4 ms·

Okay. Good to know. So, when I decide to upgrade from Windows XP, I will install the legal DVD I have of Windows 7 and stay with that for years! No Windows 8

by graycat 11y ago

Okay. Good to know. So, when I decide to upgrade from Windows XP, I will install the legal DVD I have of Windows 7 and stay with that for years! No Windows 8, 10, etc. for me until Microsoft makes some fantastically strong and solid statements about compatibility with old software, security, and privacy.

ubercow13 11y ago
>security Can someone still using XP really claim to care about security?
username 11y ago
> when I decide to upgrade from Windows XP Oh no.
theg2 11y ago
Worried about security and privacy...yet still uses Windows XP?
- userbinator 11y ago
  Are people actually believing Microsoft's FUD? The "security" of newer Windows is mostly anti-user, anti-freedom. XP doesn't enforce code signing, and SFP is only advisory, so you can run whatever you want, hack and customise the OS code easily to get it to behave how you want. Most of the exploits that gave XP a bad name in the early days were from IE in its default configuration, which basically no one on XP will be using now. It takes time to get bugs get discovered and fixed. There's a lot of new code in these newer versions and I bet they'll be uncovering more bugs in it as time goes on, some of which won't be applicable to XP because the code isn't even present. As for "privacy"... XP most certainly does not phone home with anywhere near the amount of info that Win10 collects, as this article shows. I'd be more inclined to say "Worried about security and privacy...but still wants to upgrade to Windows 10?" My next jump after XP will likely be some form of Linux with WINE - with everything that can phone home removed.
- graycat 11y ago
  It looks like Windows users are not welcome on HN.
onli 11y ago
If you seriously are still using Windows XP on an internet-connected device, it is not like your biggest worry is sending data to Microsoft.
- graycat 11y ago
  Have anything specific except for Flash or macros for Word? There is the recent 15 or so year old problem, so far never seen in practice, having to do with fonts or some such. Otherwise, what's insecure about XP? Or more secure about 7, 8, 8.1, or 10? Sure, using XP means I'm not cool, but what about actual security? Or are the crucial parts of XP really much different than those of 7? I doubt it. Until the XP support stopped, the same malware scanning and repair software worked for XP and 7.
  - onli 11y ago
    > Otherwise, what's insecure about XP? Or more secure about 7, 8, 8.1, or 10? Windows XP had no UAC and most users were surfing as admin, which was inherently more insecure. Also, XP does not have a bunch of security features the newer Windows had, see http://superuser.com/a/739204 http://superuser.com/a/739204. And now without the updates, since security issues are not patched, the system should be open to all kinds of drive-by attacks and whatever was found in the last months. I do not have a list of them.
    - graycat 11y ago
      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.
gvb 11y ago
You have four and a half years before Windows 7 "End of extended support" occurs on January 14, 2020. You might want to transition straight to linux or OSX. Ref: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
2xlbuds 11y ago
Their commitment to compatibility with old software was what crippled Windows in the first place.
- graycat 11y ago
  Depends on how old. What I'm running and like would not have run on Windows 3.1 or PC/DOS but did run on Windows NT SP3 and Windows 2000. But maybe some of that software would have run into problems on Vista. Maybe Microsoft wants to assume that I will do my typing into Word or Outlook or Excel. No I won't. I type into my favorite text editor KEDIT. I keep my e-mail in files maintained with KEDIT and use Outlook only to send and receive, that is, handle the POP3 interactions. Maybe Microsoft believes that, sure, I will do my word whacking with Word. No I won't; I use Knuth's TeX and, then, PDF. Microsoft thinks I like their efforts at GUIs -- I hate nearly all GUI efforts and make heavy use of command lines in text windows. The command lines run scripts I wrote. I make relatively little and light use of the features of XP and still less use of Microsoft's applications. So, my security is not very vulnerable to any remaining security holes in XP.

by graycat 11y ago

ubercow13 11y ago

>security Can someone still using XP really claim to care about security?

username 11y ago

> when I decide to upgrade from Windows XP Oh no.

theg2 11y ago

Worried about security and privacy...yet still uses Windows XP?

userbinator 11y ago
Are people actually believing Microsoft's FUD? The "security" of newer Windows is mostly anti-user, anti-freedom. XP doesn't enforce code signing, and SFP is only advisory, so you can run whatever you want, hack and customise the OS code easily to get it to behave how you want. Most of the exploits that gave XP a bad name in the early days were from IE in its default configuration, which basically no one on XP will be using now. It takes time to get bugs get discovered and fixed. There's a lot of new code in these newer versions and I bet they'll be uncovering more bugs in it as time goes on, some of which won't be applicable to XP because the code isn't even present. As for "privacy"... XP most certainly does not phone home with anywhere near the amount of info that Win10 collects, as this article shows. I'd be more inclined to say "Worried about security and privacy...but still wants to upgrade to Windows 10?" My next jump after XP will likely be some form of Linux with WINE - with everything that can phone home removed.
graycat 11y ago
It looks like Windows users are not welcome on HN.

onli 11y ago

If you seriously are still using Windows XP on an internet-connected device, it is not like your biggest worry is sending data to Microsoft.

graycat 11y ago
Have anything specific except for Flash or macros for Word? There is the recent 15 or so year old problem, so far never seen in practice, having to do with fonts or some such. Otherwise, what's insecure about XP? Or more secure about 7, 8, 8.1, or 10? Sure, using XP means I'm not cool, but what about actual security? Or are the crucial parts of XP really much different than those of 7? I doubt it. Until the XP support stopped, the same malware scanning and repair software worked for XP and 7.
- onli 11y ago
  > Otherwise, what's insecure about XP? Or more secure about 7, 8, 8.1, or 10? Windows XP had no UAC and most users were surfing as admin, which was inherently more insecure. Also, XP does not have a bunch of security features the newer Windows had, see http://superuser.com/a/739204 http://superuser.com/a/739204. And now without the updates, since security issues are not patched, the system should be open to all kinds of drive-by attacks and whatever was found in the last months. I do not have a list of them.
  - graycat 11y ago
    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.

gvb 11y ago

You have four and a half years before Windows 7 "End of extended support" occurs on January 14, 2020. You might want to transition straight to linux or OSX. Ref: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

2xlbuds 11y ago

Their commitment to compatibility with old software was what crippled Windows in the first place.

graycat 11y ago
Depends on how old. What I'm running and like would not have run on Windows 3.1 or PC/DOS but did run on Windows NT SP3 and Windows 2000. But maybe some of that software would have run into problems on Vista. Maybe Microsoft wants to assume that I will do my typing into Word or Outlook or Excel. No I won't. I type into my favorite text editor KEDIT. I keep my e-mail in files maintained with KEDIT and use Outlook only to send and receive, that is, handle the POP3 interactions. Maybe Microsoft believes that, sure, I will do my word whacking with Word. No I won't; I use Knuth's TeX and, then, PDF. Microsoft thinks I like their efforts at GUIs -- I hate nearly all GUI efforts and make heavy use of command lines in text windows. The command lines run scripts I wrote. I make relatively little and light use of the features of XP and still less use of Microsoft's applications. So, my security is not very vulnerable to any remaining security holes in XP.