Jump to content

Windows XP is still king


Dibya

Recommended Posts


@oldschool38

For sure it's not like 'there are no viruses for Linux', as many claim. It has it's own security flaws, as probably every big system does. However, on desktop version, there are less malware samples being spotted wild by different Internet Security providers - there are simply less people using Linux, so less people to attack.

For example, first ransomware for Linux was spotted wild in November 2015, when Windows ones were already making a huge mess.

https://labs.bitdefender.com/2015/11/linux-ransomware-debut-fails-on-predictable-encryption-key/

In general, if you will follow some best security practices, and additionally cover yourself with IS software, you will be as secure as with anything else - you might always catch something.

If you are scared, just don't use this XP for anything else than these few games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, OldSchool38 said:

Due to missing some of my old games that aren't available in linux, I've been giving Windows 7 a spin the last few days on my dell 330, in spite of putting in a Core 2 Quad 2.66 (which worked great on linux), the thing still seems to stutter from time to time when I'm running multiple browsers and video files.  I never had that issue in XP and have been considering downgrading to the older, but faster system-also being more compatible with my games.  Win 7 has always seemed like just a bloated version of Windows xp anyways.  My question regarding security issues is this-if I were to use windows XP again with sp3 fully updated (not sure I would trust going the POS update route due to not knowing what M$ might try to stick in there) along with my usual battery of security programs-how risky do you think it would be compared to your average ubuntu based linux distro?  I've run Linux over the last year with no problems, but I've heard some guys say that it's really no more secure than windows in reality-it just doesn't have the large following Windows does and thus is less of a target.  What do you guys think?

One funny thing you may hear and laugh . Near your village there is a general college once all Win7/8.1 computers got infected with a cryptologer but All 2k/XP/98se and three Srv 2003 computer stayed online without any problem, simply because that virus cannot infect older systems .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the case with any system that's not mainstream - a smaller collection of targets means the malware developers don't work as hard to attack.  The payoff is just not as large.

It's also true that non-mainstream systems won't be compatible with as many current applications...  That's bad if "current" is generally considered "better"...

However, this idea puts those of us refusing to run Windows 10 in maybe not such a bad position:  I for one find I don't WANT to run Modern Apps nor do I want any of the new "features" such as OneDrive/sync, cloud integration, constant updates, Edge, etc. - since there's nothing in that realm that I've been impressed by so far.  If the newest and latest malware concentrates more and more on Windows 10, voila, just using an older system that's no longer in the mainstream is a Good Thing a couple of different ways...

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-02-01 at 7:42 PM, NoelC said:

However, this idea puts those of us refusing to run Windows 10 in maybe not such a bad position:  I for one find I don't WANT to run Modern Apps nor do I want any of the new "features" such as OneDrive/sync, cloud integration, constant updates, Edge, etc. - since there's nothing in that realm that I've been impressed by so far.  If the newest and latest malware concentrates more and more on Windows 10, voila, just using an older system that's no longer in the mainstream is a Good Thing a couple of different ways...

-Noel

I'm with you for the most part here.  I like being on a system that's "symbolically" out of support such as Windows 8 (since I can get fully compatible Server 2012 patches) and still use a fairly modern OS that can utilize newer applications.  I also run a Metro-Free environment, and I use a lot of older Windows applications.  But I like my browsers to be up-to-the-minute.  And my tax software needs to be able to use newer security protocols in the installed TCP/IP stack to even function for e-file use.  So for real work, XP and older is now a no go.  I need what Windows NT 6 based systems give me.  That was different as little as two years ago, but now the whole game has changed.

But yes, Windows 10 has not interested me thus far.  I hope something changes by 2023, but maybe I'll migrate to a different hardware platform by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.  A browser is kind of a special animal, in that it needs to be specifically resistant to malware delivered through browsers, which may have only recently shown up in the wild.

I'm left to wonder, though, how many sites sporting malware that once found, say, IE8 vulnerable are still out there trying to push malware on the remaining Windows XP users.  I know a lot of old sites that have for whatever reason refused to stop delivering malware have found their way onto a lot of blacklists (e.g., the immortal/Methuselah blacklist here), which certainly limits the likelihood conscientious people will visit them.

