Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 23:59 UTC
Windows 7 has been out and about for little over a week now, and as it turns out, Microsoft's new baby is doing relatively well. That is, according to the figures by NetApplications: Windows 7 already reached the 3% mark this weekend, and is already closing in on the 4% mark.
Thread beginning with comment 392669
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Windows market share
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 23:01
in reply to "RE[6]: Windows market share"
Member since:2007-02-17
If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?
Backup link:
Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable
User Account Control did block one sample; however, its failure to block anything else just reinforces my warning prior to the Windows 7 launch that UAC's default configuration is not effective at protecting a PC from modern malware.
Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
Lesson learned? You still need to run anti-virus on Windows 7.
And if you still need to run anti-virus software, then your machine will be slower.
Edited 2009-11-03 23:04 UTC
RE[8]: Windows market share
by tomcat on Wed 4th Nov 2009 03:39
in reply to "RE[7]: Windows market share"
Member since:2006-01-06
Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable
Whoa, news flash: An antivirus vendor says that its product is still needed. Of course, what they fail to mention is whether the viruses they ran actually did any real damage to the machine. "Ran" doesn't mean "damaged".
You're quite a comedian. Just for more laughs, why don't you post some more propaganda from a Linux site to support your arguments. I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that they would think Linux is better.
Keep the comedy coming...
Edited 2009-11-04 03:41 UTC
Member since:
2007-02-17
Unlike a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, none of this software is pre-installed on a Windows 7 machine when you buy one.
If you can run this software on a Windows 7 machine or alternatively on a Kubuntu/Ubuntu machine, why would anyone choose to run it on the Windows 7 machine which was: more costly; slower; carries severe licensing restrictions and was more prone to existing, known security risks?