it would still be more secure than a limited account in XP.

[Subject Delta]

These are the times I wish I had a camera at hand. I have recently got Processor AMD Athlon II P340 Dual-Core Processor, 2200 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s) laptop. I could have just recoded me scrolling my system32 folder and the CPU jumping around between 33-77%... If you read my response, then you know I am running at 100%-100%.

That is not an issue specific to Windows 7, it would happen on XP as well. When you boot any OS up, and go into a folder, the first time you go into the folder, depending on the speed you scroll, the shell will have to extract and display all of the icons, and the fact that System 32 has so many EXE files in it is what causes the CPU hit, it's nothing to do with the design of the OS. If you scroll all the way from top to bottom, then go back to the top again, the CPU hit will be a lot lower the second time, as the icons will then be cached in memory.

[Udedenkz]

That is not an issue specific to Windows 7, it would happen on XP as well. When you boot any OS up, and go into a folder, the first time you go into the folder, depending on the speed you scroll, the shell will have to extract and display all of the icons, and the fact that System 32 has so many EXE files in it is what causes the CPU hit, it's nothing to do with the design of the OS. If you scroll all the way from top to bottom, then go back to the top again, the CPU hit will be a lot lower the second time, as the icons will then be cached in memory.

True and False.

True - This is the issue I was talking about.

False - XP Windows Explorer is much faster at this than Windows 7 Explorer is. Don't ask me why, I do not know.

[farmeunit]

Any browser can be sandboxed by using tools like chml.exe on Windows. And yea, you need to give your consent to run things as admin in Windows too. Windows going back to NT 3.1 could run like that, it just wasn't the default. The same way apparmor and selinux are not the default on ubuntu. Apparmor and selinux are ok, but in its default config, ubuntu doesn't sandbox the browser or try to stop rootkits like (modern) Windows does, so I just don't see linux as being more secure. Having to use non-default command line tools that are impossible for the average user to understand to make it secure does not really count, because almost no one does that.

Not they're not default, but the way root works with accounts does the same thing that Windows Vista and Win7 just started doing. You don't have to sandbox, but the vulnerabilities that are out, just aren't designed to attack Linux. You show me one WORKING vulnerability for Linux, and I'll give you 10 for Windows.

You'll just say it's not as big a target as Windows and that's fine. The simple fact is that most malware gets installed because a user says it's OK. Those same malware installer don't work on Linux. Simple as that.

[pezzonovante]

Not they're not default, but the way root works with accounts does the same thing that Windows Vista and Win7 just started doing. You don't have to sandbox, but the vulnerabilities that are out, just aren't designed to attack Linux. You show me one WORKING vulnerability for Linux, and I'll give you 10 for Windows.

You'll just say it's not as big a target as Windows and that's fine. The simple fact is that most malware gets installed because a user says it's OK. Those same malware installer don't work on Linux. Simple as that.

No one claims the pathetic XP is more secure than Linux. Everyone knows that Windows XP is the most insecure and fugliest OS in the history of computing. On the other hand Windows 7 with UAC, Protected Mode in the browser, advanced ASLR and DEP is much more secure than Linux or Mac OS.

[Kirkburn]

No one claims the pathetic XP is more secure than Linux. Everyone knows that Windows XP is the most insecure and fugliest OS in the history of computing. On the other hand Windows 7 with UAC, Protected Mode in the browser, advanced ASLR and DEP is much more secure than Linux or Mac OS.

pezzonovante, is it your aim in life to get people riled up?