Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.comp.os.windows-xp    |    Actually wasn't too bad for a M$-OS    |    17,273 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 16,736 of 17,273    |
|    Auric__ to R.Wieser    |
|    Re: How can I get my hardware manager ba    |
|    31 Jan 24 16:48:17    |
      From: not.my.real@email.address              R.Wieser wrote:              > John,       >       >>> I hate to say it, but in today's world, XP connected to the internet       >>> *is* an infectious disease.       >>       >> Steady, now. This *is* an XP NG!       >       > Meh, don't worry about it.       >       > I've been reading that kind of FUD forever, always about the previous       > Windows version whenever a new one came out, but have never heard about       > a single outbreak that was tracked back to XP itself mucking up - any       > more than Win7, Win8, Win10 or Win11 did/do that.              It's not intended to be fud. XP doesn't receive security updates any more so       if a new vulnerability is found, MS will just say "That's nice, we told you       so." And I'm not willing to pay a third party for security updates.              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?              > I've been using XP for at least the last 15 years, and have never       > experienced it to be(coming) any kind of "an infectious disease". And       > that without it running any kind of AV product ever (other than the one       > I've got loaded into my wet-ware :-) ).       >       > And oh yeah, for over a decade I oversaw a room full of XP machines,       > used by kids. Never have seen them get ill or infectious by themselves       > either.              Then count yourself lucky. I cannot tell you the number of times I've had       client machines that were "mysteriously" infected. (Yes, stupid people do       stupid things. Not the point.)              > The funny thing is that most people looking down on older Windows       > versions seem to have zero problem with their machines being on a       > continuous, weekly drip of regular and security updates. Personally, if       > I would know a human who would need that kind of TLC I would consider       > them to be quite ill ...              That "continuous, weekly drip" means that MS is fixing issues. No updates =       no fixes. 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.              I'm not saying I don't use older versions of Windows -- I do; I would prefer       2000 but I got used to XP -- but they run under emulation and don't get       internet access. (I have 10 on the bare metal.) With all the crapware out       there, I feel it would be foolish to do otherwise. This isn't 2008, with MS       still on top of XP's issues and vulnerabilities, and with about 3-4 out of       every 1000 computers still running XP [*], threat actors likely still       consider it a viable target.                     [*] Source (watch the wordwrap): https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-       market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide              --       C4 is just angry Play-Doh.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca