9 ms·

This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. Win7 is already stuck on Chrome 110/111(?). You are not gaining much by doing

by branon 4y ago

This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. Win7 is already stuck on Chrome 110/111(?). You are not gaining much by doing this, and are assuming significant risk. Even if specific portions can be quantified away, it's the unknown unknowns that should scare you. Try a Linux distro again maybe? With some non-default themes and Wine, it really should make a better WinXP than WinXP. Or at least use something like https://github.com/kirb/LegacyUpdate https://github.com/kirb/LegacyUpdate or the pirated ISOs that get updates from the Windows Embedded POSReady channel -- Win7 POSReady is supported until late 2024, and XP was until 2019. There are safe ways to do this, but I worry the author may not be aware of them.

causality0 4y ago
"We're going to write security updates for this OS but we won't give them to you" is such psychopathic behavior.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  The extended update programs are/were only available for corporate users as it's a pay-to-subsidize-availability program that costs more per year than the original OS license. While you may disagree if that's good or not jumping straight to labeling it psychopathic behavior seems more like an argument which came from a conclusion than the other way around.
- skissane 4y ago
  Writing security updates costs money-and as the software gets older, the cost generally goes up too. Is it wrong for them to decide, after a reasonable period, to stop spending that money on outdated versions? What happens then when a small subset of customers says “we need those updates so much, we’ll pay extra for them?” Is it wrong to take their money and spend it on writing the updates they request, with a reasonable margin on top? But once you are selling updates to that small subset of customers, if you start giving the very same updates away for free to everyone else, those customers are going to ask for their money back. I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. This doesn’t just happen for operating systems. Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions, in which they pay extra $$$ for updates compared to customers willing to move to a more current one. If you accept proprietary software as ethical, I can’t see how this practice can reasonably be accused of being unethical.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. I use them anyway but only for gaming to limit my exposure. > Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. Enterprise, Server and Education licenses support "Diagnostic Data Off" telemetry level. I think they'll sell Server to anyone, and even though Enterprise is only sold to "businesses", it doesn't cost much to set up a corporation, and now you are a business customer. Not saying I'm a fan of Microsoft's telemetry policies–but it is not like people are forced to buy Windows, especially nowadays, there are other options: macOS, Linux, Chromebooks. Don't have to worry about telemetry on my Linux box, and Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. If people don't like Microsoft's policies, they can vote with their feet. > You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers. Microsoft no longer supports Windows 7 for consumers, only for certain enterprise use cases. So in the context in which it is still supported, it is enterprise class software, and other enterprise class software is a valid comparison.
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        > Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. I'm not in agreement here. Apple likes to paint themselves as more privacy-friendly, yes. Whether they actually are is another story. They have a lot better PR that prevents them from doing stupid skullduggery like unwanted news and "special offers" and "payment plans" in edge. But a Mac calls home a lot even when you are turning telemetry "off". I'll try the enterprise version (I have MDSN) but last time I checked it I am pretty sure it gave the same options.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think a lot of companies agree with you more or less — well, companies don’t have personalities or psychologies, so psychopathy is not really possible. But charging for security updates is too much of a reputation risk. Of course because they are profit driven entities and they can’t charge for security patches, they just stop writing them.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Companies are not unaccountable entities. They're headed by people who make and carry out these decisions. And withholding security updates as a means of planned obsolescence is absolutely a consciously directed strategy. In many ways companies act as too much of a shield for bad behavior. When a "company" does something awful, it's not the company - but the executive leadership doing that.
- amatecha 4y ago
  A lot about modern proprietary OSes is psychopathic lol
- password4321 4y ago
  0patch is free for personal use, going back to Windows 7. https://0patch.com/pricing.html https://0patch.com/pricing.html
- teddyh 4y ago
  s/security updates for this OS/software/
extr0pian 4y ago
