dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
10068
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to rcdailey

Premium Member

to rcdailey

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

said by rcdailey:

Still, the key will be whether developers of anti-malware software continue to support XP or drop versions that will run on XP systems.

Hmmm.

Microsoft tries to scare us by saying that future threats to Windows 7 and Windows 8, will ALSO be threats to Windows XP. And that XP will be screwed because it won't have the patches.

But if that's the case, then there are 2 logical conclusions:

1) If the threats are common to multiple OS, then the OS are really not that different from each other deep down.

2) If the threats are common to multiple OS, then the 3rd party developers should be able to support XP just as much as the newer OS.

Am I wrong?

chrisretusn
Retired
Premium Member
join:2007-08-13
Philippines

2 recommendations

chrisretusn to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
That PC World article is just plain silly. Doom and gloom, the world is going to end for XP. Ha!
said by "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now. | PCWorld" :
You really, really need to dump Windows XP. No, really. Windows XP was great, and many users still love the operating system, but...it’s more than a decade old. At the rate technology evolves, that makes Windows XP a near-relic. Although it may still appear to work fine, the mantra of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” doesn’t really apply to Windows XP. It’s broken in many ways, and when Microsoft officially stops supporting it next April, it really will be broken.

You don’t even need to upgrade to Windows 8. Windows 7 would be fine. Whether you or a stubborn holdout you know still needs convincing, these three reasons should do the trick.
Near relic... guess I'd better not tell anyone I still use OS/2, lol. As for XP it appears to work fine because it does. Everything I run in XP works, it's that simple. In April it will not really be broken either. It will work just as it always has. Oh as for upgrading to Windows 7? Unless you already have it, forget it. Retail sales was supposed to stop on October 30, 2013 (Windows lifecycle fact sheet - Microsoft Windows Help). It's upgrade to Windows 8.1 or buy a preloaded system with Windows 7.
quote:
From a 10,000-foot view, Windows XP seems productive enough. It runs the applications you need it to run. It checks email. It surfs the Web. When you take a closer look, though, the newer versions of Windows have features that help you work more efficiently.
Kind of hard to type from 10,000 feet. None of those feature mentioned; Aero Snap, File History, Automatic Maintenance do nothing to improve my productivity. I don't drag windows here and there, I have backups for file history, and auto maintenance is nothing but a sham.
quote:
Using an operating system that’s more than a decade old can also paint you into a corner when it comes to the peripherals and devices you can use with it.
Everything I use works just fine. My floor does not need repainting.
quote:
This is the big one. Windows XP is inherently more risky even now, and when Microsoft stops supporting the venerable OS next April, your PC will be virtually defenseless.
Horse Hockey, Bull-ony. Defenseless against what? Viruses? I don't have any. In fact, I have never been infected, I have been doing computers a very long time. Hackers? Yeah right.... Most security problems are sitting in the chair. My PC is not defenseless, it very well defended, by me. I know ka ra te....
quote:
Just last week, Microsoft released a security advisory warning users about a zero-day vulnerability in Windows XP. The flaw is reportedly being actively exploited in the wild, but it doesn’t affect the newer versions of Windows.
WOW! This should surely convince me.... nope. From the advisory; "An attacker must have valid logon credentials and be able to log on locally to exploit this vulnerability. The vulnerability could not be exploited remotely or by anonymous users" Most advisories are similar to this. Got to keep us happy, showing they are busy fixing things (most home users will never encounter).
quote:
It was great fun, but...

