Windows XP

gjchester

somersethillbilly wrote: »

I agree with many of the sensible comments above. However the predicted tidal wave of attacks on XP have failed to materialize, maybe people are using good practice, as above, or was it all just hype to make XP users jump ship?

I have no doubt some was Microsoft (and other vendors) wishing to sell new software, however to be fair XP is 13, How long does any company have to support legacy products. It was only the fact that XP was so popular that its support outlasted the much hated Vista.

The problem is scale. Hackers go for the biggest numbers, and the low hanging fruits.

China and India has a huge no of reportedly pirated XP installs, so if your writing malware do you go for a system that gets patched, and may be harder to write for, or one that has known holes that you know will never be fixed. The problem with XP exploits is now no-one is actively fixing them, so who would they get reported to? The Anti Virus folks are still seeing XP variants of viruses so someone's working on them. Just don't lose your data by being complacent thinking a one line registry change will protect you.

Keeping AV up to date and using a limited user account will help, but slowly your security level will decrease. By all means stay with XP but don't think that that a few registry tweaks is all you need to be safe.

kwikbreaks wrote: »

In the run up to the year 2000 I made a nice living fixing code that only had two digits for the year in programs that had originally been written anything up to 30 years before

Depends on your attitude to risk, at the time a where I was a defect in software preventing a product launch was estimated at $1 million a day. The business chose to remediate than take the risk. Many businesses chose the same route so its not as if we have anything to compare it to.



However just like this XP case, its a cost/risk issue that the user has to consider. Do they stay with XP and risk data loss, or pay for a replacement OS or computer.


I can't tell anyone what to do, I can offer advice but at the end of the day its down to the user. If all you use your PC for is surfing the web, and never enter sensitive data on it, you may not care if it gets infected, you simply restore it from backup disks.

kwikbreaks

gjchester wrote: »

Depends on your attitude to risk, at the time a where I was a defect in software preventing a product launch was estimated at $1 million a day.

¿que I can't translate that.

I wasn't commenting on whether XP should still be maintained or not (it shouldn't) I was just making a tongue in cheek comment that some other software does have unexpectedly long lifetimes. I'd guessing that a lot of that mainframe code written as long ago as the 1970s is still running even now.

Gillor

gjchester wrote: »

However just like this XP case, its a cost/risk issue that the user has to consider. Do they stay with XP and risk data loss, or pay for a replacement OS or computer.

A false dichotomy; there are other options.

For example how about staying with XP, minimising the risk of data loss and not buying a replacement OS or computer.

This is a money saving website. Not everyone can afford a new computer every couple of years. And why throw something out with which you are perfectly happy and that can still be made to work safely and securely.

All systems have security holes and there will always be a delay between an attacker identifying a previously unknown vulnerability and the issue of a fix.

To paraphrase Tim Rains, Microsoft’s director of the Trustworthy Computing division… just because the platforms are harder to crack, it doesn’t mean they are safe.

At some stage it will be time to move on but it is too simplistic to say XP = unsafe : Windows 7 & 8 = safe.

Windows XP with layered security can be made safer than newer Windows platforms “out of the box”which are simply running Windows Firewall and Windows Defender.

Uxb

Eventually matters will be taken out of your hands - even if the computer running XP is still functioning.

The AV vendors and other software vendors will stop one day supporting XP so you will be left with no virus/malware or whatever protection.
Then you will up sheet creek as banks etc T&C's require you to secure your computer effectively. Or banks may even start to say that XP is not an approved OS to use with their websites or perhaps refuse connections from computers running it.

As others have said it depends on your attitude to risk and the cost and consequences in both your time as well as money of things going wrong.
The number of posts on MSE forums about someone swapping to another energy/bank/ISP supplier supposedly to save money and spending umpteen hours sorting out the resulting mess is testament that many have no concept of risk evaluation.

Gillor

Uxb wrote: »

The AV vendors and other software vendors will stop one day supporting XP so you will be left with no virus/malware or whatever protection.

Agreed. As I said in my previous post " At some stage it will be time to move on..."

Uxb wrote: »

The number of posts on MSE forums about someone swapping to another energy/bank/ISP supplier supposedly to save money and spending umpteen hours sorting out the resulting mess is testament that many have no concept of risk evaluation.

MSE forum members swapping to another energy/bank ISP supplier to try and save money? Are they mad?:D

poppellerant

I can see why some people don't want to upgrade from XP. Vista was, rightfully so, given a bad name. Windows 7 was much better than Vista, but it's not difficult to see that Windows 7 is basically Vista with fixes and little fat trimmed away.

Then we get Windows 8. This was given a bad name because of the tiles and lack of start menu. 8.1 is better, but if you want a start menu you still need to use third-party software. But, on the whole, Windows 8.1 is much better than 7 mostly because it has been refined and tweaked so much.

Windows 10 is looking promising, especially with the return of the start menu - albeit with tiles, however these can be very easily removed. The Windows 10 start menu seems have a bit of XP and Windows 7 to it, whereas I'm comfortable with the Windows 7 start menu. But Windows 10 has been refined and tweaked even more, so the final release should be very fast. In fact I'd even go far as saying that Windows XP machines should be able to run Windows 10 fairly comfortably!

NiftyDigits

Rockman wrote: »

Service Tag: 2VQDX1J

Sent you a PM.

spud17

poppellerant wrote: »

But Windows 10 has been refined and tweaked even more, so the final release should be very fast. In fact I'd even go far as saying that Windows XP machines should be able to run Windows 10 fairly comfortably!

Well impressed with Windows 10.

Got a 2006 Dell Optiplex 210L, 1.25GB ram with 2.8 GHz P4, running the basic OS just fine, previously running XP Pro.:)

Also, ex Vista laptop, Inspiron 6400, with cheap ssd, boots in 18 secs, limited to 2GB, because ram slot broken.

Gillor

semizeu33 wrote: »

Use another browser

See Posts 2 & 3.

Keep up.

securityguy

poppellerant wrote: »

I can see why some people don't want to upgrade from XP.

I can't. Unless they are 90 or have a terminal illness, they're going to have to move at some point. They are not going to be able to function effectively in the modern age with 20/30/40/50 year old software, even if they can cobble together a way to run it. The gap from where they are to where they will end up is going to get larger, not smaller.

There are some things where you can play "this will see me out": with the help of a virtual machine I'm able to keep an old label printer running for which I only have XP drivers, and I can't see any particular reason why that won't continue to work for the lifespan of the printer itself. But that's just stinginess: that nice Mr Brother will sell me a P-Touch printer that is supported by modern OSes any time I want, so all that happens if the VM or the printer stops working for some reason is that I have to cough up £150. But people wedded to elderly software because they're unwilling to change are just making the task harder the day they do have to change, while exposing themselves to needless hassle now.

Sure, grunge computing is fun; for amusement I ran a Sparcstation 10 (circa 1992) until around 2008, and part of my private network still relies on a Sun V210 (circa 2001) which I've cobbled together out of parts from various failed machines, and runs Solaris 11 Beta because the production code dropped support for the processor. But I'm guessing that the people clinging to XP aren't doing it for "I wonder how long this will last?" fun, but have some reason why they don't want to move. I'm afraid I don't see that ending well.