From: not.my.real@email.address   
      
   R.Wieser wrote:   
      
   > Auric,   
   >   
   >> It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates   
   >> any more   
   >   
   > Yes, and ?   Neither does Win7 or Win8, but you still use the former.   
      
   Under emulation. Without internet access. For testing only, not day-to-day   
   use.   
      
   >> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered   
   >> during XP's lifetime.   
   >   
   > for which it, over its lifetime, got security updates.  I could argue   
   > that XP is better off security wise than Win11 is, as thats has got just   
   > a few years of them.   
      
   I don't use 11 outside of testing so I can't really speak to that, but any   
   system that currently receives bugfixes and security patches scores higher   
   in my book than one which doesn't.   
      
   >> Do you really think there aren't any more undiscovered and/or   
   >> unreported?   
   >   
   > And that differs for XP in regard to Win7, win8, win10 and win11 ... how   
   > exactly ?   
      
   If they get discovered on 10 or 11 they get fixed. Previous systems, not so   
   much.   
      
   >> Also, let's not forget the sheer number of issues that were uncovered   
   >> during XP's lifetime. Do you really think there aren't any more   
   >> undiscovered and/or unreported?   
   >   
   > Again, you're singling XP out for problems that exist in all Windows   
   > versions.   
      
   (You quoted the same line twice.)   
      
   > Mind you, you where trying to tell us that XP is .. how did you put it   
   > ... "an infectious disease".  Currently all I see you post is FUD that   
   > is applicable to all Windows versions.   
      
   You misread it. I didn't say that XP is a disease, I said that "XP connected   
   to the internet is an infectious disease." Please note the part you left   
   out: "CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET". I use XP frequently, for a number of uses.   
   But it is NEVER connected to the internet. Or even my LAN.   
      
   >> Then count yourself lucky.   
   >   
   > No, I don't.  Not with more than a decade of kids working on XP   
   > computers and having zero problems with it. Besides my own 'puter which   
   > I've been using for 15+ years.   
      
   Shrug. I've had different experiences than you, I guess.   
      
   >> I cannot tell you the number of times I've had client machines   
   >> that were "mysteriously" infected.   
   >   
   > I could counter that with people who "did nothing" with/on their   
   > computers before it went all bad, only to discover that they did plenty,   
   > but conveniently forgot all about having done it - even if they did it   
   > just hours before.   
   >   
   >> (Yes, stupid people do stupid things. Not the point.)   
   >   
   > Actually, yes, it is.   With it you're telling me that its (most always)   
   > the user which is the cause of the puter becoming "an infectious   
   > disease" - not the OS itself.   
      
   Possibly, yes.   
      
   >> That "continuous, weekly drip" means that MS is fixing issues.   
   >   
   > To me it means that that new version of Windows has got a gazillion of   
   > security holes, and MS is playing whack-a-mole, hoping that they can   
   > plug a hole before it gets exploited.   
      
   Look into how many issues XP had during its lifetime. What do you think   
   would have happened if MS hadn't played "whack-a-mole" with XP?   
      
   > In comparision any version that has been EOL-ed after having gotten   
   > security updates upto that point (like XP and your Win7) must be much   
   > more secure, don't you agree ?   
      
   No. And again, please reread, I switched to 10 the day 7 EOL'd. (Well, I did   
   Linux for a little while, but Windows works better for my day-to-day desktop   
   usage.)   
      
   >> If you find an issue with XP, your choices are fix it yourself, or pay   
   >> someone else to do it for you, or else do nothing and just live with   
   >> it.   
   >   
   > Which is true for any EOL-ed version (and often even for non-EOL-ed   
   > versions).  Again, nothing XP specific.   
   >   
   > And thats ofcourse beside the issues that are never fixed because of   
   > "works as intended, not a bug" ones, which you always have to deal with   
   > (or work around) yourself.   
   >   
   >   
   > Bottom line, you've been claiming that XP connected to the internet is   
   > "an infectious disease", but I've not seen you support that stance   
   > anywhere.   
      
   Shrug. Fine. You do you. If I'm using Windows online, it's going to be a   
   system that's kept current.   
      
   --   
   As you know, appearances can be deceiving.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)