Windows XP Has Twice the Infections of Windows 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
That's funny cause my XP machine is clean, but my GF's Vista laptop on the latest scan came up with 1 hit. Her son's Windows 7 SP1 desktop? 13 separate hits.

If anything, this study (to me) shows that there are 2x more XP users than Windows 7 users out there based on the infection rates.
 

luciferano

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
1,513
0
11,810
24
XP is more than ten years old and most computers running it simply don't have modern malware protection (if any at all) and most users who know what they're doing are using something newer.
 

Northwestern

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2011
373
0
18,790
4
This isn't surprising. Windows XP is 11 years old compared to the 6 year old Windows Vista and 3 year old Windows 7. After XP had to lead Windows through the second half of the last decade due to Vista's complications, it was continued to be targeted by malware.

This will quickly drop as Windows 7 is finally overtaking the aging XP. R.I.P. One of the best Windows OSes.
 

tripledouce

Honorable
Oct 1, 2012
465
0
10,860
31
Windows XP is no longer supported by microsoft, so of course the rates will be high. There are no longer patches to fix new found security flaws. Also with it still being the second most used OS on PC's there are still a lot hackers who will devote the time to finding those weaknesses to exploit the user.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"There are no longer patches to fix new found security flaws"

- smoke much crack lately? I just updated my XP yesterday with security fixes that MS released on Tuesday

"XP is more than ten years old and most computers running it simply don't have modern malware protection (if any at all)"

- Funny, my Antivirus on XP updated its definition this morning (as it does everyday).

you guys are a bunch of BS'ers to the max
 

pseudofaux

Honorable
Jul 24, 2012
1
0
10,510
0
The data also revealed an increased infection rate for Windows XP and Windows 7, Windows Vista with SP2 is declining and actually shows lower infection rates than Windows 7.
So Vistas are slower to infect because of so few of them on the market? How does that make security? Gonna be hilarious in 5 years near the end of 8's lifespan to show that vista is more secure than 7 and 8 combined because no one bothered with it.
 

thomaslompton

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2005
27
0
18,530
0
Yes and the sun is hot and people twice as old as I am (34) tend to be sick twice as often. I hope no one got paid to discover the obvious.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1
:sarcastic: Not from my experience. I'm still running an XP box at home. With less processor power (Opteron 1220) than any of my other systems, it still boots far, far faster than 7, and it has never gotten a virus. My bet is M$ is releasing a crap press release to "convince" people to stop using XP.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
I dislike XP. Always have. I was forced by my driver set to move away from both 98 and 2000... XP always felt bloated. It was more stable than 98, but less than 2000, and far more resource intensive. Windows 7 is by far the best OS MS has ever released. It just works. Minimal fuss... And 7 is more secure? Awesome. And not the least bit surprising...

wiyosaya, you are either an experienced power user, or very lucky, or don't use your computer on the interwebs. Either way, in my experience, I am surprised that XP viruses are ONLY twice as prevalent...

Granted, MSE has alleviated a lot of people's virus issues, even on XP...
 

luciferano

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
1,513
0
11,810
24
[citation][nom]JustPosting53[/nom]That's funny cause my XP machine is clean, but my GF's Vista laptop on the latest scan came up with 1 hit. Her son's Windows 7 SP1 desktop? 13 separate hits. If anything, this study (to me) shows that there are 2x more XP users than Windows 7 users out there based on the infection rates.[/citation]

The number of active Windows 7 users is fairly similar to that of the active XP users, at least for both systems that have people connected to the internet last I heard of it (only like two weeks ago).
 
G

Guest

Guest
"jacobdrj
I dislike XP. Always have. I was forced by my driver set to move away from both 98 and 2000... XP always felt bloated. It was more stable than 98, but less than 2000, and far more resource intensive. Windows 7 is by far the best OS MS has ever released. It just works. Minimal fuss... And 7 is more secure? Awesome. And not the least bit surprising..."

0o huh? You're calling an OS (xp) that only requires 64mb's or RAM, a few hundred MB's of HD space, and can run no a regular Pentium from the mid 90's bloated? I mean I use to consider it bloated back in the day too, but saying it is "bloated" vs Windows 7 that requires 1gb of RAM, a few GB's of HD space, and at least a Pent. III to even boot up, is like saying a geo metro is faster than a Ferrari simply because you think it "feels" faster... Do you see the problem here?
 
Xp is fine, it's actually because of 3rd party software like java, adobe flash that windows get infected.
Also because of careless users.

