Will using an older operating system lower your chances of Viruses?

[Atmosphere XG]

So after re-installing Windows XP every month for four months due to being contaminated with Viruses & Trojans, I decided to turn off my Pentium 4 and use my Celeron with Windows 2000 as my main Internet PC with the Pentium 4 using Windows XP as the back up.

One thing I remember about Windows 2000 and, 98 is using them for nearly a year without being contaminated with viruses. I actually re-installed because I used to destroy the registries accidentally. I do not use the Internet for Pornography, Peer To Peer or, Bit Torrent so, I didn’t see why I was getting so much viruses.

Upon researching the average Windows 2000 user brought forth this chart then, it made sense.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Looks like I will remain on Windows 2000 and, I’m sure 98, & 95 users can relate why.

With Linux being more in demand on the Internet than 2000, 98, & 95 the chances of being infected is minimum to none. We are officially out of the limelight and, Virus/Trojan developers will not waste their time attacking those operating systems anymore.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Atmosphere XG

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Ever hear of protection? Seriously.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Kelsenellenelvian

[BenoitRen]

Your thread title fails one of the board rules.

Anyway, I think we've had this discussion already, and the logic is flawed. Security by obscurity doesn't really work. Not to mention that Windows 2000 is closely related to Windows XP, which is still in wide use.

[Atmosphere XG]

Ever hear of protection? Seriously.

Yes, I have.

Ever wondered why there are so many and none of them is still the best? If my surfing habits haven't changed from using an AMD K6 machine on Windows 98 and, a Celeron on Windows 2000, I shouldn't be faced with installing Windows XP numerous times doing the same surfing habits on a Pentium 4 machine.

What board rules were broken?

I'm using Windows 2000 non-service pack. It is just as related to Windows 98 as it is to Windows XP. I can install all my Windows 98 programs on Windows 2000 non-service pack and they work fine. Unfornately that is not the case with Windows XP.

I thought it would be nice to see how un-popular Windows 98 & 95 is these days which means less attacks directed towards those two platforms.

[dencorso]

What board rules were broken?

Only one: Rule 12. You gave your thread a cryptic title.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

12. Very often we see meaningless subjects in topic title. They give no clue of what the posts are all about. For example: 

- Oh no! 
- Help 
- I'm mad 
- Please help 
- Question 
- I need your help 
- Hmmmm ....

The reason there is no "Best" answer is that viruses and Trojans have become a almost a living thing now. Using legacy os'es and old hardware is really no solid excuse when many, many, many people can attest and prove to you that simple safety steps and a couple of good forms of protection (Heck even some of it is free and does a good job) can keep you safe while surfing.

I have been infected 2x in the past say 8 years of memory and I try to stay on the cusp of hardware and software development. Plus I quite honestly do some ummm... unsavory surfing. I don't use a software firewall except for what comes with windows (Router Firewall is the best). I do use p2p and torrents and have gotten several virus warnings, BUT with nod32 (NOT saying it is the best, just my preferred) and Spyware Blaster with some common cents, like NOT surfing place like themexp.org I have remained safe.

I have older systems that my children use online all the time (Teenager boys at that) a 98SE box and a 2000 box, both as fully updated and tweaked as possible. They are supervised most of the time and from looking at logs I found that my oldest son was surfing porn on the win2000 box (Yes I kicked his a** ) and they remain safe.

However almost on a daily basis I am brought systems that are almost beyond repair due to the rampant clicking of popups and really inane surfing while not staying updated and safe. The people are really idiotic and I try my best to tell them better ways of surfing but I still see their systems on my doorstep all the time. What it boils down too is not really OS that attracts the virus but the area between the chair and monitor that attracts the OS.

Honestly how safe can a system be when you need to hack the heck out of the kernel just to get "newer" games to run? Every day dozens, if not hundreds of programs drop support or are developed that do not supp rt those, older beloved OS'es. Granted yes if you love to stay with the older games and old programs and are really comfort-able using an OS that they haven't even released fixes for 6 or more years (Bare win2000, w\no SP) and feel your safe then yeah alright go ahead and do your banking, surfing and email-ing on it.

[Atmosphere XG]

What board rules were broken?

Only one: Rule 12. You gave your thread a cryptic title.

Thank you.

Let me see if I can change the title.

[Atmosphere XG]

Kelsenellenelvian,

I really believe that many of these Trojans are not only operating system dependant but hardware as well.

It is just my experience of having difficulty with some trial programs that would not load on computers with the right operating system but the wrong processor type.

