windows xp is the best OS for windows family

Topic

New Reply

windows xp is the best OS for windows family,in my opinion,
what do you think?

Reply | Quote

Replies

Me too for many reasons, but, I would also like to borrow a feature from W7, jumplists.

Reply | Quote

Unless you have older hardware that doesn’t support it, Windows 7 or Windows 8 with a few tweaks would be a better option as Microsoft will be ending support for Windows XP shortly. Both Windows 7 and Windows 8 are more secure OSes.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Ya, we all have different measures of assessment, more locks on more doors has been nothing but a hindrance for me, never once have I thanked an OS for saving me from something because it was more secure because it hasn’t happened. The percentage of denied permissions and forgotten passwords and denied access rights is going up I think, good in the sense you mean, hands in the air, curses to the sky in the sense I mean it.

Reply | Quote

I run XP on another drive and didn’t like Windows 7 but then once I got used to it I now hate having to boot into XP..

At first I missed it but now I only use it for some hardware that isn’t compatible with 7..

Reply | Quote

I’m still trying to figure out what “windows family” means. ???

I started out with DOS 2.0, circa 1980, where I had 100% control over everything that went on with my PC.

Today we’ve lost so much control like we didn’t even own the dang PC. I get absolutely Furious, when my OS tells me I don’t have permission to do something. I WILL do it, one way or another.

I get along pretty well, with Windows XP-Pro-SP3, tweaked and tuned to my specifications.
But Windows 7 and 8 are just too limiting in what I can do. All that ‘Permission’ crap has no place in a HOME computer.
In an office or Corp. environment, maybe, but not at home. That’s pure BS!

I’ve experimented with loading Windows 8 on different PC’s and in my last experiment I put it on an 8 year old eMachine with the AMD 64 bit CPU and 512 megs of ram. It actually runs pretty well, all things considered.
Most amazing was that the great driver package that comes with Win-8 had all the hardware on that old PC working, right out of the box. I didn’t have to install any drivers at all.

If Win-8 has any real selling point, that would be its ability to run on a wide variety of hardware.

Personally, I prefer to use Win-XP for my daily OS.

The Doctor

Reply | Quote

I’m still trying to figure out what “windows family” means. ???

I started out with DOS 2.0, circa 1980, where I had 100% control over everything that went on with my PC.

Today we’ve lost so much control like we didn’t even own the dang PC. I get absolutely Furious, when my OS tells me I don’t have permission to do something. I WILL do it, one way or another.

I get along pretty well, with Windows XP-Pro-SP3, tweaked and tuned to my specifications.
But Windows 7 and 8 are just too limiting in what I can do. All that ‘Permission’ crap has no place in a HOME computer.
In an office or Corp. environment, maybe, but not at home. That’s pure BS!

I’ve experimented with loading Windows 8 on different PC’s and in my last experiment I put it on an 8 year old eMachine with the AMD 64 bit CPU and 512 megs of ram. It actually runs pretty well, all things considered.
Most amazing was that the great driver package that comes with Win-8 had all the hardware on that old PC working, right out of the box. I didn’t have to install any drivers at all.

If Win-8 has any real selling point, that would be its ability to run on a wide variety of hardware.

Personally, I prefer to use Win-XP for my daily OS.

The Doctor

Besides all the loss of efficiency and intuitive use that comes with W8 without a start menu, I almost get a claustrophobic feeling using it and I think that’s because the loss of control has just reached that unmanageable point for me. I wouldn’t do well in a prison!
Almost weekly I curse out a Win7 system for suddenly not allowing access from an XP system and I threaten it with replacement (and sometimes I do!).

And, the one trick to making XP as stable as Win7 is knowing that when a program crashes, XP tries to debug with DrWatson, which of course crashes and hangs the computer with no recourse but to restart unless, one quickly goes into the Task Manager and kills all the DrWatson processes, then it’s onward without pause. Maybe there’s a way to disable this useless utility?

Anyone use this MS FixIt or registry modification with positive effects and no adverse effects?

Reply | Quote

I’m still trying to figure out what “windows family” means. ???

I started out with DOS 2.0, circa 1980, where I had 100% control over everything that went on with my PC.

Today we’ve lost so much control like we didn’t even own the dang PC. I get absolutely Furious, when my OS tells me I don’t have permission to do something. I WILL do it, one way or another.

I get along pretty well, with Windows XP-Pro-SP3, tweaked and tuned to my specifications.
But Windows 7 and 8 are just too limiting in what I can do. All that ‘Permission’ crap has no place in a HOME computer.
In an office or Corp. environment, maybe, but not at home. That’s pure BS!

I’ve experimented with loading Windows 8 on different PC’s and in my last experiment I put it on an 8 year old eMachine with the AMD 64 bit CPU and 512 megs of ram. It actually runs pretty well, all things considered.
Most amazing was that the great driver package that comes with Win-8 had all the hardware on that old PC working, right out of the box. I didn’t have to install any drivers at all.

If Win-8 has any real selling point, that would be its ability to run on a wide variety of hardware.

Personally, I prefer to use Win-XP for my daily OS.

The Doctor

Hmm, why not just turn UAC off and stop all those annoying Permission messages?

Reply | Quote

You can think of Windows Family like a bunch of relatives that get drunk together on the holidays and fight with each other all day and then forget they fought the next day when they are sober…

Yes, I remember those DOS days when your system crashed you just turned it on again and it worked fine.

I fired up an old computer I have that has ME on it the other day…
And I once thought it was great!

Reply | Quote

I just love, to delete useless programs off of any PC on first call.
DrWatson is one of those.
Next step is to Disable a dozen or more useless System Services.

One of the most useful things I’ve found to use on my own PC and the PC’s of my customers,
is a script to force a new Restore Point on every boot-up.

The next best thing, is to do a Ghost backup of a C drive, after the computer has been cleaned
up, tuned up and running at Max efficiency.

Then if something goes wrong, like a MS Update that corrupted the OS, and a System Restore
can’t fix the problem (often times it can, but sometimes it can’t ) then the Ghost backup puts everything back the way
it should be.

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor

Reply | Quote

Windows 8 is my favorite, AS LONG AS I HAVE A START BUTTON / START MENU (such as StartIsBack).

If that were not available, then Windows 8 would be my least favorite, without any doubt.

As far as DOS, I liked the ease of installing / uninstalling programs — to install, you copy it to the hard drive (or run it directly from the floppy disk). To uninstall, you delete it from the hard drive.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

To say “windows XP is the best for windows family” is IMO not really explaining why you think so. Have you tried Win 7 or Win 8? What kind of PCs do you have? What are the specs?

As DrWho states, Win 8 seems to have a far better rate of working with old hardware than Win 7 did.

As far as security, IMO, the average PC user is NOT the people who post a lot here, and seem to answer questions here. The average PC user spends little to no time thinking about or performing PC maintenance, or running security scans. These people are the ones who post periodically “My PC is running very slowly, help”. For these people, installing a more secure OS with a built in default AV app is better than what they have because they do not know how to do it themselves.

Since many of these average users have older hardware, perhaps Win 8 (with some customizations – Start Menu add-on) is the most appropriate OS as it DOES allow them less ways to mess up their systems, usually unintentionally, and does help to keep the nefarious “stuff” at bay.

Now if we could have a mechanism to slap their fingers when they start clicking on every pop up or “special” offer that comes along, we might not be so busy here in the Lounge.

Reply | Quote

To say “windows XP is the best for windows family” is IMO not really explaining why you think so. Have you tried Win 7 or Win 8? What kind of PCs do you have? What are the specs?

As DrWho states, Win 8 seems to have a far better rate of working with old hardware than Win 7 did.

As far as security, IMO, the average PC user is NOT the people who post a lot here, and seem to answer questions here. The average PC user spends little to no time thinking about or performing PC maintenance, or running security scans. These people are the ones who post periodically “My PC is running very slowly, help”. For these people, installing a more secure OS with a built in default AV app is better than what they have because they do not know how to do it themselves.

Since many of these average users have older hardware, perhaps Win 8 (with some customizations – Start Menu add-on) is the most appropriate OS as it DOES allow them less ways to mess up their systems, usually unintentionally, and does help to keep the nefarious “stuff” at bay.

Now if we could have a mechanism to slap their fingers when they start clicking on every pop up or “special” offer that comes along, we might not be so busy here in the Lounge.

Ted,

The only thing I would add to what you said is that the average user doesn’t understand the implications of being “in the cloud” (i.e. his personal data gets pushed out automatically to the cloud without his being aware of it) by default in Windows 8, so if you don’t want that, you need to set things up with a local account. But since the user is pushed in the direction of a Microsoft account, and since most users don’t really understand these things, the end result is that some of the user’s personal data will leak out without his even knowing about it or being told about it.

I believe that Microsoft should be required to display a disclaimer screen in plain English, explaining this to the user. And not part of the EULA, because no one ever reads the pages and pages of legalese that make up the EULA.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Ted,

The only thing I would add to what you said is that the average user doesn’t understand the implications of being “in the cloud” (i.e. his personal data gets pushed out automatically to the cloud without his being aware of it) by default in Windows 8, so if you don’t want that, you need to set things up with a local account. But since the user is pushed in the direction of a Microsoft account, and since most users don’t really understand these things, the end result is that some of the user’s personal data will leak out without his even knowing about it or being told about it.

I believe that Microsoft should be required to display a disclaimer screen in plain English, explaining this to the user. And not part of the EULA, because no one ever reads the pages and pages of legalese that make up the EULA.

I think your language is a bit careless. Maybe you should state clearly what personal data “leaks out”. Unless you can clearly back that, I am sorry to say it, but this is just spreading FUD and brings nothing tangible to the discussion.

Reply | Quote

I think your language is a bit careless. Maybe you should state clearly what personal data “leaks out”. Unless you can clearly back that, I am sorry to say it, but this is just spreading FUD and brings nothing tangible to the discussion.

My experience with the “cloud” is that my wife needed to join a Dropbox network — it was a group of people studying to get their professional licenses in her field. I installed Dropbox on her computer, but was concerned that it required her to have administrator rights to do the install. I proceeded with the install.

Later, I discovered that all of the pictures on her computer were being pushed into the Dropbox network. These pictures had absolutely nothing to do with her study for her license. I went into her Dropbox settings and changed the folders that were synchronized to be only those appropriate for her study group.

I consider these pictures to be personal information. And I wasn’t asked to specify which folders would be synchronized; Dropbox simply assumed that I would want to include all of the pictures on her computer. And the fact that it required her to have administrative rights in order to do the install raised a big red flag with me — suppose there was an unethical member in her Dropbox group — that person could easily access whatever he wanted on her computer, or take over her computer for nefarious purposes.

I then began to notice other things — it seems that iPhones by default try to connect to any wifi hotspot that they can find. And more and more people are living more and more of their lives on their iPhone (financial stuff, picture – with GPS coordinates imbedded, etc).

Then I saw that Windows 8 tries to get everyone to have a Microsoft account, which includes SkyDrive. From microsoft.com:

“Use SkyDrive to stash your files on your hard drive and in the cloud, and get to them no matter where you are. Your stuff is available on multiple PCs, your phone, and even non-Windows devices with the free SkyDrive app installed on them.”

This means that most people’s “stuff” is spread all over the place, and most of these people have no idea that once their “stuff” is spread around, it will be there forever.

So in conclusion, I don’t think I’m being careless with my language. The average person has no clue how much of their personal “stuff” is out there, just waiting for unethical people to harvest it for unethical purposes.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

My experience with the “cloud” is that my wife needed to join a Dropbox network — it was a group of people studying to get their professional licenses in her field. I installed Dropbox on her computer, but was concerned that it required her to have administrator rights to do the install. I proceeded with the install.

Later, I discovered that all of the pictures on her computer were being pushed into the Dropbox network. These pictures had absolutely nothing to do with her study for her license. I went into her Dropbox settings and changed the folders that were synchronized to be only those appropriate for her study group.

I consider these pictures to be personal information. And I wasn’t asked to specify which folders would be synchronized; Dropbox simply assumed that I would want to include all of the pictures on her computer. And the fact that it required her to have administrative rights in order to do the install raised a big red flag with me — suppose there was an unethical member in her Dropbox group — that person could easily access whatever he wanted on her computer, or take over her computer for nefarious purposes.

I then began to notice other things — it seems that iPhones by default try to connect to any wifi hotspot that they can find. And more and more people are living more and more of their lives on their iPhone (financial stuff, picture – with GPS coordinates imbedded, etc).

Then I saw that Windows 8 tries to get everyone to have a Microsoft account, which includes SkyDrive. From microsoft.com:

“Use SkyDrive to stash your files on your hard drive and in the cloud, and get to them no matter where you are. Your stuff is available on multiple PCs, your phone, and even non-Windows devices with the free SkyDrive app installed on them.”

This means that most people’s “stuff” is spread all over the place, and most of these people have no idea that once their “stuff” is spread around, it will be there forever.

So in conclusion, I don’t think I’m being careless with my language. The average person has no clue how much of their personal “stuff” is out there, just waiting for unethical people to harvest it for unethical purposes.

Use of SkyDrive and login to Windows using a Microsoft account are two different things. Using a Microsoft account does not cause any info to leak anywhere. With a Microsoft account, some of your Windows settings may be shared between computers where you login with your Microsoft account, but that’s it, nothing else. Where are the personal data leaks?

Using a Microsoft account does allow you easier access to Microsoft services, but to use them in your computer, you need to choose those services explicitly. Skydrive is a case in point. You only upload stuff to SkyDrive if you want to and you need to choose SkyDrive explicitly. You don’t even have to use SkyDrive when using Windows 8. If you do, everything you put in SkyDrive is not shared with anyone else, unless you share it explicitly. The SkyDrive terms of service should be known, though, since contents that violate the terms of service can get you banned, which means that contents will be scanned for violations.

I will repeat it to be absolutely clear – using a Microsoft account to login to Windows 8 does not cause any info to leak to anywhere. If you decide to use services that your Microsoft account allows you to access, which you must do explicitly, you need to be aware of what that means, but using those services does not happen automatically. You need to explicitly save contents to SkyDrive, but you can save contents to SkyDrive in any of the Microsoft OSes, even those where you have no Microsoft account login! The settings that are shared between your Windows logins, in systems running Windows 8, are not shared with anyone else!

I haven’t read about a single case where info from SkyDrive was harvested by unethical people, not a single case. Your insistence, reflected by your last paragraph, seems to be a case of being incorrectly informed about how SkyDrive works, maybe because of your wife’s issue with DropBox. DropBox is not SkyDrive, it’s not even owned by Microsoft, so mixing the two different issues is really uncalled for and inappropriate, from a technical point of view, in my opinion.