Windows XP was an awesome operating system. It was arguably the single best version in the history of the operating system. Windows 7 is a worthy successor to the Windows XP legacy, though, and Windows 8.1 is a tremendous operating system as well. Also, by clinging to Windows XP, you’re missing out on new features and technologies that could help you work more efficiently and simplify your life. Even if that doesn’t sway you, though, the reality is that Windows XP is going to be a security nightmare when support ends, and continuing to use it will be impractical—if not impossible.
I agree with the first two sentences. The third partially, until Windows 8.1 is mentioned. By clinging to Windows XP as they put it, I am missing nothing. All I do is type stuff, print stuff, check my mail, browse the web and a few other things. Upgrading from XP is NOT going to improve anything. My life is already simple, how can Windows 8.1 make it simpler. (I think it makes it worse.) Windows XP will not be a security nightmare after April 8, 2014. On April 9, 2014, Windows XP will still work as it did the day before. It will still work just fine on April 8, 2015 and beyond. When Windows XP can no longer do what I ask of it, then I will do away with it. Most of my laptops won't run Windows 7 or 8.1 and I am not about to upgrade to something I don't need.

All of that said. I decided long ago to switch to Linux. I use Windows XP (and Windows 7) in a virtual machine running on one of my Linux boxes.
quote:
Whether you or a stubborn holdout you know still needs convincing, these three reasons should do the trick.
Well they missed the mark, trick failed.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

Bravo, sir.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 edit

1 recommendation

dave to PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:

Am I wrong?

Probably.

1) Version N+1 of software generally is based on version N. If a bug exists in some chunk of version N, and the same chunk of code exists in version N+1, chances are the same bug is there too.

Case in point, as far as I recall: the .wmf vulnerability.

It doesn't mean that the entire OS is the same, only that there are some bits that are the same. The bad guys just need to find one bug that affects all versions.

2a) Version N+1 generally adds useful new facilities. Programs that use the new facilities don't work on previous versions of the OS.

Depending on how vital the new facility is to the program, it might not even be possible to work around its absence. Or even if it is possible, the developer might not have the manpower to do so.

Everything you use needs to be operable on all versions.

2b) Your program needs testing on every single version of the OS you choose to support. Therefore, you're not going to support older versions unless you think it's worthwhile, probably financially.

If I were writing Windows code right now, I probably wouldn't support anything older than Win7/2008R2. Vista had too low an uptake in business circles, and XP is dead.

2c) Customers generally want your program to look and feel like the OS. That's a different look and feel for each version: effort.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

Good explanations, thanks.

-----

Even if I wanted to upgrade, Windows 7 Upgrades (from XP) seem in short supply right now.

M/S is one one hand pushing Windows 8.1 but OTOH they say you can't do [any] sort of upgrade from XP to 8.1
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned) to PX Eliezer1

Member

to PX Eliezer1

quote:
Microsoft tries to scare us by saying that future threats to Windows 7 and Windows 8, will ALSO be threats to Windows XP. And that XP will be screwed because it won't have the patches.
Yes they do.......... They want everyone on the latest OS where THEY HAVE TOTAL CONTROL!!!!! (No privacy,etc)



KEEP WHAT YOU HAVE FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE GUYS!!

Raphion
join:2000-10-14
Samsara

Raphion to exxpprouser

Member

to exxpprouser

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

said by exxpprouser :

Ever since xp has been sitting there doing nothing for prolonged periods of time at 100% cpu when trying to do windows update, and it's near it's eol anyway I've ditched that pos for linux.

I see this too, and keep wondering what the hell WU could be doing to use over 10 minutes of CPU time.
Thomas M5
join:2005-06-06
Germany

Thomas M5

Member

Raphion wrote:
"I see this too, and keep wondering what the hell WU could be doing to use over 10 minutes of CPU time."

Here is the trick: go to this MS website (»technet.microsoft.com/en ··· ms13-097) and downlad the latest IE update for your system, most likely IE8.

Install this patch manually. Then reboot and go back to the MS Update page. Now it should install the remaining patches as fast as 5 years ago

Thomas

goalieskates
Premium Member
join:2004-09-12
land of big

goalieskates to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude
said by antdude:

Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now.

Didn't PCW already do this rant not long ago? It's no more impressive now than it was then.

Tell PC World to take it up with the government, since they're among the biggest offenders. heh
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

Who reads PCW and other such things anyway?