Nod32 is what I use. It works very good. However, I had to reinstall because it rid my computer of viruses so well on XP that nothing would load anymore!

I couldn't even get the recycle bin to work.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

If my surfing habits haven't changed from using an AMD K6 machine on Windows 98 and, a Celeron on Windows 2000,

this logic is flawed. the internet has changed a LOT since 9x was a hacker target. 9x stayed relatively secure for 3 reasons:

1. lack of always-on internet connections available at the time prevented machines from being infected remotely

2. number of PC with an always-on internet connection made running botnets much harder and far less effective

3. 9x's complete lack of remote access technologies (this is the only thing that keeps 9x looking secure these days)

I'm using Windows 2000 non-service pack.

older does not equal safer. a 2000 machine with no SPs is even less secure than XP with no SPs (hell even an unpatched 9x box is prolly safer just because of its lack of network services enabled by default.)

also, if an application is written properly, the type of the hardware should mean anything. only the spec of the hardware (CPU speed, Amount of RAM etc)

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Hey geek? Your attachment is f'ed up. (It didn't fully upload or something)

[kahlil88]

You should try installing a GNU/Linux operating system (I recommend Ubuntu). You can run recent software and avoid viruses at the same time.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

the attachment works fine here it just attached so im not hotlinking this:

http://www.realestate.co.nz/blog/wp-conten...in-the-sand.jpg

[Atmosphere XG]

If my surfing habits haven't changed from using an AMD K6 machine on Windows 98 and, a Celeron on Windows 2000,

this logic is flawed. the internet has changed a LOT since 9x was a hacker target. 9x stayed relatively secure for 3 reasons:

1. lack of always-on internet connections available at the time prevented machines from being infected remotely

Not for me. I ran Windows 98 First edition all the way to 2007. I was on AOL before going to Cable and, one thing about AOL, once you log in you don't log out unless you are certain you will not need to log on for a longtime. So, my connection would stay on 12 - 24hours a day.

Sometimes, just logging out to give 98 a fresh boot. By the time I got cable it stayed on just as long. I do remember any small viruses that occured disappeared once Microsoft ended Windows 98 support using an ethernet connection.

2. number of PC with an always-on internet connection made running botnets much harder and far less effective

3. 9x's complete lack of remote access technologies (this is the only thing that keeps 9x looking secure these days)

The remotes can be disabled. I have Windows XP on other machines and everything is disabled that doesn't pertain to audio.

older does not equal safer. a 2000 machine with no SPs is even less secure than XP with no SPs (hell even an unpatched 9x box is prolly safer just because of its lack of network services enabled by default.)

Not based on my experience. Only when I update my computer to the latest (Hence Windows XP SP3) is when I encountered problems. I ran Windows 98 first edition for 9 years without an update and, only went to 2000 because it handled memory and, music software better than 98. Surfing habits play a factor far greater than anything. The average computer user is the youtube, myspace, bit torrent generation. I on the other hand, am the message board, google group, microsoft word user.

That is typical 1995 surfing.

So as you can see, I shouldn't encounter the issues based on my surfing habits. And when an old operating system causes no problems opposed to a more up-to-date operating system that I need to re-install due to becoming crippled with a virus doing the same task, I'm going to stick with my old un-updated operating system that is not swarmed with viruses every month.

I've read numerous times Linux an Mac are less prone to viruses because they are not in the spotlight. Well, Windows 2000, 98, & 95 offers a lower user base than Linux and Mac. So why would a person who creates viruses focus on these operating systems when they have a lower user base than Linux and Mac?

also, if an application is written properly, the type of the hardware should mean anything. only the spec of the hardware (CPU speed, Amount of RAM etc)

There are plenty of software products that specify the type of processor in addition to the RAM and CPU speed. I had the same thoughts as you until, I encountered software that proved me wrong. It would install but, when you try to fire it up nothing.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Atmosphere XG

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

win 2000 IS in the spotlight! XP is built off of it and Vista is built off of that and no one would argue that XP/Vista arent a target for virus/malware authors. More oten than not, when a major security hole is found in a Windows OS it has been there for ages. rarely is a major hole discovered that was introduced because of a security update! I don't know how I can explain this clearer!

You know, nevermind. I cant believe im actually having to make a case for something that is accepted practice for 99.99% of the IT world. If you want to strip down and run naked right through a patch of rose bushes and expect to not get harmed, why the heck should i try to stop you?

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Think of it like this:

You use Nod32 right

Would you install Nod32 and run it without updates? No? Why? (Because it's just f'in dumb is why)