Why would I change from Windows 7 to Windows 10

mmm. but high speed internet is mandatory.

that's the first thing I wish I could find a replacement for ,so I was thing ,cabin-beer -daily news paper ,and long walks ,to make room for more beer

I once saw a report about this family who lived in a remote area of Yukon. It took them half a day to get to the next settlement. In the summer by boat on the river where they lived and in the winter by snowmobile. They made their living with fur. At least there was no crime.

My wife would kill me. If there is no mall within 15 minutes, it's a no go, LOL.

Couple of good comments in here. Bottom line is that Windows 7 still holds true to the navigation of the OS since W95. All the way through to W7 we were able to quickly get back to work or play because we knew where everything was, like a so many analogies (cars, boats, motorcycles - never a dramatic change that throws the consumer an unholy curve ball)

Microsoft is going down a very wrong path for the desktop user, especially the corporate world. Heck, the corporate world is just getting use to Windows 7 stations and servers after that long extension of Windows XP to April 2014.

I have played with Windows 10 enough for the last couple of months that I know the only true benefit for "enthusiasts" is the UEFI which came with a new W8 or W10 machine off the retail shelves. The everyday computer user could care less about a replacement for BIOS. Most have never even entered BIOS since personal computers became a household item.

Sticking with Windows 7 but will continually play with new versions.

Emma said:

...By the way I am probably the oldest PC user in this forum. I was 78 last month. Right now I feel like I am 100, but hopefully the surgeon will fix that problem tomorrow. I have a torn meniscus, the pain is so bad when stand up it makes me want to scream. Right now I am sooooo thirsty, no water until after surgery.

Bummer! I hope your surgery goes very well!

lehnerus2000 said:

...

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Oh, wait; you wanted me to answer that. All seriousness aside , imaging is essential for backing up the OS and programs; it's imaging data that is inefficient. Folder/file syncing is a fare more efficient way to backup data than imaging.

I don't trust sync (more accurately I don't trust myself to set it correctly).
When I've looked at sync programs, the warnings I've seen fill me with dread.

I'm more likely to auto sync an empty disc to my data disc (thus obliterating everything) than to get it the right way around.
I "manually sync" some stuff, which is time consuming and error prone.

Thus I prefer to create full backup images. :)

It doesn't have to be difficult to set up a syncing program, especially if you have all your data on its own drive. With FreeFileSync, just set to Mirror, then pick the drive you want to backup, then the drive to send the backup to. You can even designate the destination drive by drive name instead of drive letter since external drive letters can change spontaneously. There are other bells and whistles one can set up, such as Versioning but the basic backup is easy. One of these days, I'm going to sit down and write a tutorial on how to set up and run basic backups.

I've found FFS to be completely reliable. When I started using it, I was a bit anxious about how reliable and laboriously checked it several times a week until I grew confident in its reliability. I recently learned of a hack that sets FFS top verify each file as it copies it over, etc. (it involves making a setting change in the GlobalSettings.xml file in AppData) so I have even less concern over FFS' reliability. Being able to backup a HDD with 900GB of data in an average of ten minutes beats the big fat holy hairy heck out of almost four hours to make an image and verify it. Being able to do a backup so quickly allows me to do two backups of each of three data drives every day. I can run all my AV and anti-malware scans, then backup all my data during the news hour on all days but Friday when I run full scans and image my boot drive; even then, I can get it all done in an hour and a half while watching TV.

Too many comments to keep track of here... but let me say a few things based on what I have read here:

Backups to other disks (ie syncs, even imaging really) are inherently dangerous. First, there are many things that can occur that will destroy all attached drives to a system. I once had a power supply quite literally explode on me, sending a power surge through the entire system and destroying my mirrored "backup" drives as well as my primary drives. These surges can even pass through network cables and USB ports. So even external storage that's on your same network can be affected. This is not as rare as you might think it is.

Secondly, in the last few years there has been a HUGE increase in "ransom ware". This is malware that encrypts all files it can 'see" on your system. Then demands you pay a ransom to get the files back... in some cases paying this fee works, in other cases it doesn't... regardless any drives that your computer can see would be affected, and all your backups would be encrypted by the malware as well.

The only solutions to these problems are disconnected backups. That is, remote network backups that are not directly accessible, or where you take a backup done to external storage and physically disconnect it. Most people don't do this. If you're backing up using file syncing.. then any change can also overwrite your synced files.. so a ransomware app can encrypt your files, then your sync comes along and overwrites your good files with your encrypted ones... So you need multiple, versioned backups.

Anything else is very risky and dangerous. Allowing your OS to become out of date, means you are now susceptible to existing and known attack vectors. This is why using XP today is dangerous. Not just for you, but your computer can be taken over and used as an attack vector for others, making you part of the problem overall. Often times people don't even know their systems have been compromised in these ways, and they are acting as an attack vector without even knowing it.

Simply put, the internet is a dangerous place.. And going on the internet with known vulnerable software is irresponsible as a whole, even if you have the opinion that you have nothing that would be damaged by an attack. Most people really have no idea what kind of risks they are taking.. how attackers can get knowledge, such as their banking credentials, or enough information to steal their identity. Just by using infected software that they don't know is infected, usually because they were callous about their security precautions.

But hey, 50% of the people will give up their password for a piece of chocolate... so I guess it doesn't really matter...