True. No disagree's there. XP is not a very good OS to be safe. On Dec 30, 2:46 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > XP may be winning in terms of performance...overall XP is lightweight and > good performing OS, but despite that, XP is indeed a nesting place for quite > a lot of viruses and worms..even with most up to date and state of the art > Antivirus engine..XP kernel is quite vulnerable to attacks and that means > major let down...although, i have to say while win7 might not beat XP > performance, it does have huge performance boost over Viscrap..with newer > tech compatibility with todays computing, id say it does feel more superior > to XP...but generally, if in terms of computing alone, and everyday task for > computer, subtract gaming in that equations, then any Linux distro will do > the job...it does perform well in everyday task and again if a person not > into heavy gaming, linux is recommended... :) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:53 PM, PL4YaH <[email protected]> wrote: > > I searched up Windows XP vs Windows 7 in gaming performance and I'm > > very surprised that Windows XP beats Windows 7 in a long shot with the > > gaming performance. I always thought Windows 7 beats the rest of the > > OS but I guess i was wrong. I just switched to Windows 7 because the > > modded drivers works better on that OS. > > > On Dec 29, 6:42 pm, Derp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > GNU/Linux would be a better alternative in that case. Most distros > > > perform better than XP, better security than Windows 7, and it's known > > > for stability. > > > > On Dec 29, 9:26 am, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > if you are wondering why installing WIN on a machine with </= 512MB > > > > ram is because WIN7 is safer, WIN XP is a nest of viruses and a > > > > formated OS every 3 months, and IM NOT TALING ABOUT IGP gaming just > > > > saftely and stability > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
-- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