The author said that their experiences with Linux was slow (Debian and Lubuntu were examples) and had no intention of using Linux because of these experiences. Personally, I don't know what they're talking about, but I've always had a smoother/faster (albeit a bit clunky/glitchy sometimes) with Linux than Windows. Even when I dual booted Win7 and Ubuntu, Linux was always faster. Currently, I'm using XFCE w/ Arch on a 6 year old laptop. Programs open very fast, I get regular sw updates, and I've been running it for work for four years.
- slim 4y ago
  You should try, say, Debian 12 on an old computer with encrypted disks. it's unusable
  - 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
    How old is old? I use Debian on an 11-year old cheap laptop, and it runs fine. No GNOME, of course (it's the performance equivalent of Windows on pretty much any hardware). The laptop was something like $300 back in 2012.
    - slim 4y ago
      without GNOME and disk encryption, of course you can run Debian on a toaster
  - julesnp 4y ago
    Encrypted disks would be the key issue here, older CPUs likely can't handle the encryption work required.
- javchz 4y ago
  I would bet on GPU driver issues. Some cards without the right driver can force CPU rendering making it extremely slow
  - nextos 4y ago
badsectoracula 4y ago
> This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. It is not purely irrational, in fact it is spelled right out in the article why the author does so: he finds the Windows XP interface much better as a user than any other OS. I can't say i fully agree personally, but the core of the problem and really the reason i don't see any of this as irrational is that people do get used to the interfaces of the OSes and programs they use and updates pretty much always tend to come with changes to those interfaces that are seen as degradation. Though i do disagree with his assessment of Linux: while perhaps whatever he tried was slower than Windows XP (i remember reading that Lubuntu doesn't focus on low end systems anymore), Linux can be much faster. And also it is the only mainstream OS where you can have the latest and greatest underlying kernel and libraries without being forced to change your desktop interface (though depending on your choices, some DE can take more works than others).
- pazimzadeh 4y ago
  posting about it is kind of irrational
  - topaz0 4y ago
    Complaining about posting about it is irrational too
    - pazimzadeh 4y ago
      who is complaining and why is that irrational?
- toastal 4y ago
  Doesn't MATE or other FOSS DE try to emulate an XP-like feel but a bit more modernized?
  - onli 4y ago
    There are definitely options there. IceWM for example is very much like old windows, and is blazingly fast.
ogurechny 4y ago
This is a perfect example of modern day superstitions, in no way different from superstitions of stereotypical hairy cavemen sitting around the fire. You react to a program release that is mere three months old with a perfectly capable layout engine that has gathered enormous amount of functionality over who knows how many man-centuries across itself and its library dependencies as if you were told to drive an ox-cart. The talk about “safety” has long become a creed repeated thoughtlessly again and again. There's an evident manipulation in making people fear hackers and viruses so much when those who make the most money on controlling users' systems are in fact the ones who offer “better safety”. Updates for the sake of updates is not a passive, neutral status quo. It benefits certain participants (both the ones on top of the power hierarchy capable of rotating the hamster wheel faster and faster, and the ones on the bottom, who, in accordance with this or that fashion, slap together something that is not supposed to work at all unless you update everything) while others pay the price. And it's the path of least resistance that people choose. In the end, it's just marketing. If you can add a couple of commas here and there to make the whole thing crumble, which allows you to announce “newer better version with support for new technology, etc.”, it's way easier than explaining what you change, and why, to the inquiring public. The IT public, as we can see, is pathetically neutered, and acts like careless kids in the free-for-all amusement park. Also, the author can totally get Linux with the leanest DE he can still stomach, and have all the fresh software. Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of memory is still a decent system, especially with an SSD. However, his problem is NOT the software, his problem is that the websites he uses stop working.
- G4E 4y ago
  Sure. Have fun : https://www.opencve.io/cve?product=chrome&vendor=google https://www.opencve.io/cve?product=chrome&vendor=google
  - ogurechny 4y ago
    I honestly have no idea whether you are supporting what was said with that link, or objecting to it. Anyway, I was talking about being inquiring. When you look at that list, surely, some questions do rise. “Why should I worry about all of that to read three paragraphs of text on some webpage?” “Which actions have made it so?” “What should be done to fix it?” Right?
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Linux Mint + non networked VM with winXP..
shortrounddev 4y ago
> It is purely irrational My assumption is they like the UX of Windows XP better than later versions of Windows. I sympathize, because I think that flat software UI design has made computers less fun to use, but I just use theming software at the expense of the stability of my explorer.exe
donedealomg 4y ago
[dead]

by branon 4y ago

causality0 4y ago

"We're going to write security updates for this OS but we won't give them to you" is such psychopathic behavior.

zamadatix 4y ago
The extended update programs are/were only available for corporate users as it's a pay-to-subsidize-availability program that costs more per year than the original OS license. While you may disagree if that's good or not jumping straight to labeling it psychopathic behavior seems more like an argument which came from a conclusion than the other way around.
skissane 4y ago
Writing security updates costs money-and as the software gets older, the cost generally goes up too. Is it wrong for them to decide, after a reasonable period, to stop spending that money on outdated versions? What happens then when a small subset of customers says “we need those updates so much, we’ll pay extra for them?” Is it wrong to take their money and spend it on writing the updates they request, with a reasonable margin on top? But once you are selling updates to that small subset of customers, if you start giving the very same updates away for free to everyone else, those customers are going to ask for their money back. I don’t see any “psychopathy” here, just rational business decisions. This doesn’t just happen for operating systems. Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions, in which they pay extra $$$ for updates compared to customers willing to move to a more current one. If you accept proprietary software as ethical, I can’t see how this practice can reasonably be accused of being unethical.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. I use them anyway but only for gaming to limit my exposure. > Many vendors of on-promise proprietary software do the same-databases, middleware, ERP suites, etc-most of them have a special program for customers who want to stay on really old versions You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > The problem with the newer options is that they are not paid strictly with money anymore. Windows 10/11 use a ton of telemetry you can't turn off. Enterprise, Server and Education licenses support "Diagnostic Data Off" telemetry level. I think they'll sell Server to anyone, and even though Enterprise is only sold to "businesses", it doesn't cost much to set up a corporation, and now you are a business customer. Not saying I'm a fan of Microsoft's telemetry policies–but it is not like people are forced to buy Windows, especially nowadays, there are other options: macOS, Linux, Chromebooks. Don't have to worry about telemetry on my Linux box, and Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. If people don't like Microsoft's policies, they can vote with their feet. > You can't really compare enterprise class software with something that is sold directly to consumers. Microsoft no longer supports Windows 7 for consumers, only for certain enterprise use cases. So in the context in which it is still supported, it is enterprise class software, and other enterprise class software is a valid comparison.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      > Apple is a much more privacy-friendly company than Microsoft. I'm not in agreement here. Apple likes to paint themselves as more privacy-friendly, yes. Whether they actually are is another story. They have a lot better PR that prevents them from doing stupid skullduggery like unwanted news and "special offers" and "payment plans" in edge. But a Mac calls home a lot even when you are turning telemetry "off". I'll try the enterprise version (I have MDSN) but last time I checked it I am pretty sure it gave the same options.
bee_rider 4y ago
I think a lot of companies agree with you more or less — well, companies don’t have personalities or psychologies, so psychopathy is not really possible. But charging for security updates is too much of a reputation risk. Of course because they are profit driven entities and they can’t charge for security patches, they just stop writing them.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Companies are not unaccountable entities. They're headed by people who make and carry out these decisions. And withholding security updates as a means of planned obsolescence is absolutely a consciously directed strategy. In many ways companies act as too much of a shield for bad behavior. When a "company" does something awful, it's not the company - but the executive leadership doing that.
amatecha 4y ago
A lot about modern proprietary OSes is psychopathic lol
password4321 4y ago
0patch is free for personal use, going back to Windows 7. https://0patch.com/pricing.html https://0patch.com/pricing.html
teddyh 4y ago
s/security updates for this OS/software/

extr0pian 4y ago

The author said that their experiences with Linux was slow (Debian and Lubuntu were examples) and had no intention of using Linux because of these experiences. Personally, I don't know what they're talking about, but I've always had a smoother/faster (albeit a bit clunky/glitchy sometimes) with Linux than Windows. Even when I dual booted Win7 and Ubuntu, Linux was always faster. Currently, I'm using XFCE w/ Arch on a 6 year old laptop. Programs open very fast, I get regular sw updates, and I've been running it for work for four years.