I get that you don’t trust cloud services. That’s your prerogative. However, your statements here, regarding the Microsoft account, are flat wrong, pardon my bluntness. You can always raise the fear that Microsoft will have access to the info about what you do with their services, if you choose to use them, but that is not tied to the Microsoft account login. Use a service without the Windows 8 login and the risk is the same, regardless of the provider, regardless of the OS you use!

This is a technical forum. Statements made here should be technically correct, as much as possible. Your dislike and sense of risks of cloud services use are perfectly legitimate, but they do not allow you to state what you have no grounds to state – you can do it, but the credibility of those statements will be at stake. Some of your statements about cloud services are quite surprising and wrong – (the jump from SkyDrive contents being “spread around”, which I understand by meaning they can be kept in different servers, to suggest that users info will be spread around forever is amazing – I would understand this if stated by someone else, from you I confess I am quite surprised).

Again, if you do have grounds to state what you have stated, please correct me, I will be perfectly ok with that.

Reply | Quote

Thanks Rui, it’s what I believe as well. WRT Dropbox, my understanding is that it’s the same as Skydrive (and Googledrive). A folder is put on your computer and whatever you put in that folder is synced to the cloud. So Jim’s wife’s pictures must have been put into that folder – it wouldn’t have arbitrarily done it. Indeed, I started a thread a while ago (http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread//149327-Files-in-the-Cloud) about only syncing files that you want by using mklink, so no files are duplicated and not all files are in the skydrive folder. But perhaps something’s changed, so Jim may well have more up to date information.

Oh and didn’t XP get excoriated by many when it came out? Something about a start button if I remember correctly. Or was it 98?

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

I think the original OP was just establishing a linkback or something but it sparked a more interesting “veteran” discussion, leaving out the technically challenged and security challenged, though it seems to me in this forum at least, there is a very strong assertion of permissions and security impediments that are causing at least as many headaches as those who may be infected. Grant Full Admin rights recommendations and actions are more plentiful than ever.

PC grades are whatever can run all three OSes without showing any performance favors due to hardware.

My logic is simple, let me do what I want to do as effectively as possible and with the absolute least amount of interference or impediment. XP, hands down, wins that battle. Win7 lost (though I use it every day with XP; it’s not that bad!) because it tries to be too helpful, to do some of the thinking for me, where absolutely none was required and in fact becomes a bit of an impediment; in other words, it got in the way. Mostly to do with the characteristics and behavior of explorer, but explorer is ubiquitous and the heart of modern Windows is it not? Slap more restrictive permissions and security on top of that and I do not have a more user-friendly OS than XP (unless the things Win 7 is trying to anticipate for me coincide with my goals, which they do sometimes, just not enough to get the winning mark). More secure? OK, but that means nothing to me as an advanced user.

Now that’s not to say W7 isn’t a perfectly fine OS, just that it doesn’t quite have that perfect balance that I’m looking for. Even more so for 8 because its such a fixer-upper at this point in time; the “fixed” up Win 7 ++ part of Win 8 is fine but it has many of the same too-friendly impediments with even more security, and, I think I would probably be fine eventually with the ribbon-style explorer window interface, but of all things, that is the one I do not have enough experience with to answer without qualification. Worst of all was Vista by faaaaaaarrrrrrr because not only did it get in the way, it was actually broken until SP2 came out. There might be a hold out or two for W2K but I never used that OS so dunno!

Marry XP’s explorer with the more modern W7 interface and I would quickly change my allegiance. Unfortunately for me, we’re stuck with the heritage of a fixed up Vista explorer it seems, with Libraries coming into the mix, which are fine on a system by system, single user basis but fall apart in a multi-system dynamic, even more so in a mixed OS environment and in context to local library saving and access permissions. GRRRR!!!!! I need a parallel universe where Vista never existed!!! I have maybe 25-30 terabytes of data to manage over many systems and NAS devices so I want that as streamlined as possible. If I only had to worry about getting a “bug” from the Internet, couldn’t care less, fill’er up with premium security please! It’s not the OS’es that get directly attacked anymore anyway, it’s Java, AdobeReader, drive by site infections, etc. Security on that front battleline, fine, just don’t turn my whole bleeping system into a police state!!

Reply | Quote

F.U.N. I do indeed understand your frustration. I have experienced it myself, albeit to a far less extent. Unfortunately MS has to design Windows for the masses of very novice users. Perhaps this is why most of these masses have Starter editions or home editions where as the more advanced users such as yourself have opted for the Pro or Ultimate or whatever editions. These more advanced editions allow for far greater control (GPEditor for example).

Even in a business environment, most of the actual users rely on an IT Dept. to handle all the complexities so all they have to do is push the ON button and start using whatever apps they commonly use.

I guess, because of the diversity of the mass of users, MS has to design the OS to be this way, and has to rely on the end users to customize things to work for them. And yes, they are attempting to enter the Touch and Tablet market to a far greater extent. For all it’s reported shortcomings, Win 8 seems to be a very admirable attempt at this, IMO. We have hashed through all the pros and cons of Win 8, and I suspect we will continue to do so for a long time to come, but it is what it is.

Hopefully, as time goes on, Win 8 will evolve and more add-ons will be developed to allow both novice users and advanced users to equally enjoy what I do consider a more stable and secure OS.

Reply | Quote

I’ve used every desktop OS (& most server OSes) that Microsoft has ever produced plus others on mainframe platforms. I spend all day every day on a PC writing code for various platforms, testing new & changed internal products, testing new & changed Microsoft & other third party products. Software is being installed, updated, & unistalled on my main work PC daily. Then there is additional PC time at home on non-work activities. I fully admit that I’m not the typical user. I also fully admit that I may have a working style where I’ve developed work arounds or a tolerance for things that others find unworkable. That said this is talk about XP being the best OS for anyone is nuts. As is the “let me do anything I want whenever I want to do it”. On a daily basis I can do everything I need to do on XP, Win7, or Win8. I find XPs look and feel archaic. Software crashes, incompatibilties, unavailable drivers, work arounds, & OS limitations are a way of life with XP that I do not experience with 7 or 8. The increased default security configuration and settings that were introduced with Vista do not pose an obstacle to getting work done.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Well said Joe. The only time XP makes sense is on older hardware that won’t support an upgrade to Windows 7 cost effectively.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Technology changes, in every area. XP is simply outdated, technology wise. XP, especially pre SP2, was very bad from a security point of view. Yes, everyone had the freedom to do what they wanted, which is why it was so bad, security wise. Vista, then 7 improved very much on that. 8 tops it.

I second your opinion, Joe. I develop using 7 and 8, install loads of apps and I don’t really feel I am being restrained by either OS. I would definitely never go back to XP, for any reason. 8 does a great job using older hardware, so if you do have some RAM, it may be an option even in that case.

Reply | Quote

As far as Dropbox grabbing my wife’s pictures, I was never asked at any point what I wanted to share with the dropbox network; I simply took all the defaults.

Then one day, I connected my wife’s iPhone to the computer using a USB cable, so that I could manually copy her pictures to her hard drive. I was very surprised when I discovered Dropbox grabbing and pushing out all of the pictures to the Dropbox drive! I hurried over to the settings for Dropbox and removed her pictures folder from what was synchronized, and I deleted the pics from the Dropbox drive.

There’s no telling how many of her pics got pushed out to the Dropbox network, and how long they were there.

As far as the statement from Microsoft:

“Use SkyDrive to stash your files on your hard drive and in the cloud, and get to them no matter where you are. Your stuff is available on multiple PCs, your phone, and even non-Windows devices with the free SkyDrive app installed on them.”

I found it on their web site. It appears to me that your “stuff”, which they call “your files”, gets copied around to everywhere that you log onto Windows 8 using your Microsoft account.

I’m just going by their words, not my experience.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

As far as Dropbox grabbing my wife’s pictures, I was never asked at any point what I wanted to share with the dropbox network; I simply took all the defaults.

Then one day, I connected my wife’s iPhone to the computer using a USB cable, so that I could manually copy her pictures to her hard drive. I was very surprised when I discovered Dropbox grabbing and pushing out all of the pictures to the Dropbox drive! I hurried over to the settings for Dropbox and removed her pictures folder from what was synchronized, and I deleted the pics from the Dropbox drive.

There’s no telling how many of her pics got pushed out to the Dropbox network, and how long they were there.

As far as the statement from Microsoft:

“Use SkyDrive to stash your files on your hard drive and in the cloud, and get to them no matter where you are. Your stuff is available on multiple PCs, your phone, and even non-Windows devices with the free SkyDrive app installed on them.”

I found it on their web site. It appears to me that your “stuff”, which they call “your files”, gets copied around to everywhere that you log onto Windows 8 using your Microsoft account.

I’m just going by their words, not my experience.

I am sorry about DropBox, but I don’t use it, never have. I don’t think Microsoft can be blamed for what they did.

Regarding Microsoft, let me make it clear you are talking about SkyDrive, not Windows 8 and definitely not the Microsoft account login. In any PC, regardless of the OS it runs, you need to install the SkyDrive client. Then, to share files, you need to explicitly share them, it doesn’t happen automatically. SkyDrive is available at least on 7 and 8 (likely XP as well, but I am not sure).

With Windows 8, there is a Metro and that app allows you access to the files in the cloud, but does not download them to the computer. You can install (again, by doing it voluntarily) a desktop app, which will behave as in other OSes – namely Windows 7 – it will create local copies of some files. Any files you share, need to be explicitly shared.

Let me make this clear – you don’t get shared files into any computer where you login with a Microsoft account (or a local account, for that matter). You need to install the SkyDrive desktop app for that! Anyone that uses the SkyDrive app should know that the app’s purpose is to access shared files on your file system!!! That’s the sole purpose. You don’t want that, don’t install the app, which you can do. This will happen regardless of the OS and the type of login account you use.

I don’t use the SkyDrive app in any of my systems. I don’t like it. It’s a bad app, when compared with the app it replaced, in my view.

SkyDrive allows what Microsoft says, if you install the client and if you explicitly share files. Both require voluntary user actions.

So now, I am sorry, I need to ask you again – what info is leaked from Windows 8 and especially, what info is leaked by using a Microsoft account?

Reply | Quote

First, you are talking about SkyDrive, not Windows 8 and definitely not the Microsoft account login. In any PC, regardless of the OS to be run, you need to install the SkyDrive client. Then, to share files, you need to explicitly share them, it doesn’t happen automatically. With Windows 8, there is a Metro and that app allows you access to the files in the cloud, but does not download them to the computer. You can install (again, by doing it voluntarily) a desktop app, which will behave as in other OSes – 7 and XP – it will create local copies of some files. Any files you share, need to be explicitly shared.

Let me make this clear – you don’t get shared files into any computer where you login with a Microsoft account (or a local account, for that matter). You need to install the SkyDrive desktop app for that! Anyone that uses the SkyDrive app should know that the app’s purpose is to access shared files on your file system!!! That’s the sole purpose. You don’t want that, don’t install the app, which you can do.

I don’t use the SkyDrive app in any of my systems. I don’t like it. It’s a bad app, when compared with the app it replaced, in my view.

SkyDrive allows what Microsoft says, if you install the client and if you explicitly share files. Both require voluntary user actions.

So now, I am sorry, I need to ask you again – what info is leaked from Windows 8 and especially, what info is leaked by using a Microsoft account?

Speaking of Windows 8, not Dropbox:

My impression from reading the notice on Microsoft’s website was that the user is pushed in the direction of the cloud and Skydrive. If this is not the case, I stand corrected.

My feeling also is that if they do go with the cloud and Skydrive, their data won’t be just in their Skydrive, but also there will likely be a local copy on the computer they are using. I base that on my years of working in all versions of Windows starting with Windows 3.1 and my observation that local copies of data are usually generated.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Speaking of Windows 8, not Dropbox:

My impression from reading the notice on Microsoft’s website was that the user is pushed in the direction of the cloud and Skydrive. If this is not the case, I stand corrected.

My feeling also is that if they do go with the cloud and Skydrive, their data won’t be just in their Skydrive, but also there will likely be a local copy on the computer they are using. I base that on my years of working in all versions of Windows starting with Windows 3.1 and my observation that local copies of data are usually generated.

Jim,

I don’t know what you exactly mean by “the user is pushed in the direction of the cloud and SkyDrive”. If by that you mean that Windows 8 it makes it easier to use cloud services, if you want to use them, you are right, although I don’t see how that can be described as “pushing”. Cloud services of different nature are offered by many companies. Cloud storage is offered too by all the major players in personal computing under its various forms – Apple, Google and Microsoft. It wouldn’t make sense for Microsoft not to offer easiers ways to use this type of services in its most recent operating system.

The fact that Windows 8 makes it easier, is a far cry from stating that it mandates that you to use it – I repeat, I don’t use the SkyDrive clients and I do use a Microsoft account on my Windows 8 laptop as I use it on my phones. Even yesterday, with a new Windows Phone, I saw how that can be not good, but great – in a couple minutes I had all my contacts with pictures and all in my phone. Those contacts are also available on my Windows 8 laptop, making it seamless to email, skype, text or phone any of them, from wherever I am working. These contacts, as my SkyDrive files – those I keep on Microsoft’s server – are not leaked anywhere, although I do hope they are kept in a server and they have some backups – I would be worried if that was not the case.

As to the local copies of data, please tell me, considering the SkyDrive client is installed to have local access to their files (which otherwise could be accessed from their browsers), what would users feel if the client didn’t create a copy of the files?! What would be the purpose of the client, if it didn’t offer what it is supposed to do? You can access and use SkyDrive without a client – just use the browser or use Office. Most my files on SkyDrive are Office files and I don’t need the client to access them, Office is enough.

All you can do with SkyDrive on 8, you can do on Windows 7 (other than use the Metro SkyDrive app, of course). So, how come SkyDrive is a Windows 8 liability?

I started to reply to you, due to your claim that Windows 8 “leaked” user info without their knowledge, due to the use of a Microsoft account. I hope that I have made it clear enough that your claim was incorrect. You have moved the issue from Windows 8 / Microsoft account, to SkyDrive. I hope I have explained clearly enough that SkyDrive is not different in Windows 8 than it is in Windows 7. I hope I have made it clear that no files are shared without explicit user actions on Windows 8 or 7 to share them. They can’t be shared if the user does not want them shared and takes explicit actions for that (it can be different on a phone, as files can be uploaded to SkyDrive by default, even if they are kept private in that case). I hope I have made it clear that the use of a Microsoft account does not entail any of the risks that you explicitly claimed it to have.