I have way more vista machine to repair than any others and most of the time because of malware.
Ususally on vista machine the malware was able to srew up the whole system while on xp and 7 I can get rid of malware
VISTA was and still is the worse windows ever.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
[citation][nom]Justposting55[/nom]"jacobdrjI dislike XP. Always have. I was forced by my driver set to move away from both 98 and 2000... XP always felt bloated. It was more stable than 98, but less than 2000, and far more resource intensive. Windows 7 is by far the best OS MS has ever released. It just works. Minimal fuss... And 7 is more secure? Awesome. And not the least bit surprising..."0o huh? You're calling an OS (xp) that only requires 64mb's or RAM, a few hundred MB's of HD space, and can run no a regular Pentium from the mid 90's bloated? I mean I use to consider it bloated back in the day too, but saying it is "bloated" vs Windows 7 that requires 1gb of RAM, a few GB's of HD space, and at least a Pent. III to even boot up, is like saying a geo metro is faster than a Ferrari simply because you think it "feels" faster... Do you see the problem here?[/citation]


Being able to run XP and being able to run it well are 2 different things.

I had a clean install of XP on an Atom netbook with 1gb ram (single core, hyperthreaded). Ran like a dog. Upgraded to Windows 7, it worked much better. That was before upgrading to 2gb ram and an SSD.

Same thing with my brother, who wanted to return his netbook until he tried the Windows 7 preview a couple years back, same deal...

Did the same thing to a dual core Athlon with 2 gb of RAM. Viruses viruses viruses, and slow as molasses. Put Windows 7 on, with no other changes to the computer, and the customer couldn't be happier...

I have so many stories where XP was part of the problem, not the solution. Sure, I put XP on an old P2 233 with 64 megs of RAM. Guess what? It ran like trash. XP shouldn't have ALLOWED me to install it on that system it ran so slow.

I never had that problem with available hardware when Windows 2000 was still around.

Sure, run XP on a Quad Core with an SSD and it will run fine. But not nearly as good as 7...
 

luciferano

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
1,513
0
11,810
24
[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]Being able to run XP and being able to run it well are 2 different things.I had a clean install of XP on an Atom netbook with 1gb ram (single core, hyperthreaded). Ran like a dog. Upgraded to Windows 7, it worked much better. That was before upgrading to 2gb ram and an SSD.Same thing with my brother, who wanted to return his netbook until he tried the Windows 7 preview a couple years back, same deal... Did the same thing to a dual core Athlon with 2 gb of RAM. Viruses viruses viruses, and slow as molasses. Put Windows 7 on, with no other changes to the computer, and the customer couldn't be happier...I have so many stories where XP was part of the problem, not the solution. Sure, I put XP on an old P2 233 with 64 megs of RAM. Guess what? It ran like trash. XP shouldn't have ALLOWED me to install it on that system it ran so slow.I never had that problem with available hardware when Windows 2000 was still around.Sure, run XP on a Quad Core with an SSD and it will run fine. But not nearly as good as 7...[/citation]

At that point, it's not bloated compared to 7 (although it is compared to 2000), it's just less optimized for modern hardware. It's still less bloated and Windows 8 is decent evidence for that because it shaves off some of that bloat and is still more bloated than XP. I think that the other guy's point was that there's a difference between calling it slower and calling it more bloated.
 

ricdiculus

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
292
0
18,810
21
Still running xp on my recording rig (mostly because of the way audio and midi have changed since xp). It doesn't ever goto the interwebs, hell there isnt even a lan cable connected, so i dont need to run any av or maleware, and it runs very very well. Only 3 programs installed, and hasn't changed performance in 6 years. Gotta love a clean box.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]pinhedd[/nom]9.5 is a little over three times 3.1[/citation]
But not three times greater than 5.3 or 4.9. I think they were going by the 2 higher numbers rather than the lowest.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]JustPosting53[/nom]That's funny cause my XP machine is clean, but my GF's Vista laptop on the latest scan came up with 1 hit. Her son's Windows 7 SP1 desktop? 13 separate hits. If anything, this study (to me) shows that there are 2x more XP users than Windows 7 users out there based on the infection rates.[/citation]
There is also the user habit to take into account which no study can do. Someone who goes to one or two sites, all of them good clean sites, and is conscientious to regular update defintions is going to have less, if any, infections regardless of their OS just as someone who routinely goes to sites that are susceptible to spreading malware and aren't security conscious will have their computer infected more often regardless of the OS.

Also, since this is a per capita study, there is no way to tell how many more use one OS over another based on it.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]pseudofaux[/nom]So Vistas are slower to infect because of so few of them on the market? How does that make security? Gonna be hilarious in 5 years near the end of 8's lifespan to show that vista is more secure than 7 and 8 combined because no one bothered with it.[/citation]
It's a per capita study. The total numbers don't matter if you are taking the average over a set fixed amount like X per 1000.

No where does the study say WHY any of the OS's get infected or not. It could be Vista users are more careful. All it's doing is giving an interesting statistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY