Windows XP Still The Dominant OS

We will be on older systems for a long time at the lab here since many of our computers are tied to $100k plus pieces of equipment and the equipment manufacturers do not upgrade their software. Several are connected with ISA interface cards so those are still on NT4. Our problem we are facing now is that if one old computer dies we may have to spend $100k to just in a sense replace the PC because the equipment attached to it would need to be replaced also. That is the problem with constantly changing interfaces. For home and office use an interface change (serial, parallel, usb, firewire, ethernet) ever few years is no big deal, but when you have expensive equipment which has a 20+ year useful life it becomes a big problem.

I remember when I first started working in the lab in 1991 our biggest challenge was moving from equipment being controlled by minicomputers to being controlled by PCs. I don't think I will ever miss flipping 20 dip switches just to configure a 1MB memory card :) or making serial cables by hand and running them through the space above the ceiling.
 
devil22 said:
A lot of you XP users are forgetting, XP has piss poor security.
Click to expand...

But I don't use XP for the internet so security is not needed. Out of my 5 computers only 2 are allowed internet access. That is 2 computers I have to spend hours getting security updates for instead of five. I like it that way and there is a lot more one can do on a computer that does not require internet access.
 
Ashbringer said:
Your security is only as good as you want it to be. XP or Windows 7 has little impact on that. Both machines get infected. I haven't experienced the frequency to be less in Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we should take MS' Security Intelligence Report data over your anecdote, they after all gather data on hundreds of millions of machines.. While you can influence your security to a degree through preventative measures, in many cases it will come down to core OS security technology. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista to see a lot of what was added after XP (but certainly not all.)
 
Yobbles said:
But I don't use XP for the internet so security is not needed. Out of my 5 computers only 2 are allowed internet access. That is 2 computers I have to spend hours getting security updates for instead of five. I like it that way and there is a lot more one can do on a computer that does not require internet access.
Click to expand...

Well I did specifically state an exclusion (to running XP is a terrible idea) for non-networked computers, don't know if you missed that part or.. but then thumb drive infections can also spread easier to XP as well.
 
devil22 said:
Well, I think we should take MS' Security Intelligence Report data over your anecdote, they after all gather data on hundreds of millions of machines.. While you can influence your security to a degree through preventative measures, in many cases it will come down to core OS security technology. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista to see a lot of what was added after XP (but certainly not all.)
Click to expand...

Nagging us with UAC is a fool's security.
 
devil22 said:
Well I did specifically state an exclusion (to running XP is a terrible idea) for non-networked computers, don't know if you missed that part or.. but then thumb drive infections can also spread easier to XP as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did miss that part until after I posted. If I am moving a file over from a networked PC I scan the files with AV software first. It's not foolproof but is fairly ironclad.
 
Yobbles said:
Nagging us with UAC is a fool's security.
Click to expand...

Seriously? First, there is a ton more than UAC. And what would you prefer, nagging with a password request? I suggest you learn about ASLR, Protected Mode sandboxing, ACL'ed services, and so on before concluding the Windows 7 security is equivalent to just "nagging you with UAC."
 
In 2003 I gave away my Win98 machines because USB and DSL made them worthless. At this time I don't see anything that makes my 4 XP machines obsolete. I'm using one right now to post on [H].

I'm with Yobbles, my money-making computers(1 Vista, 1 Win7) never connect to the internet. The XP internet terminals are locked down pretty good and if they do get infected, nothing is lost except cleanup time.

Old age will probably take these XP machines before anything else.:D
 
devil22 said:
Seriously? First, there is a ton more than UAC. And what would you prefer, nagging with a password request? I suggest you learn about ASLR, Protected Mode sandboxing, ACL'ed services, and so on before concluding the Windows 7 security is equivalent to just "nagging you with UAC."
Click to expand...

Because XP nags you with password requests?
No?
 
devil22 said:
Seriously? First, there is a ton more than UAC. And what would you prefer, nagging with a password request? I suggest you learn about ASLR, Protected Mode sandboxing, ACL'ed services, and so on before concluding the Windows 7 security is equivalent to just "nagging you with UAC."
Click to expand...

I can get all that on XP even with 3rd party software. Nothing new about sandboxing, even my Avast AV has that and that runs on XP. Chrome does sandboxing and that has shit to do with the OS. Some say all those services in Vista/Win7 actually make for a higher security risk, and some of them do. UAC was a dumb fucking idea, go look at Linux to see it done right.
 
Yobbles said:
I can get all that on XP even with 3rd party software. Nothing new about sandboxing, even my Avast AV has that and that runs on XP. Chrome does sandboxing and that has shit to do with the OS. Some say all those services in Vista/Win7 actually make for a higher security risk, and some of them do. UAC was a dumb fucking idea, go look at Linux to see it done right.
Click to expand...

You are not going to get some things in XP, period. Some are provided through complicated 3rd party software that depends on the end user to install and configure, only suitable for techies. Average users are better served by newer versions of Windows, and even as a techie, I wouldn't want to install and depend upon 3rd party software to provide security, in many cases this is extra costs and less reliable. Win 7 and Vista's services are more secure because they only have access to what they need, and they run in a different session from the user session as well. There's nothing wrong with UAC, it prompts for an OK when you need admin, this is less troublesome than asking for a password and thus less likely to be turned off by end users, and linux can have the password intercepted or spoofed, you can't spoof a UAC prompt.
 
PimpUigi said:
Because XP nags you with password requests?
No?
Click to expand...

When configured to run as Windows 7 and Vista do, it does. That is, when you seperate user and admin mode programs. You can of course run Vista and 7 in a similar state as XP and just disable UAC, not as secure as I would run, but you still have a ton of other security features XP doesn't have. Not to mention XP was made before MS adopted the SDL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995349.aspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top