There are no under the cover leaks of personal data on Windows 8 that I am aware of. Windows 8 makes it easier to use cloud services and I am glad that it does. Users who do not want to use them, don’t need to use them. Users who do, can do it with ease.
All technological developments have advantages and disadvantages. For some users, the balance is such that advantages beat the disadvantages. In what concerns my usage of PCs and smartphones, I will always use a Microsoft account, if the computer or device is for my exclusive use. The small risks, nothing like you stated, are outweighed by the benefits I perceive. Some people will disagree, which is natural and understandable, but if and when they do, they should do it based on a solid understanding of the technology in play and not some baseless, generic assertions about the cloud.

Reply | Quote

Jim,

I don’t know what you exactly mean by “the user is pushed in the direction of the cloud and SkyDrive”. If by that you mean that Windows 8 it makes it easier to use cloud services, if you want to use them, you are right, although I don’t see how that can be described as “pushing”.

Rui:

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I believe I have been confusing the cloud with the microsoft account. When I recently installed Windows 8, I was pushed in the direction of a Microsoft account vs a local account. I chose a local account. However, from time to time I am asked if I want to convert to a Microsoft account. I always say no, but I could see myself in a moment of distraction saying yes.

But you’re right, that is not the same as the cloud.

Perhaps I’m wrong about this (and I KNOW you’ll be good enough to let me know if I am!), but with a Microsoft account, it seems that at least some personal info (i.e. settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts) are pushed out from my computer to Microsoft’s server, and then to whichever other computer I log onto. I know that this isn’t much, but it is something.

As to the local copies of data, please tell me, considering the SkyDrive client is installed to have local access to their files (which otherwise could be accessed from their browsers), what would users feel if the client didn’t create a copy of the files?! What would be the purpose of the client, if it didn’t offer what it is supposed to do?

I have always thought of a network drive as simply a place where my files are stored, and where I can access them if I need to. I have never thought that that network drive would make a local copy of the files to be stored on every computer I work at.

The way you describe SkyDrive is different than that. It actually puts a local copy of your files wherever you work.

Suppose I go to an internet cafe and log onto Windows 8 at the cafe using my Microsoft account and SkyDrive. Based on what you have said, not only will a minimal amount of my stuff (settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts) be copied locally to that computer, but also everything in my SkyDrive (if I am using SkyDrive). Someone could then come along behind me and copy all of my personal files, because there’s no guarantee that that copy of my personal files is not left behind when I finish working at that computer.

I don’t think the average user realizes that that is what is going on, because if he did, he might have second thoughts about using a Microsoft account and/or a Skydrive.

I believe it would be much better if all my data stayed in the Skydrive, and I simply accessed it there, just like an old-fashioned network drive. But it isn’t an old-fashioned network drive, but rather a cloud drive, which means that a local copy of the contents is generated wherever I work.

Am I wrong about this? Please tell me if I am.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Rui:

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I believe I have been confusing the cloud with the microsoft account. When I recently installed Windows 8, I was pushed in the direction of a Microsoft account vs a local account. I chose a local account. However, from time to time I am asked if I want to convert to a Microsoft account. I always say no, but I could see myself in a moment of distraction saying yes.
[/quote]
There would be no big harm in that :).

Perhaps I’m wrong about this (and I KNOW you’ll be good enough to let me know if I am!), but with a Microsoft account, it seems that at least some personal info (i.e. settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts) are pushed out from my computer to Microsoft’s server, and then to whichever other computer I log onto. I know that this isn’t much, but it is something.

Yes, that information will be maintained at a Microsoft server. It won’t be moved to a computer you will login to. It’s not simply a login, you just don’t login to a Windows computer, Jim, you or someone else for you, creates an account, which sets a a personal space, with several folders and other settings, for you. Only then can you login.

I have always thought of a network drive as simply a place where my files are stored, and where I can access them if I need to. I have never thought that that network drive would make a local copy of the files to be stored on every computer I work at.

The way you describe SkyDrive is different than that. It actually puts a local copy of your files wherever you work.

The internet is not like your local network. Latency can be much worse. However, as I said, you are not forced to install the SkyDrive client. You can work on any Office documents stored on SkyDrive, directly. I am sure some temporary local space will be used, but the file won’t be copied to a known location in your computer and kept there. If you use SkyDrive, that means you want to keep local copies of the files and you need to know that.

Suppose I go to an internet cafe and log onto Windows 8 at the cafe using my Microsoft account and SkyDrive. Based on what you have said, not only will a minimal amount of my stuff (settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts) be copied locally to that computer, but also everything in my SkyDrive (if I am using SkyDrive). Someone could then come along behind me and copy all of my personal files, because there’s no guarantee that that copy of my personal files is not left behind when I finish working at that computer.

I am sorry, Jim, that’s very unlikely to happen. You just don’t login to Windows. You need to create an account before you login. I have never used an internet cafe, but I doubt they let you create accounts. You won’t have admin rights, and I am sure everything is secured enough to make maintenance even feasible. Even if allowed, it would not be a smart thing to do and you need to know that. I also doubt that they would let you install the SkyDrive app in an internet cafe computer (or any app). If they did, it would still not be a smart thing. Even a less knowledgeable user would know getting their files into an unknown computer could not be a safe thing to do.
SkyDrive is accessible through a browser. It’s faster to get a file like that, than installing anything – even if you had the permissions and the time to do it, something I doubt to be possible.

I don’t think the average user realizes that that is what is going on, because if he did, he might have second thoughts about using a Microsoft account and/or a Skydrive.

I think your internet cafe scenarios are very, very unlikely, to avoid saying … far fetched. Sorry.

I believe it would be much better if all my data stayed in the Skydrive, and I simply accessed it there, just like an old-fashioned network drive. But it isn’t an old-fashioned network drive, but rather a cloud drive, which means that a local copy of the contents is generated wherever I work.

Not only is that possible, but it is the default way. As I said, without installing the SkyDrive client, that’s the only way to work with your SkyDrive files.

Let’s admit your not very knowledgeable user – if the user is not knowledgeable, will he know there is a SkyDrive client, download it and install it? How likely would that be?

You were, indeed, mixing different concepts. Windows 8 is not the cloud and the cloud is not Windows 8. Most of the issues you can raise about the cloud can be raised regardless of the OS in use. The Microsoft account issue, well, it seems quite unlikely to bring any issues, since the situations where a user would run risks are situations where, likely, they won’t have permissions to create their own accounts.

Anyway, as a final point, let’s admit, for a moment, that a user would do a “smart” thing like any of these you suggested, regardless of how unlikely they are. Then his info would be at risk, not because it “leaked”, but because the user, through his own actions, had made that information accessible to others.

As I said before, all technologies bring advantages and disadvantages, risks and benefits. To use a technology, some knowledge is required from the user, there is no way around that. Does the cloud bring additional challenges? Indeed it does. Are they as fear inspiring as some scenarios you see discussed on the Internet would make you believe? Absolutely not.

Regards

Reply | Quote

There would be no big harm in that :).

Yes, that information will be maintained at a Microsoft server. It won’t be moved to a computer you will login to. It’s not simply a login, you just don’t login to a Windows computer, Jim, you or someone else for you, creates an account, which sets a a personal space, with several folders and other settings, for you. Only then can you login.

The internet is not like your local network. Latency can be much worse. However, as I said, you are not forced to install the SkyDrive client. You can work on any Office documents stored on SkyDrive, directly. I am sure some temporary local space will be used, but the file won’t be copied to a known location in your computer and kept there. If you use SkyDrive, that means you want to keep local copies of the files and you need to know that.

I am sorry, Jim, that’s very unlikely to happen. You just don’t login to Windows. You need to create an account before you login. I have never used an internet cafe, but I doubt they let you create accounts. You won’t have admin rights, and I am sure everything is secured enough to make maintenance even feasible. Even if allowed, it would not be a smart thing to do and you need to know that. I also doubt that they would let you install the SkyDrive app in an internet cafe computer (or any app). If they did, it would still not be a smart thing. Even a less knowledgeable user would know getting their files into an unknown computer could not be a safe thing to do.
SkyDrive is accessible through a browser. It’s faster to get a file like that, than installing anything – even if you had the permissions and the time to do it, something I doubt to be possible.

I think your internet cafe scenarios are very, very unlikely, to avoid saying … far fetched. Sorry.

Not only is that possible, but it is the default way. As I said, without installing the SkyDrive client, that’s the only way to work with your SkyDrive files.

Let’s admit your not very knowledgeable user – if the user is not knowledgeable, will he know there is a SkyDrive client, download it and install it? How likely would that be?

You were, indeed, mixing different concepts. Windows 8 is not the cloud and the cloud is not Windows 8. Most of the issues you can raise about the cloud can be raised regardless of the OS in use. The Microsoft account issue, well, it seems quite unlikely to bring any issues, since the situations where a user would run risks are situations where, likely, they won’t have permissions to create their own accounts.

Anyway, as a final point, let’s admit, for a moment, that a user would do a “smart” thing like any of these you suggested, regardless of how unlikely they are. Then his info would be at risk, not because it “leaked”, but because the user, through his own actions, had made that information accessible to others.

As I said before, all technologies bring advantages and disadvantages, risks and benefits. To use a technology, some knowledge is required from the user, there is no way around that. Does the cloud bring additional challenges? Indeed it does. Are they as fear inspiring as some scenarios you see discussed on the Internet would make you believe? Absolutely not.

Regards

Rui:

I appreciate your clarifying the difference between using Skydrive directly (as as traditional network drive) and the Skydrive client. I definitely prefer the first option over the second, for the reasons I have previously stated.

I still believe that “leakage” is a valid way to think about most people’s computing experience these days, because most people have no clue about data and information security; they never even realize what actions on their part will cause their data to be “spread around” vs their data not being spread around. Nor do they have any clue about how much of their personal information is being harvested regularly. I am thinking of a few specific friends of mine, not just some theoretical cases; and I draw these conclusions from what I have actually observed on their computers.

If the average person would take a few simple precautions, very little of his personal information would “leak”; but the average person has no conception about these simple precautions, nor what dangers are out there.

Anyway, I think that about all that can be said has been said on these topics, at least for the moment, so I will digress.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Syncing personal info such as settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts is controllable by going to Settings | Change PC Settings | Sync Your settings. It can be completely turned off there or broad groups can be disabled.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Syncing personal info such as settings, icons, shortcuts, favorites, contacts is controllable by going to Settings | Change PC Settings | Sync Your settings. It can be completely turned off there or broad groups can be disabled.

Joe

Yes, indeed, Joe, I forgot to state that, but that is important, as you can have a say on what is shared.

Reply | Quote

This was a thread about the superiority of XP over other windows versions. It then turned into a thread about the Cloud and its pitfalls (real or imagined). Jim’s concerns are important and so are Rui’s replies to those concerns. So shouldn’t this thread have been moved to the General Windows forum with a suitable title? I’m sure that people would have ignored the current thread, but the more people who see both Jim’s concerns and Rui’s answers the more informed they will be and therefore they can make better informed decisions about using the cloud (one way or the other).

Just my 2p’s worth

Malcolm :blush:

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

This was a thread about the superiority of XP over other windows versions. It then turned into a thread about the Cloud and its pitfalls (real or imagined). Jim’s concerns are important and so are Rui’s replies to those concerns. So shouldn’t this thread have been moved to the General Windows forum with a suitable title? I’m sure that people would have ignored the current thread, but the more people who see both Jim’s concerns and Rui’s answers the more informed they will be and therefore they can make better informed decisions about using the cloud (one way or the other).

Just my 2p’s worth

Malcolm :blush:

Hi Malcolm,

I do understand your point of view. I must confess I would not feel comfortable doing so, not as much because what I wrote, but because we would be changing the context in which Jim’s words were written. I don’t think it would be fair to do so.

Regards

Reply | Quote

Well the whole Microsoft account on an OS level is the only real concern there, MS is using their point of leverage to one-up Google if they can in the information aggregation race. Use them or not; if one looks around and cannot identify the product or return for good and services rendered for free, it’s you! Should everything be plastered with warnings to such effect? I don’t know. Better maybe to say hey, if you don’t want anything ever getting out, just keep it as far away from the cloud at all time, regardless. Someone posted a link to an article describing how Microsoft uses pattern recognition programs to scour the contents of SkyDrive accounts; well, they can’t do that if you don’t put anything there, and if you do, realize there may be a consequence or price extracted for free use of that service.

Also, I at least didn’t make any assertions that XP was a or THE superior Windows OS. It’s nothing of the sort on a point by point basis. However I tried and am trying to think of anything I use programmatically that’s native to Win 7. I use the Personalization section without any preference to third party tools and that’s it I think. Everything else is enhanced in both OSes equally by third party intervention, so on a program level, I don’t notice a difference. If something crashes hard, it will tend to affect XP a bit more but if looked after quickly, is almost as easily remedied in XP as it is in 7. Certainly no major difference like the need to reboot one or the other to correct.

Security-wise, everyone keeps thinking down the well-grooved patch and improve philosophy and forgets that XP had a fantastic start to a real layer of security AND ease of use and recovery from any problem other than hardware-related. SandboxIE for the whole system, it’s called Steady State. Ted, you could experiment to your heart’s content forever more and never have to restore an image if you screwed something up, period, and that’s just touching lightly on the potential. I think but don’t know, that Microsoft saw far too many risks to validation and licensing if they continued on that path because look how they’ve continued to fret and keep drawing the validation noose ever tighter, to the point where some of the traditional repair methods will no longer work, or need this and that disabled or set before one can even boot with a repair disc. Now imagine if there was an entire layer of virtualization in there where they might be fooled as easily as malware is. So instead, we just get more and more soldiers standing at more and more street corners, woohoo for security. I’ve tasted the power of virtualization, ya it needed and needs further development and refinement but, it makes the current evolutionary path look like the stone age to me. I only claim the potential was there to dwarf any other efforts MS has made to increase security and yet still make it much more user friendly. For those who insist it’s as easy as ever, don’t know what you’re smoking but maybe send a little my way? I change and modify more permissions and security in one Win 7 system than I ever did in 11 years of XP computing so far; and it still occasionally shuts out an XP system over a network until the 7 box gets rebooted.

Finally, a few days ago I was drag and drop sorting from one folder to 4, both in XP and Win7, so all on the screen, small, didn’t change the view because in XP I Don’t Have To. First few drag and drops go fine in both, but then each is filling up with dropped items. Now in XP continue right on, no special considerations at all. In Win 7, of a sudden, can’t drop on an executable or shortcut, or it’ll try to start, can’t drop it over another folder or that folder will absorb it, can’t drop in the data modified or size or type or any other field because of whole line selection. CAN drop in the narrow little field between the left pane and the name field BUT, dragging from right to left, the W7 explorer window scrolls right in the direction I’m dragging from so that by the time I get to the little drop zone, it’s scrolled out and I have to wait as it scrolls back to catch up, and then….ahhh, dropped and copied. Remember, the rule is that if I have to switch views or make any extra considerations, that’s not helping. Once the little windows were filled with items it took me approximately twice as long to accomplish the same task on 7.
Now again, that doesn’t mean Win 7’s method is inferior, its just trying to help way too much and the defaults are running contrary to my way of working and I run into that time and time again, whereas it’s precious few on XP (renaming is one that’s more efficient in 7) and that is the more perfect balance I so covet. Now if there were a convention by which it was more than help, like say hypothetically XP didn’t have the capability of drag and drop and 7 does and I use that feature all the time; then that’s a game changer. The subtleties of interaction, neither too much or too little is where its at, and if Joe is still stuck on driver issues and compatibility issues and crashes and the like after all this time of use, well, that’s a problem because you’ll never get to the sublime natures if you’re smacking those down with a ball pein hammer instead. I’ve been married to XP for 11 years and 7 for over three and a half and it was a bit rocky with XP like it never was with Win 7 for the first few years, but excepting DEP, it’s been pure bliss for about 8 years now, a bliss that 7 has not matched, though again for those who seem to think it’s a night and day difference, it’s not, it’s ever so subtle and occurs over time and if one were not using both constantly for these more native actions, these differences would be all but forgotten in a few months at the very most because the alternate adjustments to incur the same results are quite small. I would be switching view every time before D&D or sorting in dummy drop folders that I could copy en masse to their final destinations when finished, not quite as efficient but efficient enough. Otherwise I wouldn’t be using 7 everyday like I am! It’s almost like the difference between DVI and VGA display quality, can’t see the difference when only using one but put them together…oh yeah, now I see the difference.

Other than that, I haven’t given these things a second thought! :p

Reply | Quote

Jim,

You are entitled to think about whatever issue as you see fit. I would rather prefer that you would not use the term here, to avoid the need for us to clarify what actually happens, if and when you do use it in a context similar to the one here. The Lounge is visited by many thousands of users of varying knowledge levels and the term “data leak” has a clear meaning in IT as something that’s not really positive. I also believe that those members who are more knowledgeable about any issues, should strive to convey as clearly as possible what really happens with the technology they talk about. The members who are not so knowledgeable surely do not benefit much if we use imprecise terms, even misleading ones, to describe any technologies or situations they may have to address in their computing related activities.

Regards

Reply | Quote

Fair enough!

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

Is XP the best OS? It depends on what you want to do with your computer. Are you a casual home user or full on productive user? I have been using XPPRO since it was first available, and with all the updates and a few freeware tweaks, have no problems with it. It is my main daily OS. I am experimenting with Win7, and get quite frustrated with it at times, when it won’t let me do things my way. I thought about a dual-boot system, but after reading of the problems associated with that, I went to a rack mount system, whereby I simply change the hard drives over depending on which OS I want to run. Win7 does have a steeper learning curve, but, with modifications, may turn out as easy to use as XP. Price wise, Win8 is out of my bracket.

Reply | Quote

Is XP the best OS? It depends on what you want to do with your computer. Are you a casual home user or full on productive user? I have been using XPPRO since it was first available, and with all the updates and a few freeware tweaks, have no problems with it. It is my main daily OS. I am experimenting with Win7, and get quite frustrated with it at times, when it won’t let me do things my way. I thought about a dual-boot system, but after reading of the problems associated with that, I went to a rack mount system, whereby I simply change the hard drives over depending on which OS I want to run. Win7 does have a steeper learning curve, but, with modifications, may turn out as easy to use as XP. Price wise, Win8 is out of my bracket.

I have two computers, and I use an A/B switch with one monitor/mouse/keyboard. I have a Windows 7 computer and a Windows 8 computer, and I switch back and forth as desired. And I have the hard drives of each shared to the other, so it is easy to access or copy things back and forth.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

I’m glad to meet some folks of my age here, who used to work with DOS. I use an old database program and I want to keep using this program, because it is so simple compared to Access.

It works perfectly well ‘within’ Windows XP Professional, without any additional real DOS or virtual environment.

So my question is : Does anyone know if Win7/8 can run old Dos programs, without additional tricks ?
(just as XP still can do it in the so called ‘dos window)

Speaking about “family” , it’s a pity when kids don’t understand the language spoken by their grand-parents, but it is very sad to see that many programs of the ‘M$ -family’ don’t even recognize their own data-files written by previous product versions !

Thank you

Reply | Quote

I’m glad to meet some folks of my age here, who used to work with DOS. I use an old database program and I want to keep using this program, because it is so simple compared to Access.

It works perfectly well ‘within’ Windows XP Professional, without any additional real DOS or virtual environment.

So my question is : Does anyone know if Win7/8 can run old Dos programs, without additional tricks ?
(just as XP still can do it in the so called ‘dos window)

Speaking about “family” , it’s a pity when kids don’t understand the language spoken by their grand-parents, but it is very sad to see that many programs of the ‘M$ -family’ don’t even recognize their own data-files written by previous product versions !

Thank you

You can probably run your old DOS program under Windows 7 or 8. If it won’t run directly under Windows 7 or 8, you can always run a Virtual Machine under Windows 7 or 8, using XP as the OS of the virtual machine.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

DOS programs generally don’t run in Win7 or Win8 64 bit versions since these most of these old DOS programs are 8- or 16-bit programs that can’t be run in 64-bit Windows. I am not sure whether they would work in the 32-bit versions of these Windows OS. There is a free program called DOS Box that runs on Windows XP, 7 and 8 and that will enable you to run a lot of DOS programs with some effort required to set it up.

Reply | Quote

windows xp is the best OS for windows family,in my opinion,
what do you think?

absolutely

what ms needs to do is stop adding worthless buggy features
and make xp more reliable first

Reply | Quote

I don’t know how anyone can say that XP is the best Windows. It is slow compared to Win7 or Win8. Is short on security. Doesn’t support a lot of technology (USB 3.0 and hard drives above 2GB for instance). Has poor networking capabilities. Limits the amount of memory you can use. Locks up frequently. Needs to be clean re-installed once a year or else it would slow way down. I couldn’t wait to get off XP.

Reply | Quote

To each their own. I also will not go back to Win XP, but there are MANY who do love and use XP every day. In many cases, when customized properly and maintained properly, it is speedier than Win 7 or Win 8. It all depends on the system and installed apps.

Reply | Quote

CNET’s big question of the week or article is about XP, http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57587252-75/microsofts-windows-xp-is-still-kickin-do-you-use-it/[/COLOR][/U], and even I as a stalwart defender of XP’s great synergistic properties, was surprised at how many of those still running XP just flat out love it and not as many as I would have thought are running XP to maintain old programs, databases or peripherals. “If it ain’t broke, why fix it,” comes up a lot too, and XP is certainly a heck of a lot more pragmatic than Windows 8.

Reply | Quote

”If it ain’t broke, why fix it,” comes up a lot too, and XP is certainly a heck of a lot more pragmatic than Windows 8.

What do you mean by “more pragmatic”?

Reply | Quote

I should have added, for mouse and keyboard usage, I forget some folks are using touch, but for the great majority who are not using touch and who have no interest in it, Windows 8 interface is not a more practical day to day interface and even folks who love, tolerate, accept it, only do so with great modification, adding a third party start menu back in the mix or maybe pinning more items and toolbars to the taskbar; bringing more functionality back to the desktop, and rarely, if ever, using the Start screen as the main interface.

Reply | Quote

You do not need touch to use Windows 8. I have been using it for months with a mouse and keyboard. It works fine. Touch is just another way to use it. The idea that Windows 8 works only with touch is a total myth and I can prove it. There is nothing in either the desktop or the new interface that requires touch devices.

Reply | Quote

Of course one can, that’s not what is at issue as far as being pragmatic. Assume no touch capability in both instances and then assume ONLY touch is available on Win8 start screen and Win 8 desktop. Which interaction is more practical in which environment is the key analytic, not if it merely can or does work.

Reply | Quote

But there is no such thing as a touch only computer unless you are talking tablets, which I am not. But even tablets can have a keyboard and mouse attached or work with an onscreen keyboard (though that isn’t a great way to do things). All of the criticism about Windows 8 seems to be directed at using it on a desktop or standard laptop computer. My contention is there is really no issue there if people would bother to understand how Windows 8 works in any sense and simply make a couple of very, very minor adaptations.

Reply | Quote

But there is no such thing as a touch only computer unless you are talking tablets, which I am not. But even tablets can have a keyboard and mouse attached or work with an onscreen keyboard (though that isn’t a great way to do things). All of the criticism about Windows 8 seems to be directed at using it on a desktop or standard laptop computer. My contention is there is really no issue there if people would bother to understand how Windows 8 works in any sense and simply make a couple of very, very minor adaptations.

Most of the criticism about Windows 8 is directed at the fact that Microsoft omitted the Windows 7 style start button / start menu.

I did bother to understand how Windows 8 worked. After using it for a while, I CAME TO HATE IT WITHOUT THE START BUTTON / START MENU. It felt like I was having to type with one hand — i.e., I felt severely hobbled. I continually thought about how stupid it was that I should have to do without something so simple and useful as the start button / start menu.

I made a “very, very minor” adaptation — I installed a program which gave me the Windows 7 style start button / start menu — StartIsBack.

I couldn’t be happier with Windows 8, now that I have my start button / start menu. But without that, I would NEVER even consider using Windows 8.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Maybe my problem is understanding why the Start button and Start menu are so important to so many people. I have been using various Windows releases since 3.0. When the Start button came along, I only ever used it occasionally. I much prefer to use the Taskbar where I can place all my most used programs and even hide the Taskbar to provide the highest amount of screen real estate. When I wanted to find rarely used programs, it was easy for me to simply browse the program folders to find a specific program. So when Windows 8 came along, I did not miss the Start button/menu at all. If I really wanted that functionality, I had the new Start screen which I quickly learned could be easily and rapidly customized to only show what I wanted to show. Windows 8 also improved the Taskbar by making it possible to pin programs to it that I couldn’t in earlier Windows. This made 8 more compelling to me. This is why I have never felt any need to install one of these Start button/menu programs. Maybe you or others can tell me what the Start button and menu offer that cannot be done just as easily and efficiently in some other way in Windows (including Windows 7). I also teach Windows to senior citizen new computer users and, while I show them the Start button/menu, I also show them other ways that may be preferable for them to do things in Windows. One of the pluses (or minuses, depending on your perspective) about Windows has always been that there are multiple ways to do the same thing.

Reply | Quote

Maybe my problem is understanding why the Start button and Start menu are so important to so many people. I have been using various Windows releases since 3.0. When the Start button came along, I only ever used it occasionally. I much prefer to use the Taskbar where I can place all my most used programs and even hide the Taskbar to provide the highest amount of screen real estate. When I wanted to find rarely used programs, it was easy for me to simply browse the program folders to find a specific program. So when Windows 8 came along, I did not miss the Start button/menu at all. If I really wanted that functionality, I had the new Start screen which I quickly learned could be easily and rapidly customized to only show what I wanted to show. Windows 8 also improved the Taskbar by making it possible to pin programs to it that I couldn’t in earlier Windows. This made 8 more compelling to me. This is why I have never felt any need to install one of these Start button/menu programs. Maybe you or others can tell me what the Start button and menu offer that cannot be done just as easily and efficiently in some other way in Windows (including Windows 7). I also teach Windows to senior citizen new computer users and, while I show them the Start button/menu, I also show them other ways that may be preferable for them to do things in Windows. One of the pluses (or minuses, depending on your perspective) about Windows has always been that there are multiple ways to do the same thing.

If you like Windows 8 without the Start button / start menu, I’m happy for you. Just realize, however, that most of the complaints out there about Windows 8 are because Microsoft omitted that feature. I base my opinion about that on all of the comments I have read at this blog and others, as well as how I feel about it.

The reason I like having the Windows 7 style start button / start menu is because the menu provides lots of useful functionality that is unavailable elsewhere. Here are two things:

* Most recent programs list — whenever I run a program in Windows 7, it appears in the start menu. It is then easy to run it again.

* Control panel and other “maintenance” shortcuts are readily available.

I could set up shortcuts to accomplish the above, but that’s a lot of work. It’s far easier to have all of that presented to me in an easy to use package.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Well I personally like menus as I proved in another thread about organizing the Programs part of the start menu. For me, that’s where I organize far better than the Start screen because my menus are fairly inclusive but distinct and I can also include a couple of custom toolbar menus there without taking up more space on the taskbar and it is mouse-centric, not the less efficient touch-centric interface when using the mouse and its right there, not on another screen.

I prefer to pin to the start menu not the taskbar, again because I need the room for active work windows and programs on the taskbar not idle shortcuts.

The customizable categorization and option to menu-ize or keep it a link just works great for me in. I can access everything from search to control panel and admin tools items to the afore-mentioned pinned programs to the customized Programs menus to just about anywhere I need to go. For me there is no better place to organize and base operations from than a properly customized start menu.

Also the best little customizations for dealing with the scattered control and use areas of Win 8 are coming from these third party start menu replacements and the more one uses them, the more one realizes Microsoft went completely overboard in reorganizing things in lieu of a start menu. What was done in an attempt to make two interfaces work together without a start menu is what scattered Win 8 and made it needlessly complex, which we’re seeing Microsoft trying to address in 8.1 to some degree.

Each of our viewpoints is bias, you because you never used the start menu much anyway, me because I’ve been using it heavily for whatever, 14, 15 years? It’s as natural and appropriate as driving to work in a car with a steering wheel. Win 8 therefore seems to me to have the ignition in the trunk, the driver’s seat as a hood ornament, the rear view mirrors facing forward, and the radio controls spread out on the dash, the doors and the rear window. In other words Win 8 did not show me any way of better use, it merely showed me how it might be possible to include a touch-centric interface, not a bit of which I found to be synergistic for my usage habits. You need to look up the meaning of efficiency post-haste.

Reply | Quote

I do know what efficiency means. I did organize the Start menu in Windows XP and 7 when I used those OSes since I did use it occasionally and in its out-of-the-box condition, it was way too cluttered and hard to use. Organizing the Start Menu was never easy. I had all my programs categorized by types into about a dozen folders. Every time I added or deleted a program, I had to go in and change those folder contents and Windows would often leave behind empty folders or subfolders which I had to find and delete. To use your car analogy, this was like having to tune up the engine every time I wanted to go anywhere. I was able to organize the Start screen in Win8 in a fraction of a time and it handles program changes without further intervention. To me, this is efficiency because I am a set it and forget it guy. The only time I have to fool with it is when I want to not display a program on the regular Start screen. I am looking forward to 8.1 though, because I will have more choices in selecting tile size.

BTW, I assume you know that the Taskbar (in any Windows version) can be resized and hidden away until you move your mouse to it so that you can put an awful lot of program shortcuts on the Taskbar. I currently have 54 shortcuts and the whole Taskbar only takes up one pixel high on the bottom of my desktop until I decide to look at it. This to me is efficiency: I can get to any program I use frequently without having to find out whether its icon is hidden behind some already open program and thus I don’t have to waste time minimizing programs or moving their windows around to see other things I want to get to. Sometimes the “peek” feature in 7 and 8 just isn’t good enough.

It’s fine that your approach works for you but it isn’t efficient for me to always be looking for menus. I only rarely deal with the Start screen in 8 by the way. It is sort of there to use the same way I infrequently used the Start menu in WinXP and Win7. The only thing I ever use much there is the Store tile since I look from time to time for apps (mostly free ones) that might be useful to me.

Reply | Quote

This discussion just shows why they call these things Personal Computers, because we set them up so they are most efficient for us to use. If the Start Menu can be customized and works best for you, then do it. If pinning to the taskbar works better then do that. If a combination of this works best (as in my case) then do that. That’s the great thing about Windows, we customize it to work for us and our peculiar habits. We don’t have to accept the way some developer wants us to use it, we change it, adapt it to our needs.

We all install apps to assist us with our work. The Start Menu replacement is just another of these apps in my mind. I just do not consider that such a big deal. I thought about it for a few minutes, then decided to customize things the way I wanted. If I wish to use the Start Screen, then I can customize that as well. Perhaps differently, but still customizable for my use.

Reply | Quote

I’m in total agreement with you but some people seem to feel that the way they do things is the only way to do them.

Reply | Quote

So in other words, you’ve turned the taskbar into your start menu. I personally don’t want that, I want a task bar with distinct tray, running programs and open windows, possibly a custom toolbar or two. My systems are mature, I’m not installing and uninstalling much, mainly updating what’s already there, menu items need very little maintenance and are nearly interchangeable from one system to another. Indeed I could not pin 54 shortcuts to the start menu, nor would I want to, sounds horribly inefficient compared to three or four categorized menu lists. Where do you place your control panel access and is it menu-ized? Little as I use search, the start menu is perfect, where’s yours? How many programs and windows do you commonly have running and open and do you group-icon them or not? I don’t understand the part about getting to a program without having to find out whether it’s icon is hidden behind some other program. Do you mean desktop icons? If so, quite right, they can be neatly organized and hidden as well, but become immediately less useful as soon as anything is open and running on screen; very much like Start screen tiles in that respect. Also if your taskbar is only one bar high, how can you possibly see or have room for 54 shortcuts and what convention do you use to clearly delimit active from inactive; you must be using toolbars on the taskbar? If its the former it must be a bear to sort through until you become familiar with the arrangement, and if its the latter, it’s nothing more than a re-positioned Programs menu or two.

What if the taskbar had been removed instead of the start menu? I could survive fine, tray items would become gadgets, full screen running programs and windows would be switched via Alt-Tab and that’s it, I’m done with the taskbar as a necessary component. Would it be as effective, no but it would work just fine since I’ve kept the taskbar the taskbar and the start menu as my command center and I see we already agree on the Start screen since you say you rarely deal with it and that was the whole crux of my assertion that XP was ever more pragmatic because you won’t find a touch-centric screen to use with a mouse anywhere on the premises.

Reply | Quote

Yes, the Taskbar is my start menu. I have all of the icons arranged on the Taskbar into groups (It would be nice to have separators on the Taskbar but I can live without them since they are not supported). The programs I use frequently are the first few items. The others are grouped by similar functioning or purpose so that all my shortcuts to Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are all together. I know where every program is and can select one in an instant. I typically have anywhere from 3 to 10 programs running simultaneously on the Desktop (2 or 3 browser sessions with different browsers and then some programs that come and go). The Taskbar shows which are active (always has) by showing a kind of slightly highlighted tile on the Taskbar rather than just an icon so there is no issue with knowing which is which. With Win7 and 8 you can also get a small preview of a running app by hovering your mouse pointer over the tile. I have Control Panel access on the Taskbar but don’t have it menuized. I have no need to do that since I rarely have to go to it and when I do open it, I see the standard Windows menu.

What you seem to not be aware of is that one of the options for the Taskbar is to autohide it so that it not visible on your screen except for a one-pixel line. It becomes fully visible when you move your mouse point to that line (the bottom of the screen in my situation). This means that it takes up virtually no screen real estate except when I want to see it and use it. As soon as I move my mouse pointer away from it, it disappears. While up it is semitransparent so I can see stuff (kinda) under it so it doesn’t block anything like the Start menu does. I am always amazed how few people seem to know about the Taskbar (which has been around in some form or other since Windows 98 at least (if not earlier, I can’t remember exactly) and all the neat things you can do with it. When I do open it, it is plenty big enough to hold all my shortcuts (you can resize it at any time and quite easily) and show all the running programs but I still still get rid of it almost instantly. Win8 somewhat improved the Taskbar functionality and made it easier than ever to add shortcuts to it so I love that.

BTW, one of the neat things in the Taskbar that came with Win7 and continues with 8 is that with an application like Word, I can right click on its shortcut and see my recently edited documents and select the one I want to open if I want to do further work on it so I can save a whole set of clicks in many cases. People who don’t use the Taskbar, don’t know what they’re missing. You also see the main menu choices for the Control Panel when you right click its shortcut icon in the Taskbar so that’s another reason there is no need to menuize it.

I don’t use any Toolbars on the Taskbar but you could do that as a way of further arranging your programs so that you could have an Office Toolbar, an Administrative Functions Toobar, etc. but that would just add mouse clicks and key strokes for me but might be fine for others who like that level of organization. You can add all the custom Toolbars you want. Toolbars can be used much like Folders within All Programs in the Start menu, if you so choose. The Taskbar is very versatile.

If the Taskbar had been removed, I would be complaining louder than the folks who miss the Start menu since I can do so much more with the Taskbar. I would be looking for a replacement program if it weren’t there.

Reply | Quote

I thought XP was the best Microsoft OS until I actually installed Windows 7, which turned out to be much like XP but with many great improvements, once I’d tamed it with various tweaks and climbed the learning curve some. The aero interface is also beautiful to look at. Not good for older, slower computers, of course – but come 8 April next year (2014), the topic becomes largely irrelevant. On that date Microsoft ceases to provide new critical updates for XP, so XP will no longer be able to be run securely online (since new security holes in XP that will be found will have nothing to plug them). So everyone on XP who uses the internet (i.e. practically every XP-only user) would I’d reckon want to be buying one of the remnant copies on Windows 7 now while you can still possibly get one, unless you want an even nastier later transition to Windows 8 (including multiple tweaks) or an maybe to an even more desktop-unfriendly Microsoft successor after Windows 8 becomes unavailable in a few years.

Asus N53SM & N53SN 64-bit laptops (Win7 Pro & Win10 Pro 64-bit multiboots), venerable HP Pavilion t760 32-bit desktop (XP & Win7 Pro multiboot), Oracle VirtualBox VM's: XP & Win7 32-bit, XP Mode, aged Samsung Galaxy S4, Samsung Galaxy Tab A 2019s (8" & 10.1"), Blu-ray burners, digital cameras, ext. HDDs (latest 5TB!), AnyDVD, Easeus ToDo Backup Home, Waterfox, more. Me: Aussie card-carrying Windows geek.

Reply | Quote

come 8 April next year (2014), the topic becomes largely irrelevant. On that date Microsoft ceases to provide new critical updates for XP, so XP will no longer be able to be run securely online (since new security holes in XP that will be found will have nothing to plug them). So everyone on XP who uses the internet (i.e. practically every XP-only user) would I’d reckon want to be buying one of the remnant copies on Windows 7 now while you can still possibly get one

As someone who actively surfs the Internet (including on occasion some of its seedier areas) and is still running Win2K nearly 3 years now after Microsoft support ceased for it with zero malware problems (not even any ATTEMPTS by malware to do its dirty work) I’ll suggest that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Anyone using a hardware router is well-protected against incoming probes by external malware, and anyone using a decent browser (Firefox 12.0 was the last to support Win2K directly and it still runs current NoScript just fine), anti-malware application (the last version of Avira Anti-Vir to support Win2K includes HIPS features and still receives regular signature updates), and software firewall (Online Armor 3.1.0.26 was the last to support Win2K and includes its own ‘run safer’ sandboxing features even if you don’t go whole-hog and use Sandboxie) is likely at LEAST as well-protected as the average Win 7 / Win 8 user – and that’s without using any of the continuing security updates that third-parties (like the people at msfn.org) have back-ported to Win2K over that period or the modifications they have made that allow later versions of browsing, security, and other software to run on Win2K.

i don’t know when I’ll decide that I really ought to upgrade to XP myself, given how viable Win2K continues to be: the only real impetus I can imagine is wanting to run software that won’t run on Win2K even with the aforementioned third-party tweaks which I have not yet had to resort to. On the basis of this experience I believe I can confidently predict that at least as far as Internet security goes (and in some other aspects as well) XP will remain viable for quite a few years to come.

Reply | Quote

(…) On the basis of this experience I believe I can confidently predict that at least as far as Internet security goes (and in some other aspects as well) XP will remain viable for quite a few years to come.

Not everyone is knowledgeable enough to run what you are running.
Plus, you would need to account for the fact that all security software needs updates, and that doesn’t mean just signatures, although I agree that running a decent HIPS will get you in a better place to deal with most threats (current OA version is 6.0.0.1736, by the way ).

So, while I agree some setups and proper care can get you running for a long time, I don’t think that can be generalized to all users and situations or even to most users and situations.

Reply | Quote

So, while I agree some setups and proper care can get you running for a long time, I don’t think that can be generalized to all users and situations or even to most users and situations.

Which, as you might note, is why I did nothing of the kind: I was simply replying to a post which DID generalize about how non-viable XP was about to become for “practically every XP-only user.”

The degree to which “all security software needs updates” is also debatable. All security software has flaws, even when updated to the latest revision, yet it’s still considered good enough to use with acceptable safety (else no one would be depending upon it and would instead either perform all Internet access using a Linux Live CD or be carefully virtualizing it – as, incidentally, I could do on Win2K if I felt the need to via older versions of Sandboxie, Virtual PC, or Virtual Box). The software I’m running (including Win2K itself) was certainly considered secure enough to be usable in its day, and in my opinion by far the main issue is whether malware signatures continue to receive updates (which mine do): yes, IF something gets through that screen THEN the underlying browser or system may be more vulnerable to compromise because it has not been hardened against the latest KNOWN threats, but in my experience (including occasional checking with up-to-the-minute on-line products like Housecall) that simply hasn’t been an issue (perhaps because the combination of NoScript and a hardware router stymies most of the malware that’s out in the wild these days, at least for users who never, ever choose to run unchecked – let alone unknown – executables).

Many people here seem to surf the Internet happily protected only by the Microsoft Firewall plus Microsoft Security Essentials (combined in Win 8 as Windows Defender) – a ‘safety net’ with IIRC has no HIPS capabilities and less-than-stellar malware detection rates. In fact, Fred Langa was vigorously promoting this as a good idea for a while in the newsletter (he did later seem to back off a bit on this though never AFAIK actually recanted). Given that there has been relatively little ‘tut-tutting’ over this and so many other sub-optimal approaches to security I’m inclined to write off a great deal of the “The XP sky is falling! Get out from under while you still can!” sentiment as bias, ignorance, or (in Microsoft’s case) self-interest. As with most wide-spread misconceptions it does contain a sufficient grain of truth to be alarming, but upon examination it turns out to be a pretty gross exaggeration of the relative severity of the alleged problem: if people were REALLY serious about security they would certainly not encourage anyone to depend upon what most people – including those running Win 7 and Win 8 – depend upon.

Reply | Quote

Which, as you might note, is why I did nothing of the kind: I was simply replying to a post which DID generalize about how non-viable XP was about to become for “practically every XP-only user.”

The degree to which “all security software needs updates” is also debatable. All security software has flaws, even when updated to the latest revision, yet it’s still considered good enough to use with acceptable safety (else no one would be depending upon it and would instead either perform all Internet access using a Linux Live CD or be carefully virtualizing it – as, incidentally, I could do on Win2K if I felt the need to via older versions of Sandboxie, Virtual PC, or Virtual Box). The software I’m running (including Win2K itself) was certainly considered secure enough to be usable in its day, and in my opinion by far the main issue is whether malware signatures continue to receive updates (which mine do): yes, IF something gets through that screen THEN the underlying browser or system may be more vulnerable to compromise because it has not been hardened against the latest KNOWN threats, but in my experience (including occasional checking with up-to-the-minute on-line products like Housecall) that simply hasn’t been an issue (perhaps because the combination of NoScript and a hardware router stymies most of the malware that’s out in the wild these days, at least for users who never, ever choose to run unchecked – let alone unknown – executables).

Many people here seem to surf the Internet happily protected only by the Microsoft Firewall plus Microsoft Security Essentials (combined in Win 8 as Windows Defender) – a ‘safety net’ with IIRC has no HIPS capabilities and less-than-stellar malware detection rates. In fact, Fred Langa was vigorously promoting this as a good idea for a while in the newsletter (he did later seem to back off a bit on this though never AFAIK actually recanted). Given that there has been relatively little ‘tut-tutting’ over this and so many other sub-optimal approaches to security I’m inclined to write off a great deal of the “The XP sky is falling! Get out from under while you still can!” sentiment as bias, ignorance, or (in Microsoft’s case) self-interest. As with most wide-spread misconceptions it does contain a sufficient grain of truth to be alarming, but upon examination it turns out to be a pretty gross exaggeration of the relative severity of the alleged problem: if people were REALLY serious about security they would certainly not encourage anyone to depend upon what most people – including those running Win 7 and Win 8 – depend upon.

First, I agree with you on security. Since I went online at home, which was a few years after I did it at work, I have always tried to run under the best security software available. I used software firewalls long before Windows offered them and have run NIS (was the closest thing to a HIPS back then), ZoneAlarm and Online Armor on all my computers, even adding them to friends and family members computers, whenever they asked for my advice. I particularly have remained faithful to OA, since it was always compatible with other live security apps, allowing you, at least, two independent, as good as possible, lines of defense.

I have used OA for around 3 years and know the program relatively well. I was a member of OA’s beta team while it was owned by Tall Emu. I was actually thinking on somes issues with OA, from that time, that required changes to it, to be as effective as possible, in its “battle” with ever growing threats.

Security is really a play on probabilities. Some people use none or almost no security apps and some don’t get infected. From that point of view, XP will be in a worse place once no more patches are issued. As I wrote before, some of the most notorious malware attacks were based on known flaws left unpatched. On the other hand, you can run the best security software, use it wrongly or not, and still be affected. There are no assurances. What the best of breed apps do is minimize the likelihood of infection, no more, no less.

