Posted: 2009 Jan 24, 13:32
anyone running win9x is doing themselves a huge disservice, from a security and support aspect.
xplorer² Deskrule and other programs
https://forum.zabkat.com/
The fact that some time has to be spent on figuring out whether this or that function will work on the platform which is not supported by its vendor is a major drawback of the past pattern. See, to support a bunch of cheapskates (and this is a very small bunch, BTW!), you suggest the rest of us wait until x2 will catch up with Vista and W7? I would say, you guys, as you decided to sit and wait with $1200 in your pocket, may sit and wait with the old version of x2 as well.rumsfeld wrote:If some function requires something unique to later Windows, what is wrong continuing the past pattern?
In other words: You say, that you prefer to stay with an old, in it's main architecture far more insecure OS, because you do not have to worry about security patches, because there are no since some years.rumsfeld wrote:Since then, I have watched XP users contend with patches upgrades, and worry about what the latest patch will break. I am glad I have not wasted any portion of my life with such nonsense
Believe it or not. I never found such confirmation confirmed by the known security companies. BTW: Old malware is still active.nikos wrote:windows 98 is possibly more secure because it is so old that no new viruses are written for it anymore
This means, even the most simple description of the situation was misleading! What do we hav to expect, if it gets more in details?rumsfeld wrote:I decided to stay where I was.
I am glad I kept my $1,200.
Maybe. Nobody said it was difficult to create a virus for w98 (after all viruses started during the w98 era) but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.nikos wrote:windows 98 is possibly more secure because it is so old that no new viruses are written for it anymore
nikos wrote:just to give you an idea, i have an old laptop with windows 98 just to test xplorer2 and after i run xplorer2 the start button crashes along with windows explorer
technically and historically wrongFredledingue wrote:after all viruses started during the w98 era
Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)Fredledingue wrote:but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.
No virus, worm or any other malware here on a couple of XP-machines. If this kind of "argumentation" would be of any worth, there would exist no virus at all. There is surely at least one machine to be found in the world with every OS, that not got infected.Fredledingue wrote: Anyway for some reason, I'v never seen a virus on my w98 machine for ages.
Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :Dcosmo wrote:In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems.
Although all the NT-based OSs have the *ability* to self-protect, you're forgetting one *major* aspect - that the XP installer still, to this day, installs and makes you an administrator, with free, unreserved access to any and all parts of the system. Most users do not understand that this is a bad thing in terms of PC security as it allows all processes, both benign *and* malignant, to operate freely on their systems. Furthermore, many applications that were developed to run on XP were done so with the attitude that they *needed* admin rights to run. More often than not, things like driver updates, applications that make use of writing data to the Program Files folder (and there are tons in this category) and applications that make use of System data will require administrative privileges - however, if you run your account as a LUA you're locked out of being able to perform those actions. While I rightly agree, this is a necessary thing, most users do not see it that way - ergo, the massive outcry against the Vista UAC method meant to *automatically* protect the user from himself or herself.Cosmo wrote:Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)Fredledingue wrote:but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.
No virus, worm or any other malware here on a couple of XP-machines. If this kind of "argumentation" would be of any worth, there would exist no virus at all. There is surely at least one machine to be found in the world with every OS, that not got infected.[/quote]Fredledingue wrote: Anyway for some reason, I'v never seen a virus on my w98 machine for ages.
You're also not considering the massive proliferation of computers in the household that also occurred during this exact same time that XP was out and about, as well as the rise of broadband connections.Fredledingue wrote:Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :Dcosmo wrote:In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems.
John, you are perfectly right with this. The design of the ending phase of the XP-installation process is evidence of incapacity in this respect.johngalt wrote:Although all the NT-based OSs have the *ability* to self-protect, you're forgetting one *major* aspect - that the XP installer still, to this day, installs and makes you an administrator, with free, unreserved access to any and all parts of the system. ....Cosmo wrote:Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)Fredledingue wrote:but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.
It is usual practice to tell the source (link) for such a statement. Otherwise nobody is able to tell, what you have misunderstood (in the positive case) or faked (in the negative case).Fredledingue wrote:Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :D