Users Who Think XP Is Good Enough Need to See Infection Rates

[wahoospa]

You haven't had XP installed for 10 years... Not even 9 years yet...

But he is fast approaching 9 years. And if he hasn't had problems, like he stated, then that in itself is pretty darn good.

[ew2x4]

Two things, in my experience XP incredibly fragmented and slow after about 2 years. Your perception of "like new" or "comparable to today's machines" is most likely incredibly jaded.

Next, why is it people are so enthusiastic about technology, yet hate upgrading to the latest OS?

[Adrian0E]

Two things, in my experience XP incredibly fragmented and slow after about 2 years. Your perception of "like new" or "comparable to today's machines" is most likely incredibly jaded.

Next, why is it people are so enthusiastic about technology, yet hate upgrading to the latest OS?

XP was slow for me after just 2-3 months :)

Next, why is it people are so enthusiastic about technology, yet hate upgrading to the latest OS?

+1 . Good question!

[Colin-uk Veteran]

infection statistics mean nothing to individual users, especially power users that know what they're doing.

in 10 years of running xp, i probably had a total of 2 infections, which were easily cleared up.

the only time i reinstalled was when upgrading hardware (mobo etc.)

win 7 may be all well and nice and secure to use.

but that doesn't mean xp is. a large amount of infections are down to dumb users doing the wrong thing anyway.

I have no problem believing xp can be just as secure with the correct tools.

[Subject Delta]

I don't use IE. I use Firefox, and every machine That I have ever installed XP on, or fixed, I have installed Firefox. Only IE users need worry about drive by malware infections.

Safari: Windows Malware target

Firefox malware extensions

Lab: IE8 Beats Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera In Catching Socially Engineered Malware

Do any FOSS bolsheviks actually do research before they go on their silly anti Microsoft rants?

[PixilEyes]

Now that the proof has been posted a few times...Where did Liquid go? :p

[link8506]

I don't use IE. I use Firefox, and every machine That I have ever installed XP on, or fixed, I have installed Firefox. Only IE users need worry about drive by malware infections.

wait, do you really believe what you're saying?

firefox is the least secure browser on the market (along with safari for windows and opera).

IE7/8/9 on vista/7, safari on osx, and chrome on windows are much more secure!

EVERY web browser (on any OS, including linux) has had zero day flaws exploited or demonstrated as poc. Sandboxed browsers are not invulnerable, but they are much much harder to hack.

here is an exemple from an october 2010 0day flaw affecting firefox 3.6 and causing malware infections:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/firefox-zero-day-under-attack-at-nobel-peace-prize-site/7550

Also note that flash player is sandboxed on IE since 2006, and on chrome since 2010 (windows only... flash is not sandboxed on osx/linux).

When there is a 0day flaw in flash player, firefox/safari/opera users are at high risk. Visiting a malicious site exploiting a flaw in flash can cause a drive-by download infection on any unsandboxed browser running flash (like firefox). The exploit code is not browser specific, but any unsandboxed browser can be used as an attack vector.

bonus:

https://www.neowin.net/news/charlie-miller-windows-7--ie-8-or-chrome-provides-safest-computing-experience

notice that firefox is not mentioned as a secure browser - because it is not.

[soldier1st]

Now that the proof has been posted a few times...Where did Liquid go? :p

i think he got scared so he decided to run away and hide lol *Sarcasm*

[DrJohnSmitherson]

Why do people care if someone else uses XP. If they are fine with it, you should be fine with it. :wacko:

[7Dash8]

Why do people care if someone else uses XP. If they are fine with it, you should be fine with it. :wacko:

Exactly. I personally find it hard to use XP having used 7 and Vista for so long, but if someone likes XP then let them use it. It has no impact on anyone else.

The only real issue is that total novices should be prevented from using XP for the same reason they should be prevented from using IE6 - because it's a security risk to themselves and everyone else (botnets).

[Quillz]

But he is fast approaching 9 years. And if he hasn't had problems, like he stated, then that in itself is pretty darn good.

That's true, I also had XP installed for many years before a reformat to Vista (later 7.) I'd say XP SP3 is still a good OS, but I see no reason not to run Win7 if you can.

[satukoro]

I have Windows 7 and I was installed in 2002 to.

Incorrect BIOS clocks on first install are a great thing ;)

Photoshop is your friend as well.

[LiquidSolstice]

snip

Alright then, I'll respectfully apologize about what I said before, but ONLY about the same install aprt.

