Just got Windows 8, but . . .

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

haha, I believe you. I apologize if I wasted your time by asking you to provide a link; I shouldn't have assumed you were referring to a specific article. my bad.

I was the one who decided to waste my time, not you. There's no need to apologize. lol

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

can't hurt though, right?

Nope, it can't hurt if your concern for obtaining viruses are greater than your computer's performance.

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

again, if you're cool with carefully managing ports, then that's great. if you're willing to keep track of all of your files and constantly check for infections, that can work too. I believe you'd be in the vast minority of people in that regard.

I never do those two things. :3

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

I don't see much relevance in this analogy. security updates from microsoft are free. if you're talking about the cost of upgrading from XP to 7 or what have you, note that I never explicitly made such a suggestion. you have plenty of Linux distros to choose from.

I was waiting for you to ask something in regards to that statement. It's about trust and reliability. Patching holes in an OS leaves room for more holes to be made. Opening or closing a port only does one of two things, opens or closes a port. It doesn't open or close other ports.

I know that explanation might sound confusing, but think about it. When you close a port to fix a problem, you fix the problem. When you patch your system to fit the latest and greatest security model, you become one of the many millions of users who are running the same security. You put yourself on the target for those who develop viruses, aiming to hit a wider audience. You did nothing to fix a problem, you are entrusting Microsoft to fix it instead.

My point, putting complete trust into Windows Security Updates doesn't save you from anything. Your protection will be short lived, if it even provides you protection. It doesn't compare to taking manual control of your network's ports or machines. The majority of the problems out there can be stopped by simply adjusting a few settings and keeping a keen eye out for suspicious files and activity.

Even network administrators have to watch out for updates. Some updates change settings that could bring down a network, or even break a machine's partition (which has happened to me before I had much experience). This is why you should never update a live server's OS without testing the updates before hand. Updating has just as much risk as not updating.

Originally Posted by dAnceguy117

I just want to spread the word about XP being a dangerous choice for most users.

I still think that this claim is wrong.

These quotes are killing me.

@Frank Munoz
Are you running 64-bit?