For the common user running a Windows firewall and MSE, I think they will be in a worse place, too. I wouldn’t run anything on either. The very first thing I do when I setup a new computer is to buy an OA license and then choose another security app, the current favorite being Emsisoft’s Anti-Malware, which features two independent scanners and best of breed detection, so I can understand your point of view. The fact that their advice may not seem that good, doesn’t mean there isn’t more risk running XP when it has no more security updates. In fact, I am surprised that you use that as an argument, as I really have no doubt the risk will be bigger. That surely doesn’t mean there will be a surge of XP attacks and infections, but the number of XP systems will still be large enough to justify malware development, so the risk will be higher. Some systems will be more susceptible to new attacks, others less, it really depends on so many factors, including user behavior…

Reply | Quote

doesn’t mean there isn’t more risk running XP when it has no more security updates. In fact, I am surprised that you use that as an argument, as I really have no doubt the risk will be bigger

If the above indicates that you believe I was saying that security risk does not increase to SOME degree when one stops applying security updates, you misunderstood me. I was saying (in agreement with your observation about probabilities) that any such increase may not be sufficient to bring overall exposure in an otherwise well-protected and intelligently-used XP (or Win2K) system up to the level of the exposure in the average Win 7 or Win 8 system (I forgot to mention the lack of any out-bound firewall checks in such systems, by the way, a significant area of concern for both privacy – financial activity, for example – and detection of bot-net activity should one become stealthily compromised).

The dismissiveness of your most recent reply to FUN suggests to me that you misunderstood the points that he was making as well.

The bottom line is that I’m willing to take SOME avoidable risk in order to run a system that I like a lot more than recent Windows versions, I’m willing to take that risk rather than put up with the hassles inherent in virtualizing my Internet activity completely or off-loading it to a walled-off Linux environment, and I’m happy to make the effort to compensate for such increased exposure by using the best reasonably unintrusive protection software (and settings) I can find and by exercising some caution in my usage habits. Knowledgeable users make trade-offs like this all the time and without feeling any need to justify them given the abysmal nature of the average level of protection out there – my chosen trade-offs are just a bit different than most.

Reply | Quote

If the above indicates that you believe I was saying that security risk does not increase to SOME degree when one stops applying security updates, you misunderstood me. I was saying (in agreement with your observation about probabilities) that any such increase may not be sufficient to bring overall exposure in an otherwise well-protected and intelligently-used XP (or Win2K) system up to the level of the exposure in the average Win 7 or Win 8 system (I forgot to mention the lack of any out-bound firewall checks in such systems, by the way, a significant area of concern for both privacy – financial activity, for example – and detection of bot-net activity should one become stealthily compromised).

The dismissiveness of your most recent reply to FUN suggests to me that you misunderstood the points that he was making as well.

The bottom line is that I’m willing to take SOME avoidable risk in order to run a system that I like a lot more than recent Windows versions, I’m willing to take that risk rather than put up with the hassles inherent in virtualizing my Internet activity completely or off-loading it to a walled-off Linux environment, and I’m happy to make the effort to compensate for such increased exposure by using the best reasonably unintrusive protection software (and settings) I can find and by exercising some caution in my usage habits. Knowledgeable users make trade-offs like this all the time and without feeling any need to justify them given the abysmal nature of the average level of protection out there – my chosen trade-offs are just a bit different than most.

The part of my quote you posted just meant to say one thing – the statements about increased XP security risk after it goes unsupported and unpatched by Microsoft, should not be dismissed just because some of the people making the claim are running what you perceive as a sub-par setup. I believe a statement should be taken on its intrinsic merits and not those of the person who makes it.

As to dismiss FUN’s reply, I am sorry, but we are talking here about an OS that is running on hundreds of millions of computers. If you start the discussion by highlighting the fact that on your personal system you never had an issue, I am sorry, I don’t think I am the one missing a point. Seriously, I prefer to remove myself of any discussion that proceeds on such terms.

I don’t think the sky will fall after XP goes end-of-life. I think the risks will be higher. I wouldn’t advise it to close friends and relatives that seek my advice on computer related stuff, but I accept different people will see it differently. I also wouldn’t advise it to customers… but it’s all a probabilities based game :).

Reply | Quote

The part of my quote you posted just meant to say one thing – the statements about increased XP security risk after it goes unsupported and unpatched by Microsoft, should not be dismissed just because some of the people making the claim are running what you perceive as a sub-par setup[/quote]

You directed that comment specifically to me, which was why I corrected your misconception in my response. If you can find any statement from me which supports your allegation that I ‘dismissed’ the claim that SOME increase in exposure could result from unpatched XP (or Win2K) vulnerabilities, I’ll happily retract that correction (FUN did get a bit carried away at the start of his post when stating that they “make absolutely no difference either way”, but the balance of that post made it clear that he meant no SIGNIFICANT – again, think probabilities or in FUN’s terminology relative ‘threat levels’ – difference in the presence of minimal other protective measures).

As to dismiss FUN’s reply, I am sorry, but we are talking here about an OS that is running on hundreds of millions of computers. If you start the discussion by highlighting the fact that on your personal system you never had an issue, I am sorry, I don’t think I am the one missing a point.

His point (to repeat what I just noted above) was about relative threat levels – exactly the same point which you raised yourself with regard to a probabilistic approach toward protection; his use of personal experience (just like my own use of it) should be considered merely a supporting example rather than any alleged ‘proof’. To view it from a different perspective, what ‘proof’ is there how much continuing Microsoft OS updates materially affect malware penetration, anyway? Many such updates plug holes that were never exploited in the wild, others correct holes that were only exploited because other basic protective measures were not in place to keep them from getting to the holes at all (again, one of FUN’s points). Without quantifying just how many such attacks WOULD HAVE succeeded in the presence of such basic ancillary protection had the updates never been issued, you can’t make any credible projections about how many future attacks would succeed after the update activity ceases (and thus about how much increase in exposure that might create).

In re-reading my previous post and proof-reading the above I was struck by some similarities to attitudes toward ‘homeland security’ in the U.S. since 9/11:

1. Some people contend that security is paramount and that anyone who objects to this thesis is unAmerican or worse (though their actual behavior when carefully analyzed frequently seems considerably at odds with such statements, since they place actions which would arguably be far more effective and/or cost-effective in making us more secure completely off the table while championing other actions of extremely dubious merit – in both cases arguably for reasons of self-interest and/or ideology).

2. Others take a more nuanced view that security is just one of many important goals we should be pursuing with some sense of balance and with due consideration given to our ideals and our Constitution – though this position enjoys little support in our mass media for reasons one can suspect but which are difficult to prove, which means that the ‘conventional wisdom’ (often of course an oxymoron, especially inside the Beltway where so much of our national news media focuses) leans toward the former view.

3. And a few on the far left (at least to the degree that anything worthy of that name exists in the U.S.) and the Libertarian right don’t like the development of our national security state at all, though for somewhat different reasons. I find myself in sympathy with both such extremes (again, for different reasons), but when push comes to shove tend to wind up more in the ‘nuanced’ group above.

That may or may not help shed any light on my own ‘philosophy’ (which may or may not be anything like FUN’s ‘philosophy’) with regard to PC security, so take it for what it may (or may not) be worth.

Edit: Rats – a lot of the above FUN covered in his most recent post. I’d say that I have to learn to type faster, but experience has taught me that the additional thinking time produces better results.

Reply | Quote

bill,
Are you aware that you ended a sentence with a preposition? And that, as everyone knows, provides an easy back door for malware ? Really, the only thing worse would be a dangling participle …. but then your sentences would be so parsed by malware you wouldn’t be able to reply.

Reply | Quote

My revelation was suddenly realizing how easily I could do without the taskbar. It’s good but for me, just not a capable and complete as a customized start menu no matter how tricked out it is because it doesn’t balance as well between too much, not enough and the framework for categorization. For instance I access the control panel menu a dozen, two dozen times a day? It belongs in a separate menu from Photoshop and from ToDo Backup and Wordperfect and I can’t for the life of me figure out why I want to see all those shortcuts every time I bring up the taskbar when I have a dozen or more active windows and programs to deal with; I need more order and categorization than that and I tried using the taskbar for search and couldn’t really find any good direct way, perhaps you have one worked out Jazz.

I also thought it was going to be a more stalwart defense of the Windows 8 way of organization in later posts but it turned out to be more of a discussion on desktop organization, which is mostly schematics, this works better for my brain, that works better for your’s, etc. The only thing I would ask anyone is not to even try to equate the start screen with a carefully arranged start menu in the hands of an experienced user. The comparisons are abysmally bad at the moment, however, the start screen has one thing on the start menu and one thing only; it makes a touch interface practical.

And not to leave you out starvinmarvin, it’s not the UAC permission alone that Dr.Who and I are speaking of; it runs much deeper and is more widespread than that. Suffice to say that increasing security always comes at a cost to freedoms and user friendliness. Along the lines of an analogy, I’m thinking Leavenworth on one extreme and a guy plunging down a steep valley, 30 ft. off the ground wearing nothing but a flying squirrel suit on the other. The trick is to find the best balance between the two and for Dr. Who and me, XP is far enough in the direction of prison while others feel it’s not far enough. There are tools and settings to knock the stuffing out of some of the Win 7 and 8 security barriers and I darn well use’em. UAC is the first to go among many. I’ve actually run into permissions issues in W8 now that will not let program parameters that are set and stored in the program’s folder to be changed by default. Good grief that’s annoying.

My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw excessive and broadly ineffective but extremely annoying Windows security forever. We begin bombing in five minutes…or so the Ronald Reagan-esque daydream goes!

Reply | Quote

I’ll head to my bomb shelter now! :rolleyes:

Like I said, the ability to set things up so any persons mind can grasp and use the setup the way they want is one of the biggest strengths of Windows IMO.

Reply | Quote

There may be an infinite number of security holes in XP yet to be discovered, but I doubt it. With the help of many experts and hackers Microsoft has patched hundreds of flaws over the years to make XP a pretty tight system. Add a browser with good security such as Chrome and good anti-virus/anti-malware plus a dash of common sense and you can navigate the internet and your email for years to come. Let’s not forget backups, either. Keep a backup image of your system as it came brand new (or with your core programs) plus a couple of more recent backup images just in case you screw things up anyway. And, don’t forget to let friends, visitors, teenagers, etc. only use the Guest Account so they can’t make changes to the system (and neither can the malware that piggy-backs on the music or porn they just viewed).

Reply | Quote

I’ve been using MS operating systems since MS-DOS 1.0

The only Windows versions that I really disliked were versions 1, 2, 3.0 and ME. I just bought a new HP desktop with Windows 8 and am delighted with it. Clicking on the desktop app or using Win+D shortcut brings me right to the desktop. After that tapping the Windows key alone switches between the tiles and the desktop. I’ve got a sleep button on my keyboard and the power button on my console turns off the machine, so I don’t really miss the start menu.

XP served me well for almost eight years on my old desktop but the computer was running slower and slower. My laptop runs Win 7 and my wife’s laptop runs Vista. They’ll both be fine for a few more years.

Reply | Quote

I would assume by now, maybe mistakenly, that those who do not or cannot take the most basic precautions that stop 99.999% of all attacks on XP, and for which active AV is needed on some occasions to catch the other .001%, have either learned their lesson by now or moved on to what may help them continue on without taking the most basic precautions?

And by basic I mean basic; hardware firewall, don’t click on attachments until after they are scanned and oked, secure updated browser, and don’t ok any prompt that you did not initiate, and if browser-related, just kill the browser in task manager rather than risk a false close or cancel button.

If that is too difficult for anyone, they probably should be using a computer that will not allow anything or will return to a base state when rebooted.

Reply | Quote

I believe that there are a multitude of people that have no idea what the dangers even are let alone how to take basic precautions to thwart those dangers. In many of these cases if basic precautions were not included when they purchased their PCs, there probably would not be any in place. Many of the professional PC techs can most likely relate hundreds of horror stories of what they have found when their customers come in and say “it just don’t work right any more!”

I have told my mother a thousand times not to click on anything unexpected, or install ANYTHING, and yet each time I visit I find one or more toolbars installed. At least I finally have her updating the security apps I installed and running scans. She even runs the cleanup batch file I put on her PC. Each time I visit there are new games installed, along with the piggybacked apps that come along with these “free” games.

I firmly believe there are millions of people doing the same thing that don’t have someone like me to help them. These are the people that security is built into the OS for.

Reply | Quote

I firmly believe there are millions of people doing the same thing that don’t have someone like me to help them. These are the people that security is built into the OS for.

That was my point exactly; those oblivious folks are not using and have not bought newer PC’s with XP installed on them…and for those that are, XP has been around for so l-o-n-g, if they haven’t learned by now, they’re not going to, and since they are not moving on AND not learning, are hopeless in any case.

In a world where XP is as readily available as Win 7 and Win 8, and as likely to be chosen for their personal OS in present tense, then you guys have a good point. That world however has not existed for quite some time so it’s only a philosophical treatment to the subject.

Reply | Quote

In a world where XP is as readily available as Win 7 and Win 8, and as likely to be chosen for their personal OS in present tense, then you guys have a good point. That world however has not existed for quite some time so it’s only a philosophical treatment to the subject.

XP has been regularly patched. It is known that many successful attacks use rather old, known security bugs, left unpatched by computer users. With no more security patches after 2014, users who rely on standard protection that will no longer be provided (and there are many like these), will be more vulnerable than they are now.
As hard as I try, I don’t see how this is thinking philosophically, but maybe that’s just me.

Reply | Quote

The reason it’s philosophical ruirib is because with or without the security-oriented content of those updates so designated (the “your system may be compromised” without ones) as such, is that they make absolutely no difference either way in the presence of the most basic secure usage habits. I’ve run a Windows XP system updated to SP2 only and it’s really not very useful because a lot of modern software won’t run on it, but behind a router and occasionally in the DMZ, it has never gotten infected. Not once ever, that is how important microsoft security updates are in relation to the big picture.

Now if there was some inherent flaws that could be taken advantage of with basic, and again, I mean basic precautions in place, that Windows XP was actually responsible for, and not as the result of other vectors like Java, or Flash or Adobe or…anyone else in a “brokerage” position between user and Internet, then as I said you have a good point at this time and in the near future. Otherwise you better come up with a reason why systems running XP now that are not up to date, are not becoming infected, and why, with the ending of support, they suddenly will be more vulnerable. For a new user, yes, this might be the case, but for the experienced user or the user that has learned his or her lessons on safety over time, it is all but meaningless, and new users and users that just don’t get it should be long gone from XP by now.

