Can someone point me in the direction of the 'real' upgrade benefits

I am driving an 18 year old car and love it. The car has 70K miles and will probably last for another 18 years.

Same with the OS. There can be as many upgrades as you want, if I don't need the function, I can care less. Security updates are a different species and should be applied.

riddell said:

What about the scenario I am very commonly in where I have absolutely zero faults? and my machine is running very nicely, smoothly, fast and reliable? In fact I never seem to have faults asides from those that are constantly present and MS never fixes such as the 'expanding tree faults'

Again. I don't understand what you mean by "expanding tree faults". The words are English but make no sense in the way you are using them.

What exactly is an "expanding tree fault"? What exactly does "zero faults" mean?

You're not forced to use libraries. You can always hide them and never use them. You're not forced to use cloud storage. I have no idea what "CP links in explorer" means. What exactly doesn't have a "save as"? File Explorer has never had a "save as" button. What would it save?

whs said:

I am driving an 18 year old car and love it. The car has 70K miles and will probably last for another 18 years.

Same with the OS. There can be as many upgrades as you want, if I don't need the function, I can care less. Security updates are a different species and should be applied.

Not quite the same. You car wont expire due to age. Note that windows 7 will expire in 4 years.

And what does "expire" mean. It does not mean that it won't run any more.

whs said:

And what does "expire" mean. It does not mean that it won't run any more.

No, but it does mean that it shouldn't, after support ends. Just like XP, it's dangerous to keep running an OS that has no security patch support.

Who cares about this useless security. I run it in a virtual partition under Linux hosts. That gives me real security.

whs said:

Who cares about this useless security. I run it in a virtual partition under Linux hosts. That gives me real security.

Uhhh... what? I fail to see how running a known vulnerable OS as a guest of one that isn't known to have one makes the vulernable one somehow secure... That doesn't even make sense.

Mystere said:

Uhhh... what? I fail to see how running a known vulnerable OS as a guest of one that isn't known to have one makes the vulernable one somehow secure... That doesn't even make sense.

It does not make it more secure but it is easier to fix.