I don't claim to be as much an expert on Windows 7 as I am on Linux and perhaps XP, but the only additional security that I understand Windows 7 has but XP doesn't is the UAC stuff - and that's primarily there to stop idiots who are logged in with administrator privileges not allowing everything to run that asks to run.

If you are the average clueless user that used to use XP that has migrated to Windows 7, are you suddenly going to start paying attention to UAC prompts asking you questions?

And please define what you mean by "EOL'd" when applied to Linux 2.4? Yes, development has stopped on the 2.4 branch but I am sure there are still many individuals and organisations using it, and any vulnerabilities in it can be mitigated through backporting of existing patches or other external mitigation. Either of those two might be easier solutions for certain organisations than upgrading to a later kernel.

With closed source software that has some Internet functionality, there's a strong case for buying the latest upgrades in order to avoid security issues - but there are, as I've shown, other alternatives open to you with Open Source software, not least to fix the vulnerability yourself.

Agreed. But unless you've got someone there ready to do a man-in-the-middle attack at that moment in time, it's extremely unlikely.

Again, it comes down to how important and big a target you are for hackers - the vast majority of home user machines are owned through automated scripts and bots in drive-by attacks, not because some seasoned hacker is sat there physically waiting for you to do something that he/she can exploit.

Or fvwm95 on Linux kernel 2.0.

I do wish people would remove from their minds the notion that "newer always is better".

There is absolutely NO reason to not be running a Linux kernel 2.0 with fvwm95 if it delivers what is required on the system on which it is running - why would you upgrade a system which is perfectly happy running this set up?

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about.

In the *MAJORITY* of home installations, people access the Internet via a NAT router that "translates" the internal *NON-ROUTABLE* IP address of the user's PC to the *ROUTABLE* IP address of the router's Internet interface, as assigned by the user's ISP. Note that the router's IP address is not usually a static one and will change as a result of DHCP on a reasonably regular basis anyway.

A hacker will therefore only ever see the IP address of the router, not the IP address of the user's PC. Yes, the hacker *COULD* attack the router and *IF* the router has a security hole he/she could exploit then an attack is possible. However, unless the router has crappy firmware, has an administration interface with a crackable password exposed to the Internet, and/or an open incoming port that routes into the internal network, then any attack is extremely unlikely.

If you get a piece of malware on your computer then, yes, it can have the ability to open a connection to a hacker and allow him/her to do what he/she wants. But in a home environment, that malware will exist because the user has done something stupid - either gone to a dodgy web site and dowloaded it or installed it as part of some warez the user has got hold of.

Hackers are not particularly interested in wasting their time on "small fry" home users. They prefer to attack bigger targets like corporations and usually leave it to bots and scripts to find ways of owning user PCs that can then be used as owned machines in mass attacks on those bigger targets.

There are millions and millions of devices on the Internet, scripts and bots have limited intelligence and therefore if you know some of the basics about Internet security (essentially not opening unnecessary ports on your router, turning off Internet-exposed router admin interfaces, not installing dodgy software, not visiting dodgy sites, not opening dodgy emails) then you are reasonably secure no matter what OS you run.

Only a Linux hater would reply so stupidly also...

Someone who is still running XP probably isn't that interested in modern games or modern leading-edge applications. Maybe they still run XP because they don't like paying for software upgrades that they consider pointless for their own use. Maybe they even run a hacked copy of Microsoft Office, for example.

Very few people actually need the majority of features in big heavy applications like Microsoft Office or Photoshop, for most of them it's just a case of getting accustomed to a new UI, LibreOffice or The GIMP.

I'm the tech geek for a large circle of friends and family and have moved a number of them over to Linux Mint after they came to me wanting something better than XP now that it's going out of support. I've had a few calls and done a few house visits but all of them are pleased with what it does, none of them needed to do heavy macro work in documents or heavy graphics editing.

If you're going to hate then at least do so from a position of knowledge and experience rather than one based on FUD. I myself run XP and Windows 7, I like both of them and use them for stuff that is more difficult to do than it is Linux. Yes, I'm mostly Linux user but a computer is merely a collection of tools to get jobs done and I don't believe in "cutting my nose off to spite my face" - I just use the best tool for the job and really couldn't give a toss what OS it ultimately runs on.

Rubbish!

For any PC to get owned that is tucked behind a NAT router, it's the user that has to do something stupid first.

If all you ever do is use a web browser to go to well-known sites and you know how to read and interpret a URL, then unless one of those sites has been hacked and some malware has been injected into it, nothing will happen to you. In my experience in computer and Internet security, it's going to dodgy sites for pr0n or warez that opens the doors to something nasty.

Likewise for email - don't use a client like Outlook that has deep hooks into the OS, use a lighter client and always delete emails that are from sources you don't trust.

