3 ms·

I have stopped pretty much all of the unnecessary services and am running a XP with 3.5 G memory (though it doesn't recognize more than 3.11 due to some hardwa

I have stopped pretty much all of the unnecessary services and am running a XP with 3.5 G memory (though it doesn't recognize more than 3.11 due to some hardware limitation). I was using Chrome with Themes service disabled until I realized that Chrome has a consistent bug where it wouldn't show check boxes on the web pages properly and the solution is to enable the Themes and all works fine. With Windows default Firewall and MS Security Essential, I am pretty satisfied with lean, mean XP machine.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
The thing that got me off XP quickly was how difficult it is to find applications. "All Programs" becomes an unnavigable maze unless you spend a lot of time keeping it in order, which almost no one did. Since Vista Windows has had universal search which is very nice.
- rat87 14y ago
  Search is nice, but for organization linux tends to sort programs much better in the menus(by category rather then by company).
- Shorel 14y ago
  Install Launchy. Problem solved.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> it doesn't recognize more than 3.11 due to some hardware limitation Probably because it's a 32-bit OS. This isn't an issue with 8 (or 7 or Vista, for that matter), since it has a functional 64-bit version, which by itself is a great reason to upgrade.
harshreality 14y ago
It's not a hardware limitation. Any processor you'd want to use today supports PAE, since it was introduced with the Pentium Pro. Even if some pre-ppro box in some utility closet is still running, its motherboard probably doesn't support anywhere near 4GB, so it's irrelevant that the CPU doesn't support PAE. Linux for 32bit CPUs supported >4GB using PAE page tables for a long time before 64bit consumer processors went mainstream. It's partially Microsoft trying to segment the market, and partially concern that a larger address space visible in a 32bit OS might/would trigger bugs in device drivers or perhaps other software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Desi... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36...
justinschuh 14y ago
I'm one of the lead devs on the Chrome Windows sandbox, and I can assure you that what we do with Vista+ on the security front is leaps and bounds ahead of what we're stuck with on XP. DEP is unreliable and pretty worthless anyway without ASLR. You also don't have things like SEHOP or other memory mitigations that are the first line of defense between your system and the average stale pointer exploit against WebKit. As for the sandbox itself, we run as "Untrusted" integrity level under Vista+, which buys a solid layer of defense on top the SID, rights, and job based sandboxing we do on XP. Our GPU process sandbox in particular (used for accelerated graphics) relies heavily on Vista+ integrity levels due to deficiencies in the Windows XP driver and graphics model. Then there's the fact that XP is lacking hundreds of security fixes that Microsoft has chosen not to backport. Seriously, I've spent many weeks trying to wring every last bit of security I can out of XP, and I really do think that Chrome does the best anyone possibly could on that front. But in the end XP is just an OS that's far past its security expiration date, and running it at all means taking a big risk.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

The thing that got me off XP quickly was how difficult it is to find applications. "All Programs" becomes an unnavigable maze unless you spend a lot of time keeping it in order, which almost no one did. Since Vista Windows has had universal search which is very nice.

rat87 14y ago
Search is nice, but for organization linux tends to sort programs much better in the menus(by category rather then by company).
Shorel 14y ago
Install Launchy. Problem solved.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> it doesn't recognize more than 3.11 due to some hardware limitation Probably because it's a 32-bit OS. This isn't an issue with 8 (or 7 or Vista, for that matter), since it has a functional 64-bit version, which by itself is a great reason to upgrade.

harshreality 14y ago

It's not a hardware limitation. Any processor you'd want to use today supports PAE, since it was introduced with the Pentium Pro. Even if some pre-ppro box in some utility closet is still running, its motherboard probably doesn't support anywhere near 4GB, so it's irrelevant that the CPU doesn't support PAE. Linux for 32bit CPUs supported >4GB using PAE page tables for a long time before 64bit consumer processors went mainstream. It's partially Microsoft trying to segment the market, and partially concern that a larger address space visible in a 32bit OS might/would trigger bugs in device drivers or perhaps other software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Design http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Desi... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36...

justinschuh 14y ago

I'm one of the lead devs on the Chrome Windows sandbox, and I can assure you that what we do with Vista+ on the security front is leaps and bounds ahead of what we're stuck with on XP. DEP is unreliable and pretty worthless anyway without ASLR. You also don't have things like SEHOP or other memory mitigations that are the first line of defense between your system and the average stale pointer exploit against WebKit. As for the sandbox itself, we run as "Untrusted" integrity level under Vista+, which buys a solid layer of defense on top the SID, rights, and job based sandboxing we do on XP. Our GPU process sandbox in particular (used for accelerated graphics) relies heavily on Vista+ integrity levels due to deficiencies in the Windows XP driver and graphics model. Then there's the fact that XP is lacking hundreds of security fixes that Microsoft has chosen not to backport. Seriously, I've spent many weeks trying to wring every last bit of security I can out of XP, and I really do think that Chrome does the best anyone possibly could on that front. But in the end XP is just an OS that's far past its security expiration date, and running it at all means taking a big risk.