slim 4y ago
You should try, say, Debian 12 on an old computer with encrypted disks. it's unusable
- 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
  How old is old? I use Debian on an 11-year old cheap laptop, and it runs fine. No GNOME, of course (it's the performance equivalent of Windows on pretty much any hardware). The laptop was something like $300 back in 2012.
  - slim 4y ago
    without GNOME and disk encryption, of course you can run Debian on a toaster
- julesnp 4y ago
  Encrypted disks would be the key issue here, older CPUs likely can't handle the encryption work required.
javchz 4y ago
I would bet on GPU driver issues. Some cards without the right driver can force CPU rendering making it extremely slow
- nextos 4y ago

badsectoracula 4y ago

> This is not a sensible or technically sound thing to do. It is purely irrational. It is not purely irrational, in fact it is spelled right out in the article why the author does so: he finds the Windows XP interface much better as a user than any other OS. I can't say i fully agree personally, but the core of the problem and really the reason i don't see any of this as irrational is that people do get used to the interfaces of the OSes and programs they use and updates pretty much always tend to come with changes to those interfaces that are seen as degradation. Though i do disagree with his assessment of Linux: while perhaps whatever he tried was slower than Windows XP (i remember reading that Lubuntu doesn't focus on low end systems anymore), Linux can be much faster. And also it is the only mainstream OS where you can have the latest and greatest underlying kernel and libraries without being forced to change your desktop interface (though depending on your choices, some DE can take more works than others).

pazimzadeh 4y ago
posting about it is kind of irrational
- topaz0 4y ago
  Complaining about posting about it is irrational too
  - pazimzadeh 4y ago
    who is complaining and why is that irrational?
toastal 4y ago
Doesn't MATE or other FOSS DE try to emulate an XP-like feel but a bit more modernized?
- onli 4y ago
  There are definitely options there. IceWM for example is very much like old windows, and is blazingly fast.

ogurechny 4y ago

This is a perfect example of modern day superstitions, in no way different from superstitions of stereotypical hairy cavemen sitting around the fire. You react to a program release that is mere three months old with a perfectly capable layout engine that has gathered enormous amount of functionality over who knows how many man-centuries across itself and its library dependencies as if you were told to drive an ox-cart. The talk about “safety” has long become a creed repeated thoughtlessly again and again. There's an evident manipulation in making people fear hackers and viruses so much when those who make the most money on controlling users' systems are in fact the ones who offer “better safety”. Updates for the sake of updates is not a passive, neutral status quo. It benefits certain participants (both the ones on top of the power hierarchy capable of rotating the hamster wheel faster and faster, and the ones on the bottom, who, in accordance with this or that fashion, slap together something that is not supposed to work at all unless you update everything) while others pay the price. And it's the path of least resistance that people choose. In the end, it's just marketing. If you can add a couple of commas here and there to make the whole thing crumble, which allows you to announce “newer better version with support for new technology, etc.”, it's way easier than explaining what you change, and why, to the inquiring public. The IT public, as we can see, is pathetically neutered, and acts like careless kids in the free-for-all amusement park. Also, the author can totally get Linux with the leanest DE he can still stomach, and have all the fresh software. Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of memory is still a decent system, especially with an SSD. However, his problem is NOT the software, his problem is that the websites he uses stop working.

G4E 4y ago
Sure. Have fun : https://www.opencve.io/cve?product=chrome&vendor=google https://www.opencve.io/cve?product=chrome&vendor=google
- ogurechny 4y ago
  I honestly have no idea whether you are supporting what was said with that link, or objecting to it. Anyway, I was talking about being inquiring. When you look at that list, surely, some questions do rise. “Why should I worry about all of that to read three paragraphs of text on some webpage?” “Which actions have made it so?” “What should be done to fix it?” Right?

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

Linux Mint + non networked VM with winXP..

shortrounddev 4y ago

> It is purely irrational My assumption is they like the UX of Windows XP better than later versions of Windows. I sympathize, because I think that flat software UI design has made computers less fun to use, but I just use theming software at the expense of the stability of my explorer.exe

donedealomg 4y ago

[dead]