Security has very little to do with what's built into the OS, it is far more about educating users to understand what the likely attack vectors are and to moderate their own behaviours to mitigate their risk of being exposed to those vectors.

Most attacks will not come through the router

Erm, explain?

Attacks that aren't coming from the router could only be on the local network by implication, so that possibly means locking down wi-fi and making sure any devices on the local network are locked down with secure passwords on all accounts.

But the above would apply to computers running *ANY* OS, not just XP...

Sorry, where are the figures that prove your sweeping statement?

I know of nobody who has ditched a PC for a tablet and can count on one hand the number of people who have swapped their PC for a Mac - I can probably count on two hands the number of people who are trying Linux alongside Windows or have ditched Windows for Linux. Still not a lot but more than those converted to Mac.

Only an elite few spend top dollar on desktop PCs or Macs - for most people "cheap and cheerful" is good enough, and they're never going to go out and spend as much as twice as much on a Mac.

Tablets have found a niche in the market - they're entertainment devices for those who both do and don't use PCs, but bugger all use if you need to write big documents, do spreadsheets or stuff like serious video editing.

Incidentally, I am and have been in the IT industry as a technical person for 30+ years now, so I see with my own eyes the new trends in computing as they happen - and I certainly do not see what you describe although, admittedly, I'm outside of the USA where Mac usage is much much lower anyway.

I think you are confusing "care about Open Source software" with "care about getting stuff for free".

Don't get me wrong, I've been a big Linux and UNIX guy for a couple of decades now, I'm also the "IT bloke" that gets everyone else's PCs to fix and repair. I've turned a lot of friends and family into using Open Source applications (mostly on Windows), especially when I have found illegally installed commercial software on their PCs and told them I won't do a thing to repair their PCs unless they un-install all hooky software or go pay for registered versions of it. I'm not wasting my time killing malware that they let in through the back door with copied software/

I explain Open Source to them when I'm showing them the basics of GIMP or LibreOffice, some of them get it, most just like the idea of free stuff that probably isn't plagued with malware and viruses.

That one always puzzled me too...

There's an intrinsic reason why most gamers are fat bastards (me included incidentally), we don't like to move around much.

If every game had to be played with Kinect, I think I'd give up gaming and go ride my bicycle - because at least I'd still get to sit down on my fat arse while exercising...

...I've played and worked with computers for about 40 of them.

Mouse and keyboard will do me as input devices until the day I die, maybe a little bit of touchscreen and some voice input for the future to waken the good-for-nothing idle teenage carer to empty my bag.

I'm buggered if I'm going to start deleting words in vi by lifting one leg in the air and gyrating my plastic hips three-times in a clockwise motion.

Oh, and get off my lawn.

Why? I've never played either but they're both games and can be equally immersive to whoever is playing them.

Just because one happens to be fat cartoon birds and the other happens to be fat gamers pretending to be soldiers does not make one any more or less a game than the other.

so does that make me "Anti-Bono"?

What do you mean, "old fashioned way"? You make it sound like a bad thing...

I've gamed regularly for over 30 years of my life and never once felt the inclination to own a console. Every since I've started gaming I've done it on platforms where I can take software and games from just about any source I like and play them. I can choose to go buy certain games, others I could play legally as free/shareware/open source games. Just because they may not have the latest 3D graphics or multi-million dollar development budgets does not mean that for what they are they are less immersive or engaging.

If consoles work for you and others then go knock yourself out. But take the blinkers off and don't just assume that because others get their gaming fixes by not doing it on consoles means that they are either less serious gamers or don't get as much fun out of it - even for an "old timer" like me, it's as much fun as it ever was... if anything, the vibrant indie game and retro gaming scene is creating a return to the "Golden Age Of Computers" where there is far more choice than ever to get a gaming fix.

I couldn't think of anything *WORSE* for my gaming fun than tying myself to one platform where games releases only happen because the games developers are licensed by the manufacturer to release those games...

I think it's a perfectly valid comparison based on the changing nature of gaming anyway. When the PS3 and XBox 360 were released, there was no such thing as Kickstarter projects, the whole commercial PC games scene was much more vibrant with fewer independent releases, and whilst Steam did exist then, there was no thought about making it available for Linux.

The need for closed and specialised hardware these days is lessening, whether it's for telephony servers (the industry I work in) or for gaming. Mobile gaming has meant that the general populace is once again becoming comfortable with small games that don't necessarily have the greatest 3D graphics, retrogaming is enjoying an upsurge and the indie and "less commercial" gaming community is becoming huge with the likes of Steam, Desura and Good Old Games offering games distribution models.

It's now a reasonably straightforward task to buy a cheap "computer on a board", throw on a free Linux build and make a proof-of-concept gaming console (or anything else you can think of), I think it's an extremely dangerous time for Sony or Microsoft to be releasing new consoles.