don't think we'll get a definitive winner on win7 or win8 any time soon....
That may be, but I do love hearing the opinions of other people, because you always learn from people.
_____
I have heard that some promote the idea of 8 being more secure because of a built in antivirus.
I am not sure this is so, because if it is not "on" by default before doing a Windows Update, people may not use it.
Additionally, even though Windows supposedly takes a back seat & lets you use your own A/V, what happens if you install one that Windows doesn't detect as an A/V, then it deletes parts of your A/V? Or if a user simply only wants ONE A/V installed, but they have to have MS version installed also?
I contend that while MS security essentials is ok, there are many better programs. So, forcing users to use a half baked a/v is bad because it is hit & miss + bloatware. It may even cause malware writers to target MS security essentials, over-writing MS security essential critical files with their own custom variants, that turn MS Security Essentials into THE malware, & make it give erroneous messages/delete user files/other, while being almost impossible to kill off or delete.
For this reason, I hold that it is/may be safer for users to install their own a/v.
_____
Have also heard others applaud secure boot for W8, but my disinterest in that stems from the following that will probably happen.
1) Make it harder for to use custom boot scenarios (Bootable CD/DVD for troubleshooting), or Linux/Ubuntu/ReactOS freeware (anti-competitive, as well).
2) Malware writers will write advanced malware that is able to "secure boot" that now has total control of Windows, & makes getting rid of it even more of a pain.
I remember when MS was thinking that because 64 bit systems require signed drivers, it will help block malware. And some rootkits can't run in 64 bits, because it is more secure. That turned out very laughable, because I have seen 64 bit 7 severely compromised, with the same sorts of rootkits/toolbars/malware/popups/hosts file redirects as their 32 bit cousins.
The only thing that ended up happening, is it made 64 bit much harder to work on for the average person, because they may not be able to just use a driver backup program (doesn't save the driver signature while backing them up) to restore missing drivers if they do a clean install. But most people will have to download the drivers from the manufacturer website.
Additionally, it may make clearing the hosts file & doing certain other tasks a bit more difficult because of restrictions in place.
_____
Not saying isn't admirable to try to make Windows more secure, but from what I've seen so far, malware writers are abusing MS "security" functions for laughs.
Anyone who has worked on a number of PC's knows about this, as I have myself encounters the following types of problems with malware/rootkits.
1) Windows running abysmally slow (for no apparent reason).
2) User(s) locked out from using tasks manager/regedit/other.
3) User(s) blocked from using normal programs (ccleaner/norton/avg/mcafee/panda/defraggler/etc) because malware claimed those are "infections".
4) Malware that sets itself as "default a/v" & promptly reminds you that you already have an a/v installed if you try to use a legit program to remove it.
5) Redirectors that cause computers to permanently loop & go to any webpage but the one your trying to get to, regardless of browser used (hosts file hijacks).
Many, many others that would take too long to list here.
I am sure that MS really meant good by allowing admin to be able to block users from using task manager/regedit/other functions of Windows.
But I am also just as sure that malware is making a mockery of that.
Users are being locked out of using their own PC every day, by malware writers that know Windows more than they do.
Ransomware even holds them hostage & demands $200 settlement, (hey, we got your laptop webcam on too, so we are recording you). Etc.
Scareware.
It's nuts man, it really is!