It might not necessarily be best to run the VERY LATEST new browser either.  At the moment I find IE11 quite sufficient, though I know other browsers give different and possibly glitzier experiences.  I suppose I'll re-evaluate when my browser starts refusing to deliver the content I seek.  So far I haven't been blocked from any actual information.

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now have XP home back on my dell, seems to work fine with the quad core processor.  I also notice the stuttering issues that I had with Vista/7 are gone now-hooray for old OS's!  I may try installing an extra hard drive when I get the cash so I can dual boot with a linux distro to get the best of both worlds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a hard time understanding how you're getting stuttering issues on WinNT6x, especially on a Quad Core.  Those system actually make MORE use of the hardware than XP does.  I'm baffled.  What is it that you're trying to accomplish?  There is no way that Vista or Windows 7 should have such difficulty, unless you're short on RAM or using an older GPU.  Just guessing though.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2017 at 6:31 PM, Dibya said:

One funny thing you may hear and laugh . Near your village there is a general college once all Win7/8.1 computers got infected with a cryptologer but All 2k/XP/98se and three Srv 2003 computer stayed online without any problem, simply because that virus cannot infect older systems .

Once I tried running a virus on Windows 2000 SP4 (I think I also had BWC's kernel32 extension) and every single virus failed xD
Not ONE out of 60+ viruses it attempted to install worked! Missing dependencies and windows version check was too much for it

Most virus writers want to do as little work as possible, they're not gonna bother with legacy systems :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JodyT, he probably doesn't have enough RAM, which leads Vista and 7 to use pagefile, that's the only explanation. Even because both UI and background processes are heavier than the XP ones, and that's pretty much why XP doesn't stutter at all. Windows XP, by default, uses as little as 72 MB of RAM in idle, 512 MB with all the programs installed and running in a real world scenario; Windows 7 uses 512 MB by default and 728/1GB in a real world scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:

Once I tried running a virus on Windows 2000 SP4 (I think I also had BWC's kernel32 extension) and every single virus failed xD
Not ONE out of 60+ viruses it attempted to install worked! Missing dependencies and windows version check was too much for it

Most virus writers want to do as little work as possible, they're not gonna bother with legacy systems :P

you are correct . may be virus writer went to the principle : Minimum requirement windows 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a shocked today ! I never expected XP is sooooooooooooooooo better !

A old man here in my village build a new PC with following specs :-

 xeons 2695 v3 x2 (Two processor surely overkill )

Nvdia GTX Titan X (Not Pascal) (inf mod did the trick )

128GB RAM (OOP! 128GB ram patch on the work)

mobo :: Asus Z10PE-D8 WS - Dual Socket for DDR4 LGA2011v3 - Intel C612 PCH  (Huge board really huge )

1TB SATA SSD from Samsung

os:: Windows XP Professional customized with lots of patches and fixes by me (primary) & Linux mint  (Secondary )

XP started up in 3 Sec man it seems to be new world record . I believed XP is better in windows family but never expected it can beat linux in performance . That old uncle said he will run his old CAD softwares from period of 1998 to 2003 . They work best on xp but i think sometime what use of putting 128GB ram and two Xeon server processor for such old softs .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly he's imagining moving up to a 64 bit system.

I'm surprised anyone would build a system that potent and put only one SSD in it.  He clearly needs a RAID array of them.  :)

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NoelC said:

Clearly he's imagining moving up to a 64 bit system.

I'm surprised anyone would build a system that potent and put only one SSD in it.  He clearly needs a RAID array of them.  :)

-Noel

He also said he will put 7x64 also he will add one more 4TB SSHD from seagate . He said he will put 8.1x64/Xpx64/10x64 just for fun . (next month )

I am thinking of making a video of the pc then putting on youtube . what you guys and gals think ?

above mentioned  PC may be 5 times faster than my i7 6700k .Just guessing no benchmarks are done yet  . I have thought of making a 46Bit PAE patch which may allow 64TB RAM in 32bit System but i donot know ever anyone will need that much of ram .

Edited by Dibya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing such a video.  Your description has me wanting to build such a system.

When a system can run in a configuration this small, it's hard not to have it boot up quickly...

SmallFootprintXP.png

Oh, and there's no such thing as "overkill" when it comes to CPUs.  More is better.  :)

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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