Jump to content

Is windows XP really obsolete?

TechKitten 360+

By TechKitten 360+
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

TechKitten 360+

TechKitten 360+

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9/6/2016 at 9:51 AM, mixit said:

In addition to what @dencorso said above, you may also need to enable TLS 1.0 in Internet Explorer options as the WU website no longer accepts SSL 2.0/3.0 secure connections.

Internet Options > Advanced tab > Security section (scroll to the very bottom) > check Use TLS 1.0. For improved security, it's also good to uncheck Use SSL 3.0 and especially Use SSL 2.0 - unless you need to visit any specific websites not capable of anything better. I'd recommend unchecking both and turning them back on only if some site actually stops working after that.

I did enable it, it won't load in IE8


LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

Posted
Posted
Just now, JodyT said:

I remember how you guys felt (in another thread) that I was being a tad off-putting when I expressed concerns about using XP.  Well, if you thought I was bad, hear these guys:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13060

Yikes!  It does confirm that if there was any hope at all for a Pale Moon version to target older OS releases, it's likely for nigh.

Oh, the PaleMoon guys are being Microsoft's toadies again? Hating on older systems because they want an excuse to stop supporting them? Big surprise. :whistle: I saw this coming even before the artificial POSReady block brouhaha earlier this year. :thumbdown

EDIT:

Wow, wth? My post is considered older than the one I quoted? :wacko:

2
Jody Thornton

Jody Thornton

Posted
Posted

I

10 hours ago, LoneCrusader said:

Oh, the PaleMoon guys are being Microsoft's toadies again? Hating on older systems because they want an excuse to stop supporting them? Big surprise. :whistle: I saw this coming even before the artificial POSReady block brouhaha earlier this year. :thumbdown

EDIT:

Wow, wth? My post is considered older than the one I quoted? :wacko:

Yeah the date system on the forum was off-kilter.  I was unable to even post yesterday :(

jaclaz

jaclaz

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, JodyT said:

I remember how you guys felt (in another thread) that I was being a tad off-putting when I expressed concerns about using XP.  Well, if you thought I was bad, hear these guys:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13060

Yikes!  It does confirm that if there was any hope at all for a Pale Moon version to target older OS releases, it's likely for nigh.

It seems to me like the usual FUD.

Before Windows XP went out of support, etc. there have been years of the same things, namely right after Vista release, and then again after Windows 7 release (surprisingly not so much in occasion of 8 release), but at the time most were pessimistic previsions or mere fanboyism for the new, improved Windows OS, now that the years have passed, statements like:
 

Quote

It is DANGEROUS. It hasn't been supported by Microsoft in over two years. There are already hundreds of known vulnerabilities that will never be fixed.

should be proved, I mean, the bad guys had all the time in the world to prepare and execute terrible attacks against this poor OS, the 10% or so of computers around the world still using it [1] should have been already largely compromised, bringing to its knees a not-so-small part of the economy and of the Internet.

Still, it didn't happen (yet), maybe the bad guys have a code of honour that prevents them from taking advantage of those hundreds of vulnerabilities because of respect for the old, aging OS, cannot say, but still it didn't happen in these two years since April 2014.

The good Palemoon guys may have all the reasons (like very reduced user base, more complex code testing, less bug reports and what not) and certainly have all the rights to stop maintaining compatibility with XP, of course, but there is no real reason to denigrate the poor ol'thing.

jaclaz

[1] approximate and meant to represent those actually connected to the Internet and browsing, so that NetMarketShare could count them

 


 

Edited by jaclaz
5
Dibya

Dibya

Posted
Posted

OH God , What more moon child should say about xp?

I really wish to slap that guy, What you should run in your pc no should have problem with that? From where he came to say xp stupid and its users.

He was more insecure with newer os as newer exploit kit are targeted to newer oses mostly not to xp.

More over xp uses different offesets for code in system files so a hacker include offset of 7/8/10 files not of xp as it is tuff due to scattering of codes in system files of xp. There are only 120 Api important api are not present in xp than windows 8 build 9600. Firefox support DirectWrite it got disabled in xp .

More over GDI+ is far more stable . OH GOD save me from such excuses . Microsoft well brainwashed people.

4
vinifera

vinifera

Posted
Posted

made me wonder too before why xp's support was dropping for no reason
especially with browsers... makes no sense
its not like NT 5 is some special on its own...

as long as api compatibility is there anything should run just fine
AFAIK only ribbon based UI apps broke on XP

but... people are a-holes, even webkit "team" ala google-apple-opera, are dropping support for no justified reason

2
Dibya

Dibya

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, vinifera said:

made me wonder too before why xp's support was dropping for no reason
especially with browsers... makes no sense
its not like NT 5 is some special on its own...

as long as api compatibility is there anything should run just fine
AFAIK only ribbon based UI apps broke on XP

but... people are a-holes, even webkit "team" ala google-apple-opera, are dropping support for no justified reason

You are correct vinifera .

Apis like GetThreadID and other are meaning less.

cc333

cc333

Posted
Posted

I haven't heard anything about Mozilla dropping XP support any time soon. Is this still true?

I know they dropped 2000 years ago, but with BWC's Extended Core and Extended Kernel, I can still run Firefox 48, which is reasonably modern (the latest development versions can work with a quick and dirty hack, but I don't want to bother with that until either a clean and simple method for applying it is found, or the Firefox source code responsible for the "bug" is fixed).

c

cc333

cc333

Posted
Posted

dencorso: Ha ha, of course! I thought we were on 49 or something. Can't keep track.

Well, no news is good news, I suppose?

c

FranceBB

FranceBB

Posted
Posted

Firefox actually did drop XP (and Vista), but x64 only, as x86 is still supported. As to the x86 version, Windows XP Service Pack 2 is required (minimum), but it's gonna be dropped in 2017 as newer version after 2017 will require SP3 due to OCSP Signatures in SHA-2 which is not supported by SP2.

Btw none of these infos are official; just rumors.

cc333

cc333

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I noticed that Firefox x64 didn't support XP-64. Anyway one could get around that?

Can the normal Firefox code be compiled for 64-bit? Or is it too different?

IF not, 32-bit FF works okay.

c

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...