are you going to abandon intel for ryzen?

AndreRio

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
1,240
1- post here what processor brand/model you have now?
i have an intel i7-4770k that i have been stone waiting for some better to come to replace it with something faster for almost 2 years i think. i must say guys jumping from a 4770k to a 6900k to me is just amazing.

2- and how soon will you do it and for what price do you think the ryzen cpu is worth?
honestly!? for me, 5-6 months i'll have enough money to buy the mobo+cpu+memory.
i think $350 is reasonable or maybe $50 more is not too much to ask, say $400 for the cpu.

you guys?
 
Isn't this basically the same as this thread? https://hardforum.com/threads/whos-planning-to-buy-zen.1917972/

Anyway I have about 20 CPU's but my main PC has an i5-3350p, I could be looking to replace that in the next 12 months assuming Ryzen is gonna live up to what AMD showed us yesterday and (most importantly!) the X370 motherboards will have decent Windows XP compatibility (in other words use third party chips for LAN and Audio, not expecting chipset drivers here, but has to work stable without them). As for the price, I'll consider options up to $300. If it's not better than my Ivy Bridge at that price point... then I guess we haven't made progress.
 
Unless you can OC Zen with at least a Ghz or more. Its just going to be slower in all the 1-4 thread applications and games. Intels HEDT line depends on heavy OC to be worthwhile to use for gaming etc.

If you want a 3.4Ghz 8 core SB, buy an old used datacenter Xeon at ebay for 100$.
 
I want to see it in people's hands and thoroughly tested first.

What does the product line look like? Where does pricing land? How does it perform? How does it OC?

All we have right now are unsubstantiated leaks, and as we've learned from the AMD hype machine over the last few years, those are to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
 
1- post here what processor brand/model you have now?
i have an intel i7-4770k that i have been stone waiting for some better to come to replace it with something faster for almost 2 years i think. i must say guys jumping from a 4770k to a 6900k to me is just amazing.

2- and how soon will you do it and for what price do you think the ryzen cpu is worth?
honestly!? for me, 5-6 months i'll have enough money to buy the mobo+cpu+memory.
i think $350 is reasonable or maybe $50 more is not too much to ask, say $400 for the cpu.

you guys?

Not me but then again, I did jump to Intel and then back to AMD just because that is what I prefer. This will be the first hardware I will pre order though if it can be so that I beat all those stupid ebay resellers.
 
I want to see it in people's hands and thoroughly tested first.

What does the product line look like? Where does pricing land? How does it perform? How does it OC?

All we have right now are unsubstantiated leaks, and as we've learned from the AMD hype machine over the last few years, those are to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

It is a Jim Keller design so we are guaranteed that it will be significantly faster than the existing FX processors. For me, that is all I care about other than pricing.
 
So when upgrading processors on intel, you need a new mobo sometimes from what I hear. Does AMD do the same? If Zen and Zen+ can retain compatibility I would be pretty happy. But I would still want to upgrade to amd if worth it, or perhaps Zen+ if it ain't worth it.
 
I for one welcome our new... no, wait. I for one am pretty happy AMD is putting something out.

After one disappointment after another, and the BS regarding VR, I fully accept that it might fall behind Ivy Bridge.

But, that ought to be enough to lower Intel's crazy prices. That in itself is good enough of a reason to wait and quietly hope they deliver.

However, they can make two mistakes I'd hate them for.
One is following the trend of dumbing down devices and limiting or otherwise hindering overclocking. I'd like to OC independent of the OS. Is that still on the table?

Also, if they try some artificial segmentation by selectively disabling advanced features like cryptography or virtualization, then they will take away what I liked about the FX CPUs. At least in the past they tried to remedy their failures by doing stuff like unlocking, good vt-d stuff, black edition, tri-cores (wtf?).

People I knew were buying the Phenom Whatever 955 instead of the Intel quads, and the prices were reasonable at both camps. And then, after PileDiver, Bulldozed, Exhumator - some local stores didn't even bother carrying them.

So, there's a lot more to their potential success, in my eyes, than sheer performance.
 
Not going to get rid of my wife's NUC, or going to replace my Intel laptops... but I'd be willing to look at adding a new opteron/zen based server when they hit the market for database use.
 
abandon? definitely no. right now i see no reason to replace my 4.5ghz 2500K. unless i can't no longer play game on it or the CPU itself simply fried most likely i'm not going to ditch it.
 
Go from a 3570k to Ryzen? Yes, if it's the correct option for me.

I'm about due for an upgrade anyway.
 
abandon? definitely no.

I am with that. My i7 Skylake 4C/8T laptop (which is faster than my i7 desktop at work) will not be abandoned for years to come. I expect to get a decade of use out of it. That is unless there is a huge technical breakthrough that replaces silicon ...

I do plan on replacing my core2quad linux based PVR possibly with a 6C / 12 T Zen depending on how it performs when the NDA is lifted and if it supports ECC.

For my i7 970 I will have to wait and see. Since I will be 45 in 2017 and I plan on retiring in around 10 years this may be the last time I spend this much for a PC..

Most of my other devices are ARM based.
 
Last edited:
I have used AMD before up until Zambezi, tried a few Zambezi setups but missed getting rid of my Thuban Golden sample. Since then I had one APU as a HTPC but stopped using AMD for some time, the biggest reason is no ITX unless you had an APU and outdated technology on motherboards drove me off.

I like the new promise in AM4, I am hoping that there is a good array of ITX boards on the platform, I would seriously consider getting a 4C/8T Ryzen part.
 
I'm not really abandoning Intel. I'm just looking for an opportunity to build a new system that isn't Intel after all these years of consistently purchasing their products as they are, at the time of purchase, usually the better option for me.

I enjoy a healthy bit of competition and I'm hoping AMD prices it correctly. Overall, I'm very interested in building a new system, AMD or Intel, in the coming months.
 
I have used AMD before up until Zambezi, tried a few Zambezi setups but missed getting rid of my Thuban Golden sample. Since then I had one APU as a HTPC but stopped using AMD for some time, the biggest reason is no ITX unless you had an APU and outdated technology on motherboards drove me off.

I like the new promise in AM4, I am hoping that there is a good array of ITX boards on the platform, I would seriously consider getting a 4C/8T Ryzen part.
Same here, I'm hoping to see some good ITX AM4 boards as I was looking to build a new small form factor gaming PC. I almost went with an i5-6600K but I figured I'd wait to see what Ryzen can offer in price/performance.
 
...you cant be serious.

Stop. It's my choice of OS and none of your concern.

I cannot do my work efficiently on anything other than Windows NT 5.x. Trust me, I have tried newer Windows versions. I used Windows Vista at launch alongside XP and win2k, while it wasn't as horrible as the newer versions it was still a royal pain in the ass. Not only does it slow my work down, it also constantly infuriates me while using it with various settings being put into where they aren't supposed to be, GUI changes, bugs, not to mention the bloat. So I've used Vista in 2008, 2009 and went back to XP after a few months. I tried using Windows 8 when I got my new PC in 2013 for a while, went back to XP after a few months (thank God Ivy Bridge still has XP chipset drivers). I also got a Haswell i5 laptop and I had to put up with Windows 7 until I figured out a way to install the Intel Iris GPU driver for XP. It basically was bugging out after install, the screen would just flicker and it would act the same way as my 2008 laptop with a defective Geforce 8400M did... anyway I eventually found out it worked fine at 50hz refresh rate so I am using it now and again, thank God Intel actually bothered to leak a beta version of chipset and iGPU drivers for XP embedded systems. They stopped providing those entirely after Haswell... I did however have to get a USB wifi card, since the internal crap was NVME/M.2 and I couldn't just throw in a mPCIe card as I would normally do. No biggie, the internal adapter was the Intel Wireless-N 7260 which is a defective adapter model (constant drop of packets, I'd rather use dial-up than that! - they actually recalled them afaik).

I have also used various *nix versions ever since... UnixWare and Solaris I guess? Also used Slackware in the 1990s. I am a fan of proprietary UNIX, I was really hoping the OpenSolaris project would go somewhere when the source was released to the public in '08 or whatever, but unfortunately Sun/Oracle or whatever they fancy themselves as now simply decided to dump the source online and stop development and support. I guess I appreciate them finally putting out Proprietary UNIX into the open source, makes me sad it didn't gain the amount of interest I was expecting. In any case I haven't used *nix on the desktop for a long time, and don't really think that's what it's for these days. Great for servers, not so much for desktop use. Simply put unix/linux still doesn't have as high quality software base as I have come to expect on Win9x and NT since the 90s.

I could literally list you 1000 reasons detailing every single possible thing I hate about NT6.x - 10 but I don't have time now, it's for a different topic and you probably won't care anyway. People who are happy with newer versions of Windows in my opinion either don't know better (kids these days) or simply aren't accustomed to using the PC in the power user manner that I do. Because I refuse to accept the notion NT6.x makes anything easier to do, from my experience it's purely the opposite and while making things harder it also uses more resources. I am simply astonished to see a system using 2GB of RAM idling on the desktop. :O... After install win2k uses about 50MB, XP x86 90MB, and XP x64 about 300MB. Waste of resources.

Do you run a botnet?

No but I have experience reverse engineering botnet binaries for research purposes (so ironically the answer is yes). I am well experienced in cyber security. I don't infect my systems unless that is specifically what I need to do. People who visit pr0n sites with Java enabled are probably not the people who I would suggest run an XP based system, however if you are careful with your browsing habits and you have a functional firewall, there is very little chance that an XP system will get infected. 90% of vulnerabilites require social engineering (and thus the blame is on the user). In any case modern malware is developed primarily for the platform that is going to generate the bulk of the infections, in other words NT6+ (and these days android as well). In fact when studying botnets and their rootkits I've constantly had to install them in Windows 7 based systems, since they require WinAPI and dependencies not found on XP, or new .NET versions.

So to conclude, I have about 15 functional, working PC's in my house at this moment (as I said in the first post, got about 20 CPU's laying around) of which I have decided to keep around 7 that I use on a somewhat regular basis. Of these systems, 100% are running NT5.x based systems, most have 32-bit XP but on newer systems I opt for running XP x64 for better rendering/compiling/encoding performance. I have had enough of testing modern systems and I have come to my final decision which is that I am not going to "upgrade" to anything other than NT5.x on the desktop, barring God sending a miracle in the form of M$ actually picking up the win2k3 codebase for a new OS (not holding my breath there). I am okay with having to compile new software myself for XP compatibility and even reversing newer winapi libraries to work on XP (I have done that already). I have to admit I don't have as good knowledge with drivers, I've only written virtual/software drivers for Windows but I guess I'm gonna have to learn my way around them in OllyDbg... I would much rather do this than use NT6+. Long-term it will actually save me time going this route, believe it or not, and not to mention save my nerves and dignity.

Thus if I am to upgrade my hardware, it better have some XP compatibility. Chipset drivers would be a miracle but I am not really expecting that anymore. What I am expecting from X370 systems is they have third-party chips for LAN and Audio, since most IC manufacturers still make drivers for XP (Realtek, Atheros, VIA - thank you!). (On Skylake we have some manufacturers doing this, and others using Intel based LAN solutions, which on top of being shit, don't have XP drivers so I need to use expansion cards for that, and I already populate almost all my slots). If that is not the case then I will stick with my current systems for as long as I have to, which means pretty much until someone comes up with something faster supporting XP (this could even be a non-x86 CPU that is faster in x86 emulation than the fastest hardware x86 chip, who knows).
 
What are you doing with 15 Windows xp computers? Not trolling, I'm honestly curious.
 
What are you doing with 15 Windows xp computers? Not trolling, I'm honestly curious.

... what do you do with your PC's? It's kind of a strange question on a forum like this :D

Well as I said I have 7 computers (one still on the way, will be stationed in my kitchen to replace having to use a laptop there) that I either use on a regular basis or serve as backup PC's / retro rigs. I have decided to keep those, the rest are either various old and new stuff I'm planning to sell for profit and/or just to get rid of. Then I also have newer rigs for DC tasks, might as well let the new hardware do something useful like help cure diseases (otherwise with the exception of a few times a year I play Far Cry 1 on PC, I don't really use their full potential).

I got a few (like 5?) laptops as well and I'm trying to eliminate the necessity of using those in my house, they are kind of driving me crazy. So I'm adding new desktop PC's into different parts of the house to use, sort of for fun and to have a superior desktop PC experience with a proper monitor and keyboard + better performance. I have however a set limit of not being able to add a desktop next to my bed and a separate HTPC, former due to becoming a lazy couch potato and latter since my main rig is so close to my TV (not that I watch TV anyway).

You're not [H]ard if you don't have at least 5 gaming capable PC's in your house, damn it!
 
One can never have too many computers! Right On!

I use both Intel and AMD cpu's and for most things it is just not significant for the performance differences. Getting back to 3d so having a more core/powerful configuration for rendering will be very useful.

Now XP looks like a dinosaur to me now days but as an OS it can get the job done without all the bloat. Our company still has XP running on various computers, most use Win 7. All my home computers use Win 10 - - had to get away from Win 8 junk.
 
One can never have too many computers! Right On!

I use both Intel and AMD cpu's and for most things it is just not significant for the performance differences. Getting back to 3d so having a more core/powerful configuration for rendering will be very useful.

Now XP looks like a dinosaur to me now days but as an OS it can get the job done without all the bloat. Our company still has XP running on various computers, most use Win 7. All my home computers use Win 10 - - had to get away from Win 8 junk.

I know people who are still using i386 and i486DX systems to browse the modern web. One particular guy on 386 uses Windows 3.1 with the Calmira II explorer addon/mod to make his system be more Win95/NT4-like and I think he said he used Netscape but I'm not entirely sure about that. He is using a DOS based LAN driver to access the internet via an ISA Ethernet card. Anyway he says he can still browse basic HTML sites as well as forums based on vBulletin just fine, albeit a little slower than modern systems. Of course anything with Javascript is gonna fail miserably (no Xenforo [H] for him I guess :D) but you can pretty much render most sites without it. He even claimed a 286 works to some extent. I'm guessing with the original 8086 you'd be "limited" to using a text-based browser like Lynx or elinks.

I've heard of people using 486DX with Win95 browse modern net as well, on some retro hardware forums. I'm guessing they are limited to living without any javascript and probably no <table> HTML elements but at least have the luxury of Internet Explorer :D

Those are of course extreme cases, there are however much more people amongst us who still use Win9x. It's actually suprisingly useful when you couple it with KernelEx, which is a compatibility library, basically extending the Win9x kernel with reversed Windows NT system calls, this allows to run fairly modern programs, like Firefox up until version 13 afair (last officially supported version is 2.0 at least on Win98). If you're interested, you could setup a Windows 98 SE VM and test it for yourself - I have and it works well - a pretty compelling testimony to functionality of desktop PC's, the fact that you can take one from 1990s or even 1980s and still use them to some extent today!

However I am not living on the absolute edge like those people. Even though Windows 95 was my first Windows OS (before that I had been using DOS and Unix for a while) and it was great for the time, I believe these days with NT 5.x (Windows 2000 - Server 2003) I am using the most compatible, functional and stable desktop OS created, certainly for my needs and use scenario. That is to say, unlike the Win9x users I am using something that rather than being a compromise compared to what is considered a "modern OS", is instead more of a superior choice. Just my $0.02.
 
A++, great troll.

+1, all of that makes zero sense to me - and I'm an old school guy whose first PC was an 8086 tandy 1000 with 512k of ram. I was even an os/2 warp holdout on my 486dx2, but even then I couldn't do shit with it once the tide in software had shifted to win95.

To still be using winXP on every PC is insanity. I could see it on one, maybe 2 if you have some ancient hardware that you absolutely need and won't work on anything more modern - like maybe some specific high end sound hardware or SD diagnostic hardware for a 90's Ferrari or something, but on every PC?
 
I got a 5820k and it's going in the trash the second I can buy a Ryzen! I don't even care about price, benchmarks, thermals, actual real-world performance or anything! I just want to jump on the bandwagon for a new, untested product!
 
To still be using winXP on every PC is insanity. I could see it on one, maybe 2 if you have some ancient hardware that you absolutely need and won't work on anything more modern - like maybe some specific high end sound hardware or SD diagnostic hardware for a 90's Ferrari or something, but on every PC?

To each their own. Personally running NT6+ on anything for longer than an hour drives me insane. When I need to access a control panel item for example I have to click through 20 times more than on XP and have to use my brain to figure out which exact link I need to click, since apparently icons are no longer fashionable. It wastes my time I could be using doing something important, maybe you say that one time doesn't make a difference but in a day those times get compounded and it ends up making a difference. XP just works and it works the way a desktop OS is intended to, without the quirks without the bloat.

I don't understand you guys who have gotten used to it, maybe you have forgotten how good an OS was and you accept your NT6+ as optimum... in that case I feel sorry for you, I really do.
 
I got a 5820k and it's going in the trash the second I can buy a Ryzen! I don't even care about price, benchmarks, thermals, actual real-world performance or anything! I just want to jump on the bandwagon for a new, untested product!

Copier = Intel **NSFW, it's office space!**

 
I wont argue about what OS you choose to use, but I hope you have taken the time to read up on the risks of using XP. Its been unsupported for years. There are dozens of known critical exploits that make me hope your computers aren't tied to anything personal or financial.
 
To each their own. Personally running NT6+ on anything for longer than an hour drives me insane. When I need to access a control panel item for example I have to click through 20 times more than on XP and have to use my brain to figure out which exact link I need to click, since apparently icons are no longer fashionable. It wastes my time I could be using doing something important, maybe you say that one time doesn't make a difference but in a day those times get compounded and it ends up making a difference. XP just works and it works the way a desktop OS is intended to, without the quirks without the bloat.

I don't understand you guys who have gotten used to it, maybe you have forgotten how good an OS was and you accept your NT6+ as optimum... in that case I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Ok, from what I just read, you don't know how to use the new O/S'es. Windows 10, right click, enter control panel.
 
I wont argue about what OS you choose to use, but I hope you have taken the time to read up on the risks of using XP. Its been unsupported for years. There are dozens of known critical exploits that make me hope your computers aren't tied to anything personal or financial.

Unsupported by Microsoft doesn't mean it's any more or less risky than using a "supported" operating system. All OS's have 0-day vulnerabilities, however malware manufacturers tend to target newer OS's because it grants them a higher infection rate. Like I stated in my long reply to you and which you seem to have missed, is that I have been working on cyber security for more than a decade now. So I do have knowledge about what malware authors are up to and I can assure the notion that anyone writes malware to target older systems because they are "insecure" is a myth. Nobody writes new malware to target old OS's, there is no point, what is there to gain when most people in the world who run older OS's are either grannies in India or die-hard fans like me who are well aware of the proper security measures to use on the internet? The money to be made is by infecting new operating systems, the people who are assumed to have money to buy a new computer probably have a Paypal account with some cash in it as well etc.

As for the critical exploits, there is so far no known remote exploit that I am aware of. It's been a while since I've browsed a CVE repository but I can assure that's something I would have been briefed on if that were the case. In other words the usual precautions I mentioned of using a firewall and not browsing pr0n sites from Uzbekistan with your Java plugin enabled goes a long way into keeping you safe.

It's really not just about the ease of use of XP, that I don't have to re-learn my habits that I've had for a decade and a half, but rather the overall stability of the system and yes, security. I consider XP more secure not only because if I do get infected I can easily get rid of that without the use of antiviruses but also I can have the ease of mind of knowing that the only bloody thing that goes from my computer to Microsoft's server are the Activation keys and NTP time server requests (both of which I can disable/redirect).

A lot of programs also run best on XP, for example Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0, while I was eventually able to get it running on Windows 8 x64, it was a really big pain in the ass having to disable DEP and modify a dozen registry keys + having to run it through Microsoft Application Compatibility Tool. Another thing I can think off the top of my head that's wrong with Win7 and higher is the damn open file dialog. Like seriously, they don't allow you to change the view mode separately from the rest of the OS? WTF? When I was using Windows 7 on this laptop I had to resort to actually modfying the goddamn .dll to point to the location/offset of the classic/XP Open File dialog in order to be able to play a song in Winamp and even then the bloody thing required me to change the view mode to "List" every single time I opened a new folder! And that's what I mean by saying I would waste less time modifying the XP libraries to support newer function calls than having to reverse the entire Windows 7 system to work properly, and still not being able to make it perfect.

Well like I said I could list 1000 different problems I have with it, most of which are much more critical than the ones I've so far remembered off the top of my head but I guess I wouldn't convince any of you anyway. And that's not what I'm trying to do here. I presented my own personal choice/opinion of OS, I get yelled at and asked to explain myself. I explain myself best I can, I get yelled at again. I guess they refer to this as herd mentality - don't try to understand a point of view from a logical perspective but rather keep yelling the general "accepted" opinion of the herd. (not referring to you AltTabbins)
 
Unsupported by Microsoft doesn't mean it's any more or less risky than using a "supported" operating system. All OS's have 0-day vulnerabilities, however malware manufacturers tend to target newer OS's because it grants them a higher infection rate. Like I stated in my long reply to you and which you seem to have missed, is that I have been working on cyber security for more than a decade now. So I do have knowledge about what malware authors are up to and I can assure the notion that anyone writes malware to target older systems because they are "insecure" is a myth. Nobody writes new malware to target old OS's, there is no point, what is there to gain when most people in the world who run older OS's are either grannies in India or die-hard fans like me who are well aware of the proper security measures to use on the internet? The money to be made is by infecting new operating systems, the people who are assumed to have money to buy a new computer probably have a Paypal account with some cash in it as well etc.