I used to listen to Security Now with Steve Gibson all the time, hung on every word, he’s a worst case scenario interpreter of security threats. Sounds pretty dire out there all the time if one listens to him, and I’m not going to make a big deal about his using XP, and specifically not W7 or W8 especially, except that it is for security reasons. My main point is that everything he ever mentions is thwarted by good usage habits alone and a hardware firewall, and why he really gets justifiably excited by a router security flaw and goes all out the get the word out, one of which became known recently.

In the end its the same issue that is always brings folks to odds, assigning inappropriate threat levels to different events or protection vectors, I think I’ve assessed better than that next guy, maybe not, but you’d think I’d have at least one blemish to hang my hat over by now. My Mom got a minor malware bug on XP a few years ago but it had nothing to do with update security, she ok’ed it all the way down the landing runway. -bill doesn’t even worry about such things with W2K. Both of use have bulletproof measures we could put in place if need arose, but the key is, the need has never arisen. If it had or does, then again I would wholeheartedly agree, something is inherently unsafe with basic precautions and the need to proceed to the exits is fairly strong, because even though those protections are nearly immutable, I would not want them to be the difference or needed to make the difference, in light of a later version OS not needing those types of protections. Like if XP didn’t have an inbound firewall and was incompatible with any third party firewall…run!

Reply | Quote

The reason it’s philosophical ruirib is because with or without the security-oriented content of those updates so designated (the “your system may be compromised” without ones) as such, is that they make absolutely no difference either way in the presence of the most basic secure usage habits. I’ve run a Windows XP system updated to SP2 only and it’s really not very useful because a lot of modern software won’t run on it, but behind a router and occasionally in the DMZ, it has never gotten infected. Not once ever, that is how important microsoft security updates are in relation to the big picture.

Now if there was some inherent flaws that could be taken advantage of with basic, and again, I mean basic precautions in place, that Windows XP was actually responsible for, and not as the result of other vectors like Java, or Flash or Adobe or…anyone else in a “brokerage” position between user and Internet, then as I said you have a good point at this time and in the near future. Otherwise you better come up with a reason why systems running XP now that are not up to date, are not becoming infected, and why, with the ending of support, they suddenly will be more vulnerable. For a new user, yes, this might be the case, but for the experienced user or the user that has learned his or her lessons on safety over time, it is all but meaningless, and new users and users that just don’t get it should be long gone from XP by now.

I used to listen to Security Now with Steve Gibson all the time, hung on every word, he’s a worst case scenario interpreter of security threats. Sounds pretty dire out there all the time if one listens to him, and I’m not going to make a big deal about his using XP, and specifically not W7 or W8 especially, except that it is for security reasons. My main point is that everything he ever mentions is thwarted by good usage habits alone and a hardware firewall, and why he really gets justifiably excited by a router security flaw and goes all out the get the word out, one of which became known recently.

In the end its the same issue that is always brings folks to odds, assigning inappropriate threat levels to different events or protection vectors, I think I’ve assessed better than that next guy, maybe not, but you’d think I’d have at least one blemish to hang my hat over by now. My Mom got a minor malware bug on XP a few years ago but it had nothing to do with update security, she ok’ed it all the way down the landing runway. -bill doesn’t even worry about such things with W2K. Both of use have bulletproof measures we could put in place if need arose, but the key is, the need has never arisen. If it had or does, then again I would wholeheartedly agree, something is inherently unsafe with basic precautions and the need to proceed to the exits is fairly strong, because even though those protections are nearly immutable, I would not want them to be the difference or needed to make the difference, in light of a later version OS not needing those types of protections. Like if XP didn’t have an inbound firewall and was incompatible with any third party firewall…run!

I’m sorry, if you think one isolated situation is a sample of any relevance, I have nothing else to say.

Reply | Quote

I think the risks will be higher. I wouldn’t advise it to close friends and relatives that seek my advice on computer related stuff, but I accept different people will see it differently. I also wouldn’t advise it to customers… but it’s all a probabilities based game

I can accept the first part of that, now all we need is for you to put a percentage on that risk. Do you think infections will rise say, 10% in the first year that support ends? Less, more? You keep writing as if though all the basic and sound precautions already taken by folks either through careful consideration or from getting burned a time or two will evaporate just as readily as the updates will. You also seem to write as if those updates are one of the critical front line defenses for such infection when they are nothing of the sort, one might prevent an obscure buffer overrun if it gets past the hardware firewall, past the software firewall, past the anti-virus and is authorized by the user. IF such were not the case then -bill and I would be as easily infected as often as anyone without the ability to detect an uninitiated action. Such does not happen and in fact has never happened. That sort of empirical evidence demands attention and inclusion into analytics not estimated vagaries and dismissal because it doesn’t fit the scenario. I promise I am not taking special considerations to keep my record spotless, only a router, various OSes that hardly ever see an update and my brain are. There is one and only one pronounced variable there; and I don’t think anyone is using my brain except me!:o:.

Tell ya what, pick a percentage you think XP infections will increase above and beyond either a increase or decrease of infections of W7 from May 2014 to May 2015, and I’ll freely admit that any significant increase must be due to the end of updates. I think it’s actually going to go down, not up for XP, because those who are uncertain will flee, and those who stick it out are going to tighten the security measures that really matter and make a difference.

Reply | Quote

@bill

You wrote this as a reply to me: “Given that there has been relatively little ‘tut-tutting’ over this and so many other sub-optimal approaches to security I’m inclined to write off a great deal of the “The XP sky is falling! Get out from under while you still can!” sentiment as bias, ignorance, or (in Microsoft’s case) self-interest.”

If that is not dismissing the claim there will be increased risks because some of the people making it cannot deal with their own security properly…

Politics are not allowed here. Plus, I am not american. For both reasons I will not comment on your political statements and I must ask that politics is left out of the Lounge.

When we are talking about big numbers, anecdotal evidence, as much as attractive as it may seem, it’s just that, anecdotal evidence. It’s pointless to discuss it and I won’t do it.

Reply | Quote

I am not american.

Rui, I never could figure out whether you were American or not, because your English is absolutely perfect.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Rui, I never could figure out whether you were American or not, because your English is absolutely perfect.

Well, that’s nice of you to say, thanks :).

Reply | Quote

@bill

You wrote this as a reply to me: “Given that there has been relatively little ‘tut-tutting’ over this and so many other sub-optimal approaches to security I’m inclined to write off a great deal of the “The XP sky is falling! Get out from under while you still can!” sentiment as bias, ignorance, or (in Microsoft’s case) self-interest.”

If that is not dismissing the claim there will be increased risks because some of the people making it cannot deal with their own security properly…[/quote]

It is nothing of the kind, as you’ll discover if you parse it more carefully. It is, rather, explicitly quantitative in nature in observing that the degree of any such increased risk is almost certainly very far indeed from any “The sky is falling!” level (the level expressed by the post to which I originally responded) and also that it is at worst comparable to the degree of risk regularly tolerated by many users running later fully up-to-date systems with less competent third-party protection software.

Just in case the above isn’t sufficiently clear, I’m observing that I never suggested that the increased risk of running without security updates to known possible attack vectors was ZERO (as you most certainly claimed I had suggested in the quote from you which I included in post 76 above), rather that the level of any such increased risk in the presence of good third-party protective software and sensible user habits was at worst comparable to other risks undertaken by typical software and user behavior on still-supported systems kept completely current in their update status.

Politics are not allowed here. Plus, I am not american. For both reasons I will not comment on your political statements and I must ask that politics is left out of the Lounge.

Politics was used as an example, nothing more, in an effort to help you understand my position in the security area if such an example could do so (as I think I made very clear at the time).

When we are talking about big numbers, anecdotal evidence, as much as attractive as it may seem, it’s just that, anecdotal evidence. It’s pointless to discuss it and I won’t do it.

And yet you seem perfectly happy to offer up and discuss GENERAL opinions about the seriousness of various sub-optimal approaches to security without offering up a shred of quantitative evidence to support them – whereas anecdotal evidence, limited as it may be, DOES represent a single quantitative data point. I suggest that there may be some inconsistency there that you might want to examine.

Reply | Quote

@bill,

We are entering into a phase of “you said, I said”. Doesn’t add much to the discussion.

I will end my participation here by stating two simple things, which can be easily backed by a decent search, so it’s much stronger than a offering a single quantitative data point: most malware attacks explore unpatched vulnerabilities, either in the OS or 3rd party apps. Without continued support by Microsoft, it seems a simple inference that there will be more unpatched vulnerabilities and thus the security risk incurred by running XP will be bigger. How will that translate to real attacks and infections, I don’t think anyone can tell. Probably there are people or companies, those in the security business who can offer predictions based on their own data and thus more reliable.

As I said before and repeat again, security is a probabilities game. You can run a system with deficient protection, heck, even no protection, and not get infected. With the big numbers were are talking about, that is entirely possible, even more so because much of the risk results from user behavior. However, probabilities will also lead you to think that risk will actually turn into infections, for some users. There is risk regardless of the OS, but running software that is unpatched is not a good practice and yet people do that all the time.

To some users, it won’t matter that there is increased risk, they will keep using it. Let’s face it, many people who get infected don’t even have any idea they are infected so, to many people, the idea that there is risk to running any OS is totally strange. To others, the perceived (even unquantified) risk can be a reason to consider a move.

Reply | Quote

@bill,

We are entering into a phase of “you said, I said”. Doesn’t add much to the discussion.[/quote]

Pointing out persistent misinterpretations does not strike me as being irrelevant to a discussion but rather as necessary if one even wants to be able to CALL it a discussion: otherwise, it’s just talking past each other. On a more personal note, when I don’t understand what someone it saying I appreciate their willingness to persist until I do and in the absence of evidence to the contrary assume that others feel similarly.

Without continued support by Microsoft, it seems a simple inference that there will be more unpatched vulnerabilities and thus the security risk incurred by running XP will be bigger.

The fact that you feel compelled to state this yet again suggests that you still feel it is a point of contention between us. It isn’t. It never was. That’s largely what I’ve been attempting to point out so that we could move beyond it.

How will that translate to real attacks and infections, I don’t think anyone can tell.

Exactly.

As I said before and repeat again, security is a probabilities game. You can run a system with deficient protection, heck, even no protection, and not get infected.

That may be a statement of yours that *I* misinterpreted, since I took it in the sense that SOME security lapses increased the probability of infection far more than others did (a view which I definitely hold myself and which has formed another large part of what I’ve been saying). If you’re using it merely to dismiss anecdotal evidence from consideration (because probability will always guarantee that SOME people escape infection despite horrendous security practices), I’ll again suggest that doing so without providing any quantitative evidence to support refutation of such anecdotal evidence is poor logic (i.e., I tend to take the view that SOME evidence, tenuous though it may be, is less worthy of being dismissed out of hand than NO evidence at all).

running software that is unpatched is not a good practice and yet people do that all the time.

Running sub-standard security software (in which I include Windows Firewall, especially due to its default lack of out-bound protection, and MSE, due to its mediocre detection rates) is not a good practice either. Running Internet Explorer has always not been a good practice from the standpoint of security (it may, FINALLY, have gotten somewhat better, though last I knew it still was receiving a lot of patches). Non-selective execution of JavaScript (and, perhaps worse, Java) in a browser (or other application that uses it, since that can turn, e.g., documents into infection vectors and thus significantly increase the threat cross-section from that otherwise largely limited to Internet activity) is not a good practice. Even if you avoid the preceding security holes, unpatched and day-zero exploits make failing to run many applications (browsers, pdf readers, video players…) in a sandbox not a good practice (though even if you do run them in a sandbox you may still allow harm to come to your personal data even if it can’t reach core system functions: safer, likely, to limit all your sensitive activity to a secure system used for nothing else so that your day-to-day activities performed on another – perhaps virtualized – system won’t affect it).

And that of course completely leaves out reckless user behavior.

Saying that people should not do things that increase security risk is meaningless without quantifying HOW MUCH risk each different behavior entails (and under what circumstances, given that in many cases multiple levels of software – and user behavior – may mask holes in any one level), because virtually NO ONE really minimizes risk across the board: it’s simply too inconvenient given the diminishing returns it provides. So unless you can provide real data to indicate that running XP after security updates for it cease (and assuming that people take other reasonable precautions, since if they don’t it probably won’t much matter HOW up-to-date their OS is) will result in a MAJOR increase in risk, it makes no more sense to discourage people who LIKE XP more than they like later Windows systems from continuing to use XP than it makes to encourage people to migrate to Linux (regardless of whether they like it) and avoid Windows entirely (since the perception that Linux provides better security – even if mostly ‘security through obscurity’ – than ANY Windows system is probably AT LEAST as prevalent as any perception that failing to continue to patch a system as mature as XP is will radically increase the risk of running it).

Reply | Quote

That may be a statement of yours that *I* misinterpreted, since I took it in the sense that SOME security lapses increased the probability of infection far more than others did (a view which I definitely hold myself and which has formed another large part of what I’ve been saying). If you’re using it merely to dismiss anecdotal evidence from consideration (because probability will always guarantee that SOME people escape infection despite horrendous security practices), I’ll again suggest that doing so without providing any quantitative evidence to support refutation of such anecdotal evidence is poor logic (i.e., I tend to take the view that SOME evidence, tenuous though it may be, is less worthy of being dismissed out of hand than NO evidence at all).
[/quote]
I am not using it to dismiss evidence. I am just stating a fact. As anecdotal evidence, I know a developer who never used a firewall (or so he says) and never got infected. In the billion plus Windows users, I bet there are others like him. Probability can explain it, but this won’t happen to most people.

Running sub-standard security software (in which I include Windows Firewall, especially due to its default lack of out-bound protection, and MSE, due to its mediocre detection rates) is not a good practice either. Running Internet Explorer has always not been a good practice from the standpoint of security (it may, FINALLY, have gotten somewhat better, though last I knew it still was receiving a lot of patches). Non-selective execution of JavaScript (and, perhaps worse, Java) in a browser (or other application that uses it, since that can turn, e.g., documents into infection vectors and thus significantly increase the threat cross-section from that otherwise largely limited to Internet activity) is not a good practice. Even if you avoid the preceding security holes, unpatched and day-zero exploits make failing to run many applications (browsers, pdf readers, video players…) in a sandbox not a good practice (though even if you do run them in a sandbox you may still allow harm to come to your personal data even if it can’t reach core system functions: safer, likely, to limit all your sensitive activity to a secure system used for nothing else so that your day-to-day activities performed on another – perhaps virtualized – system won’t affect it).

I need to correct you here. Windows firewall does include outbound protection. I think it does that since Vista, but 7 definitely includes it. Not sure how the rules are configured regarding outbound traffic. I never used the Windows firewall and I never got much familiar with its operation.

