Windows 7 Will Kill XP Ahead of Windows 8, It

[Frylock86]

The browser is not hijacked there unless you actually download that exe though. It's just a spoof website. I see these all the time on 7, because I love questionable sites.

No, I didn't. But it freaked me out none the less. I disconnected my Ethernet cable, and closed out XP Mode, and ran an AV scan.

[rajputwarrior]

I don't have any bad habits, but I have been attacked multiple times on client's machines after a clean install while using IE6 for the brief second to go get Firefox. Even on XP Mode, I was attacked after clicking the IE icon. I was online for no more than 10 seconds when the browser was hijacked.

<snipped>>

But every time I was ask by somebody to look at their computer this is what I found:

<<snipped>>

Needless to say, I became very frustrated, very fast ;) XP's security is non-existant if you ask me. Despite the firewall, and the additions that came with SP2, XP's "tacked-on" security doesn't work. And since security is number one in my book, is the primary reason I want it gone from our networks.

those are from client machines? I will say that XP is bad at getting infected from machines on the same network, that I can't argue against.

[J_R_G]

The browser is not hijacked there unless you actually download that exe though. It's just a spoof website. I see these all the time on 7, because I love questionable sites.

To be fair, if malware has admin rights, it can just disable KPP. All it does is prevent legitimate (mostly security) software from messing with code in memory. The goal being to increase reliability and get vendors of legitimate software to not rely on internal OS workings (because then Microsoft can't change them.)

As for Windows being more secure than Linux. It seems at least likely that Windows has fewer serious bugs, simply because it's so widely targetted.

Yea but again it's an unreliable and unpredictable exploit, MS can roll out a new version of KPP at any time, if any malware actually tried to disable it. Not perfect, but better than nothing (linux.) And so far, I think there is only one Windows x64 rootkit, and technically that's a boot sector infector.

[Frylock86]

those are from client machines? I will say that XP is bad at getting infected from machines on the same network, that I can't argue against.

No, the top one is mine from February, and the bottom one was from a Google search. I just wanted to give you a sense of what I was experiencing with XP machines. That bottom screen cap isn't that far off...

[Samurizer]

Oh please, we are just giving our opinion. Has anyone put a gun to your head and made you upgrade? I reply to forceful statements (XP does everything, win 7 is pretty and that's all) with forceful statements. Win 7 users are not molesting you or anyone else, so let's not play the victim here. XP users are giving it pretty good, with what little they have.

"XP does everything" isn't a forceful statement, it's just a fact. Can you name some things that XP users cannot do but Windows 7 users can?

I don't have any bad habits, but I have been attacked multiple times on client's machines after a clean install while using IE6 for the brief second to go get Firefox. Even on XP Mode, I was attacked after clicking the IE icon. I was online for no more than 10 seconds when the browser was hijacked.

You must be doing something seriously wrong. Many XP users - myself included - have been online for years and never seen an infection.

[hdood]

Yea but again it's an unreliable and unpredictable exploit, MS can roll out a new version of KPP at any time, if any malware actually tried to disable it. Not perfect, but better than nothing (linux.) And so far, I think there is only one Windows x64 rootkit, and technically that's a boot sector infector.

It's always a cat and mouse game. Everything else that is exploited is usually patched reasonably fast as well so nothing is really reliable or predictable. Doesn't stop malware authors from trying, and it doesn't stop tons of people from being hit. The real point is that new technology like this is most likely going to be hit when the easier vectors have been exhausted. I mean, Microsoft says the same in all their talks, with good reason. Personally I am a little surprised at how little effort there has been at targetting Vista and 7 so far, but then I also feel the same about OS X which has started to gain a reasonable user base. They just don't feel it's worth it, I guess. Even the spoof/phishing sites are still almost always designed to look like XP.

[AnotherITguy]

So heres a few things for you admirers of XP

Windows 7/Vista: Virtualized, and sandboxed Internet Explorer

Windows 7: Enhanced Media center functionality

Windows 7/SERVER 2008 R2/ Better security policy (more granular)

Windows 7/Vista: Better security

do i need to keep going?