Yes, you may have not reformatted for the past 8-9ish years (not 10), but there are still two things that I do not believe, that I'm not sure I know how you'd prove otherwise:

1) That your computer is running "as fast as new". I don't buy that. There's no way your copy of XP is running as fast as it was when you first installed. Registry and hard disk fragmentation and clutter will catch up with you. Windows 7 wouldn't be as fast as a first install from 8 years ago either. Either you haven't noticed it because you're used to it, or...(see next point)

2) The fact that you said that you restored your backup of XP to a different hard drive makes me suspicious about your claim of speed and malware-free status. Who's to say that you haven't just restored your backup image in the case of a malware issue? Your install date would obviously remain the same, and you would notice a "speed improvement" because you'd be overwriting the mess each time you restore from your backup. Yes, if that's the case, then that certainly would be one way to have the same installation of Windows XP for that long.

There's only really one thing that I believe about your installation, and that's that you installed it roughly 8 to 9 years ago. Other than that, I don't believe you've never had a virus/malware issue/exploit ever, or that your computer is running "as fast as new". I just don't.

[Seizure1990]

Chalk up another user that has never been infected.... I currently use 7 on two machines, but this goes all the way back to my XP installs.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, XP installs don't just automatically get infected, just like 7 and Vista don't. Good habits apply to any OS.

There's only really one thing that I believe about your installation, and that's that you installed it roughly 8 to 9 years ago. Other than that, I don't believe you've never had a virus/malware issue/exploit ever, or that your computer is running "as fast as new". I just don't.

I dunno how YOU take care of your computers, but my installs, XP included, last for as long as I need them to. Actually that's a lie. But every single reinstall was because of HDD failure, or because I did something retarded (not virus related, or the OS doing something stupid. Just purely my fault). Also, some of those installations easily spanned many years. I didn't experience "Windows Rot" on any of them, and if there was any, it was unnoticeable. My systems were always as stable as they were the day they were installed (more stable, actually, due to updates and whatnot).

Oh, and to top it all off, I never even used backup systems (only started recently) so don't bother with that one. It was really the same install all the way through.

You don't have to believe him, or me. But whether or not you believe doesn't change reality.

[LiquidSolstice]

I dunno how YOU take care of your computers, but my installs, XP included, last for as long as I need them to. Actually that's a lie. But every single reinstall was because of HDD failure, or because I did something retarded (not virus related, or the OS doing something stupid. Just purely my fault). Also, some of those installations easily spanned many years.

You don't have to believe him, or me. But whether or not you believe doesn't change reality.

And you're confirming my point; not many people run on the same install for that long, I'm not just referring to malware, I'm referring to anything that would cause you to re-image or reformat.

Nowadays, I end up reinstalling Win7 for the same reasons; I do something to massively screw them up (I mess with custom themes a lot) or I just install/uninstall/try stuff way more than I should, and I end up at a point where it'd be quicker to clean house by reinstalling instead of fixing.

No, I don't believe him. But see, it's not reality unless he can prove it, and like I said, I don't know how he'd prove "speed".

[Seizure1990]

It's not reality until he proves it? I think you've got it wrong bud. The reality is, between him, me, and a whole bunch of others, there are plenty of people who can claim the same thing. Whether or not you personally believe it doesn't control whether or not it's reality. That's just ridiculous.

And what's your point, that no install lasts forever? Of course not. Parts break, **** happens, and forever is a long time. But you started out claiming that no way could an install last for 10 years, and I say it could. So don't try and get out pf this by switching to "forever".

I've had XP installs go for at least 3 years (that's a conservative estimate, and it's probably more. I'm trying to be fair, since I'm just going off my head. All my XP installs are gone. Sorry, no proof here :rolleyes: ) and they were just as fast. Any slowdown was due to accumulation of software, services, updates etc, which is natural to any OS, not just XP.

[rob.derosa]

and you would notice a "speed improvement" because you'd be overwriting the mess each time you restore from your backup.

Surely you would be restoring the "mess" from the backup each time aswell?

[LiquidSolstice]

It's not reality until he proves it? I think you've got it wrong bud. The reality is, between him, me, and a whole bunch of others, there are plenty of people who can claim the same thing. Whether or not you personally believe it doesn't control whether or not it's reality. That's just ridiculous.

Wow, do you always get so outraged about stuff so simple? Calm the hell down. I love how you see what I believe isn't reality but then say "people [like me] who can claim the same thing" also equates to reality.

And what's your point, that no install lasts forever? Of course not. Parts break, **** happens, and forever is a long time. But you started out claiming that no way could an install last for 10 years, and I say it could. So don't try and get out pf this by switching to "forever".

....uhh, ok, I'm guessing maybe you were just looking for some reason to rage or something, but are you even reading what you're saying? I did claim that a single install will most likely not last for 10 years, and you yourself confirmed that, but it's you who tried to weed your way out of it by saying "oh, but I didn't ever have to reinstall because of malware, it was only because I messed something up", and that's exactly my point, something can and will go wrong down the line, either user error or malware issue.

He might be using the same install but restored from an updated backup image whenever something goes wrong. That means it ceases to be the same install, because something was still messed up and had to be dealt with.

Surely you would be restoring the "mess" from the backup each time aswell?

Not if you had a "clean" backup, no, because you'd be formatting the drive and just re-imaging it with your backup. And that's my point. You could be using a Win 3.1 install from the early 90s and still be "fast as new".

I've had XP installs go for at least 3 years (that's a conservative estimate, and it's probably more. I'm trying to be fair, since I'm just going off my head. All my XP installs are gone. Sorry, no proof here :rolleyes: ) and they were just as fast. Any slowdown was due to accumulation of software, services, updates etc, which is natural to any OS, not just XP.

Which is my bloody point, what are you not understanding about this? I'm not trying to bash XP, I'm just saying there's no way that after 10 years his computer has been free of any of that accumulation.

[rob.derosa]

Wow, do you always get so outraged about stuff so simple? Calm the hell down.

I think you should look back at your reaction to someone claiming their install lasted 10 years.. ;)

Not if you had a "clean" backup, no, because you'd be formatting the drive and just re-imaging it with your backup. And that's my point. You could be using a Win 3.1 install from the early 90s and still be "fast as new".

True, I guess we will see what he says regarding this.

[LiquidSolstice]

I think you should look back at your reaction to someone claiming their install lasted 10 years.. ;)

You should look at the posts of the person I replied to, he tends to do that a lot more. My disbelief about his "speed" and never getting any malware still stands. All he's done so far is prove his install date.

True, I guess we will see what he says regarding this.

Like I said, there's no way to prove that, and I admit it's a paradox, but from personal experience in dealing with computers I simply don't believe that he's never had to restore a backup or that his computer is as fast as a fresh install. It just won't be as fast, not after 3 service packs, hundreds of updates, and the daily cruft that application and service usage dump on the system.

[rob.derosa]

You should look at the posts of the person I replied to, he tends to do that a lot more. My disbelief about his "speed" and never getting any malware still stands. All he's done so far is prove his install date.

Saying "That is the single-most full of s*** comment I've ever heard" as your opener really sets the tone :laugh:

A careful user will not get malware. Perhaps alexalex was just very careful with this machine (no pr0n or nothing!). Yeah I doubt you would have the same performance as day one, but the majority of the 'slowness' (in my experience) is when the machine is booting, not during normal running.

[Samurizer]

Like I said, there's no way to prove that, and I admit it's a paradox, but from personal experience in dealing with computers I simply don't believe that he's never had to restore a backup or that his computer is as fast as a fresh install.

Right. It's not true for you, so it can't possibly be true for anyone else either. Gotcha.

[LiquidSolstice]

Right. It's not true for you, so it can't possibly be true for anyone else either. Gotcha.

Wow, jumping straight into a thread just to antagonize me, how very rare of you.

That's not what I said, I just said I don't believe him and I can't think of a way for him to prove it. Oh wait, that would mean you'd lose all the fun of picking out my posts to try and mock.

[Samurizer]

That's not what I said, I just said I don't believe him and I can't think of a way for him to prove it.

You're basing your disbelief on your personal experience; exactly what you said and I quoted. Because we all know your personal experience with computers is THE yardstick to measure everyone else's by.

[LiquidSolstice]

You're basing your disbelief on your personal experience; exactly what you said and I quoted. Because we all know your personal experience with computers is THE yardstick to measure everyone else's by.

Yes, my disbelief. You made it seem like I'm stating a reality, when I'm stating MY disbelief based on MY experiences. I'm not telling anyone that I'm absolutely right, nor am I telling anyone not to bother arguing with me.

You're purposefully taking what I said out of context to mock me. Don't you have anything better to do?