It's really not very useful for knowledgeable people.

rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium Member
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA

rcdailey to PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer1
Most of the third-party software I have (all types) has minimal hardware requirements, even in the latest versions.

An example is MalwareBytes Pro, which I have installed and running with protection enabled. Here are the software and hardware requirements for the current version:

Version: 1.75
Operating Systems: Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 (32-bit and 64-bit).
Languages Available: English, Arabic, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese Simplified, Chinese Traditional, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese.
Software Requirements:
Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8 (32 bit and 64 bit)
Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Later
Internet Explorer 6 or newer
Hardware Requirements:
256MB of RAM (512MB or more recommended)
800MHz CPU or faster
20MB of free hard disk space
800x600 or greater screen resolution
Active internet connection for database and product updates

That's not too demanding, but it would let out some older hardware and anything running a version of Win 98.
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned) to antdude

Member

to antdude

quote:
From a 10,000-foot view, Windows XP seems productive enough. It runs the applications you need it to run. It checks email. It surfs the Web. When you take a closer look, though, the newer versions of Windows have features that help you work more efficiently.
Ya and it SPIES ON YOU AS WELL.... Your computer IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE...... Its a piece of spying garbage!! (Harder to use and not as user friendly)
redwolfe_98
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11

redwolfe_98 to antdude

Premium Member

to antdude

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

i was looking at a screenshot from a windows 7 computer, earlier, and noticed that it doesn't have a "taskbar"..

that just further convinces me that i will have to switch to using "linux"..
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 recommendation

dave

Premium Member

And yet here I am using a Windows 7 with the (supplied with the OS) taskbar, easily visible.

Wild guess: for over a decade and a half, the taskbar has had an auto-hide feature that the user can enable or not, as he desires ...
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned)

Member

Yup your right it does,i have mine always enabled.. (Usually)
redwolfe_98
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11

redwolfe_98 to dave

Premium Member

to dave

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

said by dave:

here I am, using Windows 7, with the taskbar, easily visible

i guess i was confused, seeing "icons" in the "taskbar" instead of "buttons", thinking that the icons were for launching programs rather than showing that the programs were open..

Ian1
Premium Member
join:2002-06-18
ON

Ian1

Premium Member

I can confirm that Windows 7 and Windows 8 have taskbars.

Windows 7


Velnias
join:2004-07-06
233322

Velnias to antdude

Member

to antdude
Linux is good, free and SECURE alternative.

Ubuntu online interactive tour:
»www.ubuntu.com/desktop/t ··· the-tour

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

And yet here I am using a Windows 7 with the (supplied with the OS) taskbar, easily visible.

Wild guess: for over a decade and a half, the taskbar has had an auto-hide feature that the user can enable or not, as he desires ...

I always use autohide to make more room on my desktop and then hover my mouse cursor or use a key to bring it back up.
antdude

antdude to Raphion

Premium Member

to Raphion
said by Raphion:

said by exxpprouser :

Ever since xp has been sitting there doing nothing for prolonged periods of time at 100% cpu when trying to do windows update, and it's near it's eol anyway I've ditched that pos for linux.

I see this too, and keep wondering what the hell WU could be doing to use over 10 minutes of CPU time.

Ha, my Dell Dimension 8250 desktop PC (P4 HT CPU and 512 MB of RAM), took about a couple hours on Tuesday!
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to redwolfe_98

Premium Member

to redwolfe_98


Maybe the particular taskbar you were looking at had turned off text labels. That too is a user preference thing, I suppose. Though I forget how, since I have buttons that look like buttons with an icon and text.