[Samurizer]

So heres a few things for you admirers of XP

Windows 7/Vista: Virtualized, and sandboxed Internet Explorer

Windows 7: Enhanced Media center functionality

Windows 7/SERVER 2008 R2/ Better security policy (more granular)

Windows 7/Vista: Better security

Internet Explorer? There's a bunch of better and faster alternatives. As far as security goes, Firefox has NoScript, and Chrome is secure by default. And if you're an IE fan, install and use Sandboxie. Problem solved.

The security points are moot. All that matters is that the user stays uninfected. My entire family uses XP, and so do my housemates, and XP has had its track record proven.

I think it's entertaining how the extra security need to be advertised repeatedly over and over by the anti-XP crowd. It needs to because people don't see it, and people don't see it because XP is secure enough. If there was a real need for Vista/7's improved security, people would've jumped to it in droves the same way they abandoned IE6 for Firefox back then.

do i need to keep going?

I think you definitely do.

[AnotherITguy]

Yes, but is Firefox virtualized and sandboxed? don't think so. Kernel protection mode isnt there in XP, Also if memory serves me well, doesn't XP ship with SP3 full of security holes

* Windows Messenger 4.7 still present in SP3 has a security hole

* Java virtual machine has a security hole even in SP3

* IE 8 for XP in comparison to Firefox well, it may not be as standards ready, but firefox is becoming quite the heffer, chrome is the new Microsoft as it does phone home.

Furthermore

* Windows VISTA received a new network stack

* Windows VISTA received a new graphics engine and DirectX 10.0

* Windows vista was optimized for dual and quad core cpus

* Windows vistas graphic engine recovers crashed video drivers without bsod.

So.... XP HUH? yea, you keep telling yourself xp is good OCTOBER 2001 - OCTOBER 2010: 9 year old o/s

which reminds me, what cpu are you using?

care to post your specs?

[Samurizer]

Yes, but is Firefox virtualized and sandboxed? don't think so. Kernel protection mode isnt there in XP, Also if memory serves me well, doesn't XP ship with SP3 full of security holes

Why do you need Firefox virtualized and sandboxed? It doesn't let malware through, and that's what matters. Sounds like you're turning the means into an end goal.

* Windows Messenger 4.7 still present in SP3 has a security hole

* Java virtual machine has a security hole even in SP3

* IE 8 for XP in comparison to Firefox well, it may not be as standards ready, but firefox is becoming quite the heffer, chrome is the new Microsoft as it does phone home.

Don't use those then. I certainly don't. Windows Live Messenger and JRE are available (and I don't use them either, btw). As for your comments about Firefox and Chrome, they're wrong. And they're also off-topic. Feel free to raise the issues in other relevant threads if you want to continue the discussion along those lines.

Furthermore

* Windows VISTA received a new network stack

* Windows VISTA received a new graphics engine and DirectX 10.0

* Windows vista was optimized for dual and quad core cpus

* Windows vistas graphic engine recovers crashed video drivers without bsod.

Uh, great. Now how does any of those improve my ability to surf the web, listen to my music, and edit my documents?

[pezzonovante]

Here are few more:

1. Windows 7's default search is awesome. By using the Start Menu search I can launch any app, Control Panel applet within a fraction of a second. I can also open any file in my entire Hard Disk by typing a few letters. XP is unusable as it lacks Start Menu search.

2. XP's UI is fugly and unproductive. Windows 7's Aero is the most beautiful UI ever and Breadcrumbs Bar, Aero Snap, Taskbar, Jump List etc improve productivity by a long way.

3. XP can't handle 4GB+ RAM.

I think it's entertaining how the extra security need to be advertised repeatedly over and over by the anti-XP crowd. It needs to because people don't see it, and people don't see it because XP is secure enough. If there was a real need for Vista/7's improved security, people would've jumped to it in droves the same way they abandoned IE6 for Firefox back then.

You think people "jumped to Firefox in droves from IE6 "? Firefox has only 25% market share in 2010. It had around 10% in 2005/06.

On the other hand people are taking up Windows 7 at the speed of light. Within just 12 months 240 million copies of Windows 7 have been sold. It's the fastest selling OS in the history of the universe. XP currently has only 45% market share, while Vista/7 has 35%. XP's market share will drop below 25% by the end of 2011.

