I read the link and got nothing out of it.
I don't even know what the acronyms mean.

I don't understand "drive by attacks": My
XP computer has nothing wireless, not
even the
keyboard or the mouse. Wireless,
essentially everything about everything
wireless looks to me like a gigantic
security problem. Right: I have no
smartphone; I have a cell phone someone
gave me, but I've never used it and
intend never to use it.
I see no
panel trucks outside looking at whatever
radiation my equipment giving off.

I really don't get the suggestion in the
link that somehow XP is vulnerable just from
being connected to the Internet.
I don't have much software listening
on IP ports -- I shut down that stuff.
I don't use Internet Explorer except
rarely at Microsoft sites. I use
Firefox and have Java disabled.

I don't let data from untrusted sources
execute at software. Really, I rarely
download any software, not plug-ins,
macros, or anything else.

The link says that most XP users run
as Administrator. Well, I don't.
I have to run as Administrator
for some of my software development,
but otherwise I run as an ordinary user.

People used to worry about opening
e-mail attachments. I never did or would do
such a thing. I run Outlook
only in text mode; I never let Outlook
trigger the processing of HTML or display
an image.

My version of Flash is a bit old and,
that means that Flash never runs
except when I explicitly permit it to
run, and I only do that on no doubt
fairly safe Web sites.

I permit Acrobat to see a PDF file only
from no doubt highly trusted sources.

I fail to see just why my computer is
so vulnerable. All evidence is that
my computer is safe enough to date.

Windows XP does support the Microsoft
High Performance File System (HPFS),
and it has capabilities and
access control lists (ACLs) which,
going all the way back to Multics,
IBM's Resource Access Control Facility
(RACF), parts of SQL Server, etc.,
are relatively good ideas for security.

In time I will convert over to
Windows Server anyway, make use
of ACLs, use virtual machines,
maybe some version of containers, etc.

I don't read removable media from
untrusted sources. I never use
thumb drives.
For CDs and DVDs,
I tell Windows over and over, "take
no action".

There is a suspicion that once Microsoft
noticed, say, way back in Windows 95, that
their code was awash in security holes,
they first saw the bad news and, later,
noticed some good news: Fix the bugs
but use bug fixes as a way to get users
to upgrade to new software, with more
bugs to be fixed, to get people to
upgrade to more software, etc. Generally
Microsoft wants users of Windows to
have to keep returning to Microsoft
and paying money. Gee, my processor is
from AMD and I don't have to keep
interacting with them and paying money.

Considering this suspicion, why should
I rush to Windows 7, 8, 8.1, 10
with a lot of new software and bugs?

I look at Satya's face and I know
that I can't read it or understand
him. I can't trust Satya.

Really my big concern on upgrading
is the weeks and weeks and weeks
of barbed wire enemas I will have to
go through, clicking, guessing,
struggling, clicking, clicking,
clicking, over and over, for
hours and hours at a time,
days, weeks, months, screaming
in anger, literally, until my
throat is sore, literally,
as I've
done too often in the past,
just to get back to
a system as usable as I have now.

E.g., now I have my main boot partition
backed up so that I can restore it.
If that partition gets infected,
then I will just restore my most recent
backup, which has been apparently solid,
stable, and secure now for about three years.
I know how to do the restore and have
done it and tested it. And I have
two other partitions I can boot
from to do the restore.

So, how would
I do such things with 7, 8, ...?
Will Microsoft tell me? Nope. They
just want to suggest that they
can solve all my problems by
migrating my options in Outlook.
Bummer.

Now I'm using XP to develop
the .NET software for my startup.
Here, XP seems fine. But
I intend to go live on
Windows Server. Windows 7?
I have a legal copy if I need it.
Windows 8, 8.1, 10,
metro interface, integration with
XBOX, Surface, and phones? I can't
imagine why I'd ever tolerate
any such nonsense. A new GUI
UI? No thanks: I want command lines
and scripts. Office 365? No thanks.
I have a copy of Office 2003 -- with
lots of patches, and that's fine with me.

Uh, if I install Windows 7
will Office 2003 install? Will I be
able to get the patches for
Office 2003? If not will I have
to buy a new copy of Office?
Will I hate the new copy? Likely.

Don't I really want to upgrade now?
Nope.