But the summary is: you can't assume that just because you've seen what one desktop looks like, that it's the only way to configure the desktop.

rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium Member
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA

rcdailey

Premium Member

Yeah. One other thing you can do with that task bar in Win 7 is move it around with your mouse to left, right, top, or bottom. Top did not work so well with the system I'm typing on now because one application had windows that would open and then could not be closed due to the task bar being at the top. No big deal since it could easily be moved.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

1 recommendation

Mele20 to redwolfe_98

Premium Member

to redwolfe_98
Click for full size
said by redwolfe_98:

said by dave:

here I am, using Windows 7, with the taskbar, easily visible

i guess i was confused, seeing "icons" in the "taskbar" instead of "buttons", thinking that the icons were for launching programs rather than showing that the programs were open..

They function both ways - showing an open program and/or a shortcut for launching. The taskbar in Win 7 and 8 is awful compared to the useful, sensible one in XP and that you could have in Vista if you used classic mode. You have to "pin" the program to the taskbar for it to act as both. In my screenshot IE is pinned but is not open. You can't put Quick Launch where it should be and I can't get rid of the words which take up space on the task bar. You need "Desktop" there too and I can't get rid of that word on the taskbar either. I recently got rid of those awful thumbnails but the result is only marginally better. I can't see the list of windows as the font is white (have no idea why) although black would not be much better and when you click on one of the windows listed your screen jumps about and it is just so inelegant.

XP task bar is quite superior as it doesn't make a mess of stacking Windows. The stuff I have pinned doesn't need pinning since Quick Launch does work in Win 8 after you add it back (a senseless remove of an essential item by Microsoft) but Desktop takes FOREVER to load sometimes and I have 16GB RAM so it should load instantly. Quick Launch takes too long to load also and that was NEVER the case with XP Pro and only 2GB RAM. I wouldn't need Desktop on the taskbar except there is no listing of all programs via even Start8. I can't memorize the exact names of 200 programs to search for them (and it takes too much time), and half the time Windows 8 search doesn't work and I have to resort to Agent Ransack, and in Win 7 Windows search is as bad a disaster as it was in Vista where Agent Ransack was a must have. Search is better (when it works) in Win 8 but still nothing like search in XP (where I have W2000 start menu not the crappy one that comes with XP). Plus, Search finds irrelevant junk in all versions of Windows after XP. Agent Ransack is really the only way to do a proper search after XP.

nwrickert
Mod
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL

nwrickert to redwolfe_98

Mod

to redwolfe_98
said by redwolfe_98:

i was looking at a screenshot from a windows 7 computer, earlier, and noticed that it doesn't have a "taskbar"..

that just further convinces me that i will have to switch to using "linux"..

You wouldn't find a taskbar on either my Windows 7 or my linux screen shots. I'm using "auto-hide" on both of those.
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned) to antdude

Member

to antdude

said by Mele20 :
XP task bar is quite superior as it doesn't make a mess of stacking Windows.
As is Win98se's taskbar!! (Isnt it sad Mele how stuff always GETS WORSE??)

Banacek
join:2013-12-12
Viking Land

1 edit

3 recommendations

Banacek to antdude

Member

to antdude

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

Don’t fret my loyal XP friends, I have good news for you from Avast. Avast has stated that they will continue to offer antivirus updates for XP years beyond April 2014. You can count on their word because as of 2013, they are still offering support for Windows 98 and Windows 2000! Can you believe that?

Avast is excellent. Long may they live.

Also, don’t worry about firewall support either because I’m sure companies like Comodo are going to offer support way beyond April 2014 because there are hundreds of millions of XP users still out there. Even if firewall companies did stop supporting XP, it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal because solid firewalls like Comodo don’t really need updating.

So, don’t worry about April 2014 as being some kind of armageddon for XP. We will live on my brothers.

It irritates me that Micro$oft uses scare tactics and intimidation to nudge people into giving them more money for “upgrading.”

I tell you, since Edward Snowden and others revealed that Micro$oft and Apple (read as Crapple) are colluding with the spy apparatus in this country (NSA, etc.), I don’t trust them with jacks***.

When Micro$oft issues these “warnings” about lack of support and all of us plebs missing the “critical” updates, they remind me of a shady, overly aggressive car salesman pushing something on you and trying to sell you on something (ie “upgrading”...which in this case, Windows 7 and 8 are a downgrade in my opinion).

“Hey, you need this car. If you don’t have this car, you’re going to regret it. Hey, don’t leave now, you’ve only been here three hours, let me tell you again about all the benefits of the Dodge Debtor.”

“Hey, since you’re deciding on this great car, I should tell you that you need to buy the package extras which includes free engine updates. If you don’t buy this, and you need a repair, you will regret it and will end up with a ruined car. After all, I know what’s best for you. TRUST ME.”

Hey, Microshaft, you can take my XP from my cold dead hands.

I love XP and I will not be intimidated into using something I DON’T WANT and I’m sure as hell not giving Micro$oft any more money. When the time comes years from now and I do feel the need to use something else, it will be Linux Mint. It won’t be another Micro$oft product and it sure as heck won’t be a slave-labor produced, exorbitantly overpriced Foxconn Crapple. So, I am going to enjoy many more years of XP, no matter what anyone else says.

Everyone take note...I have used XP Service Pack 3 as is WITHOUT UPDATES for over eight years and I have had NO INFECTIONS and ZERO PROBLEMS. I use a layered approach to security with firewall/antivirus/antimalware. I disabled Windows Firewall and use Comodo Firewall instead. In addition to the firewall, I use Avast Antivirus and Malwarebytes Pro (with web protection disabled). With this configuration, my system has been solid and trouble free all these years. In addition to these security measures, I also avoid using Internet Explorer and instead use Firefox with the addon Adblock Plus. Internet Explorer is a malware magnet and I don’t recommend “surfing” with it. It’s ok to use for trusted sites like Amazon or for paying bills, but other than those things, DON’T USE IT.

In case you may have overlooked it, let me state it again...I HAVE NEVER UPDATED XP.

So, when Micro$oft and others try to convince you that you need those “critical” updates or you need to “upgrade”, remember me and my experience and tell ‘em to eat lead and go to hell... (cue in the sounds of M16s and AK-47s)... well, you don’t have to be that harsh.

Long live XP and long live the right to be free from a domineering government and domineering corporations.

FREEDOM!... Ah, it felt good to write that word.

ltsnow
Premium Member
join:2006-04-08
Valdosta, GA

ltsnow

Premium Member

said by Banacek:

Long live XP and long live the right to be free from a domineering government and domineering corporations.

FREEDOM!... Ah, it felt good to write that word.

Well said. I loved reading your post, Good Gorilla.
19579823 (banned)
An Awesome Dude
join:2003-08-04

19579823 (banned) to Banacek

Member

to Banacek

quote:
You can count on their word because as of 2013, they are still offering support for Windows 98 and Windows 2000! Can you believe that
Yes I can buddy because they dont have to make thier stuff NOT WORK ON A CERTAIN OS,its when they start adding un-needed code that wont work on older OS's. Avast is fine and always has been with the code they use (Which happens to work on all OS's (I think down to Win98FE))

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird to Banacek

Premium Member

to Banacek

Re: "Windows XP holdouts: 3 reasons you must upgrade now. Yes, now."

said by Banacek:

Don’t fret my loyal XP friends, I have good news for you from Avast. ... You can count on their word because as of 2013, they are still offering support for Windows 98 and Windows 2000! Can you believe that?

Uhmm, not totally... Where did you see that with regard to Win98 (or at least First Edition)? My understanding is that Avast's last 98-compatible version's (4.8.1367) support ended in late 2010, and updates soon thereafter. You can still find legacy Avast versions at freeware houses, but I don't believe they're still being updated. At least, this was my understanding in late 2010, and was a major reason for finally taking my Win98 system offline (where it remains). At that time, the only thing I could find that would still function as an updateable AV was Clam, and I wasn't happy with its limitations.

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude to Banacek

Premium Member

to Banacek
I think many security companies will still support XP SP3 in 2014 since many users are probably still use it. The question is for how long?