[AnotherITguy]

Notice he hasnt posted his specs......hmmmmmm

[hdood]

Windows 7/Vista: Virtualized, and sandboxed Internet Explorer

Can you explain to us how well Internet Explorer is sandboxed? Is it completely isolated from the rest of the session? Does it have read access to it? Does it have write access to it? Are there limits to which APIs it has access to? Can it send messages to other windows? Does it have access to the unprotected graphics APIs? Is it sandboxed across the network? Are all the namespaces it has read and write access to isolated from everything else running in the session? How does this compare to Chrome? Firefox? Just curious. In your own words please.

Do you think I should value the marginal barrier PMIE provides higher than how good a competing browser is and how much I like it? Should I value it higher even though I have never had any problems with the competing browser, and have never had my system compromised despite the fact that I make a habit of visiting questionable sites?

[AnotherITguy]

Ok, with pleasure

The way redmond coded the last two o/ses is as follows

With Windows VISTA if you look at the task manager you'll see it shows IExplore.exe in its own virtual memory space, furthermore malicious code is mitiaged by checking what goes into the os by hardware level components such as AMDs enhanced virus protection which was introduced in the early ATHLON 64s. Thus you see less issues with the versions of IE in vista and 7 than those with xp, im speaking from experience as one of my clients runs XP/SERVER 2003 in their network.

With regards to firefox and chrome...

Chrome, it is a beautiful interface, the javascript engine is mind blowing fast, but reports have surfaced that the browser phones home, and im sorry i don't really trust google's anonymizing capabilities. Other than that is decent but there are no versions of it on any of my machines.

Firefox, it was the darling of my desktops in the days of version 0.9, 1.0. once 2.0 came out and the code started to bloat i was turned off by it, they were too focused on cramming in features that they forgot about performance.

[Samurizer]

1. Windows 7's default search is awesome. By using the Start Menu search I can launch any app, Control Panel applet within a fraction of a second. I can also open any file in my entire Hard Disk by typing a few letters. XP is unusable as it lacks Start Menu search.

If I really needed that feature, I'd have installed Windows Search or Google Desktop Search. But I don't. Either way, it's poor reason to shell out a couple hundred dollars for an upgrade.

2. XP's UI is fugly and unproductive. Windows 7's Aero is the most beautiful UI ever and Breadcrumbs Bar, Aero Snap, Taskbar, Jump List etc improve productivity by a long way.

That's your subjective opinion. Again, poor reason to shell out a couple hundred dollars for an upgrade.

3. XP can't handle 4GB+ RAM.

Maybe that might matter when I actually need 4GB+ RAM. Yet again, Again, poor reason to shell out a couple hundred dollars for an upgrade.

You think people "jumped to Firefox in droves from IE6 "? Firefox has only 25% market share in 2010. It had around 10% in 2005/06.

Why start the comparison in 2005/06? Firefox was the browser that literally broke IE's 95% market share monopoly. It's more or less stalled since the last few years though, due to renewed competition in the field and Microsoft picking up the ball.

On the other hand people are taking up Windows 7 at the speed of light. Within just 12 months 240 million copies of Windows 7 have been sold. It's the fastest selling OS in the history of the universe. XP currently has only 45% market share, while Vista/7 has 35%. XP's market share will drop below 25% by the end of 2011.

Depends on who you want to believe, StatCounter still pegs XP at over 50%. You also neglect that Vista has been around since 2006; if security really was an issue, a lot more people would've jumped from XP by now.

[+Warwagon MVC]

"XP does everything" "why upgrade my grandparents" etc.

You really need to understand computer security to understand why XP is such a bad OS to run. There are two main types of exploits that malware uses to auto-install, and they are almost interchangeable (if you only block one, the malware can easily use the other method in many cases). You must shield against both types to have a semblance of a secure system. DEP defends against one, ASLR defends against the other. XP only has DEP, Windows Vista and 7 have DEP and ASLR, plus things like a sand boxed web browser, and run user programs with a standard user token by default and many other things. Because of this, Windows 7 is far more suited to be run by your grandparents, who probably value your bank accounts and don't want to deal with the hassle of making insurance claims when they get cleaned out, and also yourselves. While it's possible to run XP and not get infected, it's like playing Russian roulette, it's in no way actually safe, it's more luck than anything. That is something ALL users should upgrade for. In addition to that, there are vast numbers of people (though not all, some luddites will forever be happy without this stuff) who can benefit from real and mandatory x64 support, hardware accelerated GUI, DX11, improved support for hardware such as multicore CPUs and SSDs, start menu searching, integrated media center, and so on. Personally XP died for me when Vista was released, I happily ran Vista and never looked back, and now I'm doing the same with Windows 7.