That's total crap on two major points. (no offense)

1. Running an unsupported OS means that any new vulnerabilities will NOT be patched. Running a supported OS does not guarantee it will not have vulnerabilities or flaws, but that those problems will be corrected, hopefully before your system is under attack.

2. Authors of malware DO target unsecure older OS's all the time, because that's what's run on millions of back-end systems still. Thousands of companies still running older versions of Windows desktop on some machine in the back office, or POS equipment, or old servers, etc, etc. It's a super easy way to get into the internal network.

Sure, malware authors are going to be able to charge more for exploits of newer systems, but those exploits will be temporary until they're patched, so they have a very limited shelf-life. Running XP means you're willing to accept the fact that your systems are wide open, and you're banking on some "security through obscurity".

The fact that you consider XP to be more secure flies in the face of any other IT expert I've ever met, and really makes me question your 10 years of cyber experience.
 
Let's go through your rather rude remarks while trying to stay civil/respective.

1. Running an unsupported OS means that any new vulnerabilities will NOT be patched. Running a supported OS does not guarantee it will not have vulnerabilities or flaws, but that those problems will be corrected, hopefully before your system is under attack.

"Hopefully", tell that to the guy who got his bank account emptied - "but there is a patch so it won't happen again! yay!"
So in other words there is no higher risk so long as you yourself keep up with security vulnerabilities and make sure to patch them accordingly (yes, you yourself, not relying on someone else, how crazy eh?) (I don't necessarily mean coding a patch either, most remote exploits can be made ineffective by simply turning off a certain service/part of the OS)

2. Authors of malware DO target unsecure older OS's all the time, because that's what's run on millions of back-end systems still. Thousands of companies still running older versions of Windows desktop on some machine in the back office, or POS equipment, or old servers, etc, etc. It's a super easy way to get into the internal network.

This is another popular myth circulated outside of the cybersec community. And I'm referring to the part where you say malware targets company networks, this was very much true throughout the 1990s and up to mid 2000s, but from my experience today the majority of the big botnets actually have no interest in specifically targeting companies not to mention POS's. They'll happily add those to their victims list too but the intent is not as it was 10 years ago, as malware authors have learned that instead of trying to write complex exploits like LSASS/NetBus and even Conficker that were mainly intended to attack local networks (in companies) and servers they can get significantly better return on their "investment" by focusing on home PC users and more recently android mobiles. It's just those are the environments where there is to be money made from jacking paypal / bank accounts, credit card details and so on. I think the underlying reason for that is the growth of PC's at home, 15 years ago people actually used their work PC's to buy things on ebay, pay their bills etc. but nowadays all that is done at home. So the biggest malware authors have adapted to that change in user behavior, plus the increased security in business networks (you really can't bypass a company firewall) have made it more difficult for them as well.

I am not denying that there surely are still malware coders who do target those types of devices, but those are not as high profile as the botnet authors I am talking about. In fact most POS exploits of example have not even been from malicious types, but rather whitehat security researches presenting them as PoC at conferences for example.

It's just not really true what you're saying. The big players in the malware business simply target the newer OS's, and while there is a small percentage that do intend on infecting legacy software they just don't have enough man hours put into that therefore minimizing the impact on the threat level overall.

Running XP means you're willing to accept the fact that your systems are wide open, and you're banking on some "security through obscurity".

This is where you lose me completely. That part in bold is exactly the type of BS meaningless marketing that Microsoft tries to use to push you into purchasing their new products. "Wide open" on top of being a very silly term, is also inaccurate, as we have established it is no more (or less) exploitable than the newest OS available. If you disagree then provide me CVE numbers of unpatched remote exploit vulnerabilities in Windows XP that cannot be mitigated by the user in some way (turning off a service etc). Counter those with the amount for newer OS types. I want exact CVE ID's.

The fact that you consider XP to be more secure flies in the face of any other IT expert I've ever met, and really makes me question your 10 years of cyber experience.

Indeed let's throw in an ad hominem attack against my credibility because you don't agree with what I'm saying.
I'm not an "IT expert" - that are underpaid clowns asked to come on TV shows and speak the bs points they were told they'd be paid by Microsoft to talk about. I actually have proper credentials.

I don't think I have an interest in having a further discussion with you if you can't act in a respectable manner, as I have towards you.
 
Back
Top