While this is true, I've seen the same kind of infections on Windows 7 machines as I've seen in the past on Windows XP machines. You can't fix stupid. At the end of the day keep your stuff up to date and you will avoid the majority of the infections. The rest are down to user the user. If they want to click run, then they WILL get infected. Not much Windows Can do about that.

Am I really crazy because one of my computers still runs XP (or server 2003)?? I don't think so. Would you really want to run Windows 7 on a 2Ghz Athlon XP with 512MB of RAM? This computer is the one in my workshop... Its used as a dedicated workbench computer for testing drives or other components, scanning hard drives for viruses, performing backups, etc. In other words, I use it a lot when I fix other computers (which is what I do to supplement my income) but it doesn't need any additional functionality that Windows XP doesn't provide.

I agree. For older hardware XP works just great and there is no need to spend $100 on Windows 7. On anther note, if you are using that as a Scanning machine for scanning hard drives for viruses and what not, upgrading the machine to one with a much faster processor would make the scans go faster.

[AnotherITguy]

wah wah wah, XP is better because im using it, wah wah wah, dude, seriously?

Windows Desktop search and google desktop search are both pieces of crap, ive used them both. And the only reason IE is losing market share is because the douchebags at OPERA whined so much the Ballot screen was included in Europe. Agan SAMURIZER publish your specs? lets see what machine you have...

and um older hardware isnt an excuse, my backup laptop

DELL INSPIRON 6000 (From 2005)

Pentium M @ 1.7GHZ

2GB RAM

40 GB IDE Hard drive

DVD Burner

ATI MOBILITY RADEON X300 64MB

Onboard sound

Intel 2945 WIFI runs WINDOWS VISTA...just fine

i stand corrected the WIFI isnt the 2945 as there wasnt a card with aht number, i think its a 2200BG not sure

[GayWolf]

Both taken 1600x1200 Windows 7 version much less clutter in the UI much easier for the user to understand ( computer Noob or experience IT Professional )

and dont forget windows resource monitor .

What are you comparing there? An OS running on a Pentium 3 (Windows XP) with another running on a Dual Core with loads of RAM (Windows 7).

Now try to run that same marvelous OS on a Pentium 3. Yeah...

Hum cool story bro.

What's even funnier is people who think any unix based OS is magically more secure than Windows. (magically, in that they can't point to any real security feature or something like MS' secure development life cycle, to account for their belief.)

What's hilarious is people that try to put OSX or Linux in the same bag as Windows. Windows accounts for something like 98% of the entire collection of virus/spyware/malware, yet there are poeple like you who overlook that "small" detail.

[Samurizer]

wah wah wah, XP is better because im using it, wah wah wah, dude, seriously?

Not really, I'm just explaining why XP fits my needs to people who keep telling me I have to pay a few hundred dollars for an upgrade. I apologize if it offended you in any way.

And the only reason IE is losing market share is because the douchebags at OPERA whined so much the Ballot screen was included in Europe.

The IE market share slide has been going on way before that. And wasn't it not too long ago that Neowin published an article about how the ballot actually wasn't having any appreciable impact on browser share anyway?

Agan SAMURIZER publish your specs? lets see what machine you have...

I honestly don't see what that has to do with this discussion.

[AnotherITguy]

Yes, i know the economy is in the dumps but seriously, you can get a decent windows 7 box for like $500 these days, running a Pentium 3 these days is kind of counterproductive if you ask me, specially in a business setting.

[pezzonovante]

@Samurizer, you can keep saying "yeah, I don't need to spend $200 for this" and keep denying yourself from the great experience that Windows 7 provides. Security, search, UI, productivity, support for modern hardware - all these things add up to make Windows 7 a critical update for XP users. However, if you prefer being a masochist and somehow enjoy using a decade-old insecure, fugly and unproductive OS - then feel free to ignore my suggestions.

[AnotherITguy]

+ 1,000,000

[GayWolf]

+ 1,000,000

-2

reading suggestion

[AnotherITguy]

wtf?

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

Sigh.

Would you upgrade your car if your current car worked perfectly fine for you and you didn't want to spend the money to upgrade it?

NO.

SAME LOGIC APPLIES.