Saying that people should not do things that increase security risk is meaningless without quantifying HOW MUCH risk each different behavior entails (and under what circumstances, given that in many cases multiple levels of software – and user behavior – may mask holes in any one level), because virtually NO ONE really minimizes risk across the board: it’s simply too inconvenient given the diminishing returns it provides. So unless you can provide real data to indicate that running XP after security updates for it cease (and assuming that people take other reasonable precautions, since if they don’t it probably won’t much matter HOW up-to-date their OS is) will result in a MAJOR increase in risk, it makes no more sense to discourage people who LIKE XP more than they like later Windows systems from continuing to use XP than it makes to encourage people to migrate to Linux (regardless of whether they like it) and avoid Windows entirely (since the perception that Linux provides better security – even if mostly ‘security through obscurity’ – than ANY Windows system is probably AT LEAST as prevalent as any perception that failing to continue to patch a system as mature as XP is will radically increase the risk of running it).

I don’t think anyone can do that. Probably those in the computer security field can, but I don’t work in that field.

No one installs an AV or anti-malware system because it will diminish their risks by a known percentage. People just do it because it is seen as a good security practice, that will reduce risk, even if in an unquantifiable way. I guess this is a valid statement for the majority of people and the majority of situations. Very few people will know how much adding an AV or a second malware app will reduce their likelihood of getting malware. I don’t know. Do you know any data on such situations?
In spite of being unable to quantify the diminished risk, I have always used whatever there was at my time of usage that behaved like a HIPS, coupled with an AV, when possible. Why? Because it is a good, recommend practice. Does it bring risks? Hardly? Can it minimize infection risks? Definitely.
You do it too, can you quantify how much risk you have diminished for your operation?

I think many situations are avoided, good practices wise, because they entail more risk than alternatives, even if the added risk is not quantifiable. I am usually careful with language and numbers and if you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I made no quantified claims, nor did I state that the sky would fall. I try not to talk about what I don’t know, seems a sensible way to behave, go figure, so I could not have quantified anything, as I don’t have the data.

We do things so often (almost always?!) without the mathematical certainty of precise figures. It’s by that same reason that I would personally avoid XP, even now. I understand some users won’t. It’s their choice to do so and believe me, I won’t be here saying “I told you so”, if worse comes to happen, even though I don’t think it will happen in such a large scale as some would make you believe.

Reply | Quote

I need to correct you here.[/quote]

You actually don’t ‘need’ to do that, because my statement (that Windows Firewall BY DEFAULT lacks out-bound protection) is 100% correct at least through Win 7 (and I suspect for Win 8 as well) – see, for example, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee215186%28v=ws.10%29.aspx

Furthermore, AFAICT when one DOES manually enable out-bound protection manually it’s decidedly non-user-friendly, e.g., it doesn’t notify you when an out-bound access is prohibited so that you can decide whether that’s what you want to do. It’s possible that third-party products created to make configuring Windows Firewall more approachable may improve this situation – I haven’t examined them closely enough to know.

can you quantify how much risk you have diminished for your operation?

I think you’re still completely missing the point. Of COURSE sensible people (already a distinct minority of the computing population) seek to minimize risk when doing so has little or no down-side, but the question here is whether they should be expected to do so when there IS a notable down-side (in this particular case, giving up the XP system that they like: that’s why I offered what I hoped was a clarifying analogy about whether it was equally reasonable to tell everyone to move to Linux – despite the convenience of sticking with ANY Windows version, including current ones – simply because that would likely improve security).

The claim that sticking with XP after security updates cease will (likely) entail some increased risk is true, but the suggestion that this increase in risk will be sufficient that people should not do this even if they’d really prefer to stick with XP requires substantiation (given that virtually everyone – likely including you – does not take EVERY POSSIBLE measure to reduce risk to an absolute minimum because it’s inconvenient to do so). And the burden of such substantiation rests with the person making the claim: there’s no reason for someone who questions it to provide data to refute that claim when it has not been accompanied by data which they could evaluate.

I try not to talk about what I don’t know, seems a sensible way to behave

I absolutely agree, and that is certainly my impression of you from what I’ve seen here. But sometimes people develop such strong preconceptions in specific areas that they have difficulty seeing that they’re still ONLY preconceptions rather than something more concrete.

So since you said earlier that you “wouldn’t advise” people to stick with XP, the logical question is whether you also wouldn’t advise them to stick with Windows at all (because Linux is probably more secure) – or at least wouldn’t advise them to use Microsoft’s default protective measures even if they’d find anything more effective difficult to handle. If not, I’ll suggest that these all represent explicit trade-offs between convenience and security, that the decision to stick with XP is merely another such trade-off, and that singling it out as worth giving up despite the inconvenience really does require at least SOME degree of quantification relative to the other security risks that virtually all users (including virtually everyone here) expose themselves to to avoid inconvenience.

Reply | Quote

You actually don’t ‘need’ to do that, because my statement (that Windows Firewall BY DEFAULT lacks out-bound protection) is 100% correct at least through Win 7 (and I suspect for Win 8 as well) – see, for example, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee215186%28v=ws.10%29.aspx
[/quote]
Well, one could argue it doesn’t lack outbound protection, it’s just not active by default. I could nitpick, but I won’t :).

Furthermore, AFAICT when one DOES manually enable out-bound protection manually it’s decidedly non-user-friendly, e.g., it doesn’t notify you when an out-bound access is prohibited so that you can decide whether that’s what you want to do. It’s possible that third-party products created to make configuring Windows Firewall more approachable may improve this situation – I haven’t examined them closely enough to know.

That’s a totally different thing. I think the Windows firewall has probably the worst interface a firewall could have but, as yourself, I choose not to use it.

I think you’re still completely missing the point. Of COURSE sensible people (already a distinct minority of the computing population) seek to minimize risk when doing so has little or no down-side, but the question here is whether they should be expected to do so when there IS a notable down-side (in this particular case, giving up the XP system that they like: that’s why I offered what I hoped was a clarifying analogy about whether it was equally reasonable to tell everyone to move to Linux – despite the convenience of sticking with ANY Windows version, including current ones – simply because that would likely improve security).

I disagree. My point was whether our decisions regarding security are determine by a precise assessment of the diminishing risk we get when choose a specific strategy. You implied I would need to quantify the risk in order to have a good reason for people leaving XP. I countered that, just as other security related decisions are not determined by precise measurements of risk reduction, the decision to leave XP should not really require it, either. Maybe this is not how you see it, but it is how I see it.

The claim that sticking with XP after security updates cease will (likely) entail some increased risk is true, but the suggestion that this increase in risk will be sufficient that people should not do this even if they’d really prefer to stick with XP requires substantiation (given that virtually everyone – likely including you – does not take EVERY POSSIBLE measure to reduce risk to an absolute minimum because it’s inconvenient to do so). And the burden of such substantiation rests with the person making the claim: there’s no reason for someone who questions it to provide data to refute that claim when it has not been accompanied by data which they could evaluate.

I don’t know whether the increased risk is sufficient or not, it’s for each XP user to decide.

I absolutely agree, and that is certainly my impression of you from what I’ve seen here. But sometimes people develop such strong preconceptions in specific areas that they have difficulty seeing that they’re still ONLY preconceptions rather than something more concrete.

As much as humanly possible, I try to provide assessments that are free of any preconceptions. We all have biases and sometimes we are able to put them aside, sometimes we aren’t. I do have my own preferences, of course, as we all do. I have learned to try to minimize their influence when assessing something. Professionally, I am often required to do so.

So since you said earlier that you “wouldn’t advise” people to stick with XP, the logical question is whether you also wouldn’t advise them to stick with Windows at all (because Linux is probably more secure) – or at least wouldn’t advise them to use Microsoft’s default protective measures even if they’d find anything more effective difficult to handle. If not, I’ll suggest that these all represent explicit trade-offs between convenience and security, that the decision to stick with XP is merely another such trade-off, and that singling it out as worth giving up despite the inconvenience really does require at least SOME degree of quantification relative to the other security risks that virtually all users (including virtually everyone here) expose themselves to to avoid inconvenience.

If there were no Windows based options to get a reasonable secure computing environment, I probably would recommend Linux. I don’t think, however, that would be any easier for some users to go Linux and Windows 7 (even 8, in my opinion) are perfectly valid and better options than XP, regarding security, in my opinion.
You are absolutely right, every decision represents a trade-off between multiple different factors.

I have always advised people who rely on my technical advice, to use 3rd party firewalls. ZA and OA have made a few sales on me, as have Emsisoft AntiMalware.

Reply | Quote

Windows 7 by a mile.

The main reason I loved it at first was the Snap to screen function but it has proved to be better than XP all round – faster, smarter, easier.

I might try W8.1 (having used the trial W8 for a year and reverting to W7 at the end) but for now, familiarity is more productive than Metro.

Microsoft took a chance on Metro and it backfired for the first year. Underneath I suspect W8 is the best OS.

DK

Reply | Quote

If there were no Windows based options to get a reasonable secure computing environment, I probably would recommend Linux.[/quote]

Perhaps we’re finally honing in on the crux of the debate. You claim that there are Windows-based options to get a reasonably secure computing environment, and given that I still run Windows (Win2K) I obviously agree with that. I simply believe that singling out use of XP after support ceases as a problem is discriminatory if you don’t also, for example, single out failure to run all casual Internet access within a secure virtualized sandbox completely segregated from sensitive data and activities (e.g., those relating to financial transactions) as at least equally dangerous.

For example, I’d maintain that an XP user a couple of years from now who runs such casual access virtualized is likely at least as secure as a Win 7 or Win 8 user who does not so segregate it – and that will be almost all Win 7 and Win 8 users out there. Which would mean that if you aren’t similarly earnest in encouraging Win 7 and Win 8 users to virtualize such access as a security measure, you should at the very least be qualifying your discouraging comments about continued XP use with the observation that it’s likely not a problem if people do virtualize their potentially risky behavior in this manner (which is and will continue to be eminently possible on XP, and for that matter is even on Win2K).

Similar observations apply to other specific security measures one can (but most people do not) take to make Windows (whatever version) environments more secure. That was one of FUN’s points: that it’s the overall package that should be considered, not just one aspect in isolation. Which is why I’ve been suggesting that least rough quantification of OVERALL exposure should be engaged in when discussing the importance (especially the RELATIVE importance) of specific security measures. A simple priority list does not suffice because so many of the measures on this list have overlapping capabilities (such that if you’ve got one in place this may reduce the importance of having another – another of FUN’s points). It would, of course, also be reasonable to throw out a complete laundry list of possible security measures one can take without any attempt to prioritize them (one of which would be running only operating systems enjoying continuing vendor support), but that’s not what’s happening here: just one item on that list is being singled out for special criticism without any attempt to evaluate whether it actually merits it any more than a multitude of other exposures that people (including most here) routinely put up with for the sake of convenience.

I don’t think, however, that would be any easier for some users to go Linux and Windows 7 (even 8, in my opinion) are perfectly valid and better options than XP, regarding security, in my opinion.

And again the matter of convenience rears its head, as I’ve been noting for quite a while now. It may be more convenient for an XP user to migrate to Win 7 or Win 8 (and have a somewhat more secure system going forward, all other things being equal) than to migrate to Linux (and perhaps have an even MORE secure system going forward), but it’s more convenient still (especially if that user does not LIKE Win 7 or Win 8 as much as they like XP) not to migrate at all – and this need not even entail any potential net increase in exposure if other aspects of security are strengthened at the point where XP security updates cease.

To get a bit philosophical, people these days seem to me to be considerably less inclined to step back and really reassess situations and attitudes when their own preconceptions and/or subconscious biases are challenged than they seemed to be during my formative years (though those included the ’60s which I admit may have been atypical in this regard). I don’t presume to characterize this as intellectual laziness, a failure of our educational systems to teach and encourage critical thinking and analysis, a reaction to perceived faster-moving life in general (“There’s just not TIME to really think about things any more!”), or any other specific malady, and don’t discount the possibility that it might at least largely reflect the vast difference in average age between the people I was interacting with back then and the people I’m interacting with now, but whatever the underlying cause may be it feels to me like a step backward for society and I therefore tend to buckle down and tackle instances of it when I think I’ve stumbled upon them in a venue that I care something about (as is my impression here). I understand that this can seem tiresome to others at times, especially if I haven’t explained why I’m doing it – so thanks for the patience and continued engagement that you’ve demonstrated.

Edit: I tried, I really tried, but…

one could argue it doesn’t lack outbound protection, it’s just not active by default. I could nitpick, but I won’t

If one does want to pick nits, one could observe that the lack of outbound protection (especially when qualified by the term ‘default’ which clearly implies other possible behavior) should reasonably be read as a statement about behavior rather than about ability, and that this behavior if not enabled can reasonably be said to be lacking even if the ability to enable it and thus eliminate that lack exists.

Reply | Quote

Bill,

You know, every decision we make, regarding security or whatever else, involves a trade-off, whether explicitly perceived or not. While I understand that running every internet access in a virtualized environment would surely be the safest option, I personally do not see it as an absolute need, others things being in place. Do people access the internet usually less well secured? Yes, definitely. Even today I heard of a serious ransomware case with XP running the default firewall and MSE. This seems to be good in most cases (it’s not good enough for me).
Does that equate to running XP with no more patches? Hard to say. You seem to think it is worse, I have no grounds to state it. I think there are different risks to each situation. Each user has to make its own choice. Regardless of the OS, I always use best of breed HIPS and antimalware apps and do not let any of the family devices go online without the same protection. I don’t use virtualized environments to go online, never really seemed a necessity. I may be wrong. Much of what we do is support by implicit or explicit assertions of risk. Once I considered using Sandboxie, but I understand that it’s not as effective on x64 systems (the Sandboxied creator stated this himself a few years ago, and that contributed to me not keeping on using it when I moved to x64).

I think we can get too involved, or too tired, or too busy, to challenge our own assertions, sometimes, indeed. Things seem to evolve a bit faster, in the technology area today, so that may make the problem a bit more pressing. Sometimes that can cost us, sometimes it won’t. We just need to live and learn and incorporate that learning into our daily practices. It may be slow, but some of us still do it. I have learned to always listen carefully to what others say and I do incorporate many things learned from others into my own behaviors and practices. It’s one of the good things of this tech age. My RSS feed can easily go 1000 articles every day, twitter can even be worse (though twitter is different). But I agree we should question ourselves, our practices often, that’s the only way to do better than we do now :).

Reply | Quote

I’ve been away from this thread for a few days and I’ve lost the pulse so I shan’t comment on much except; and this may help clear up some of the observatory misconception ruirib is including, and which I will not take offense to even though I have scientific methodology both in training and innate behavior (to the great suffering of my artistic ability!), and particular ire for folks who do not engage in sound statistical analysis.

I will end my participation here by stating two simple things, which can be easily backed by a decent search, so it’s much stronger than a offering a single quantitative data point:

Where did you ever come up with such irrelevant and ridiculous statement like that? Hopefully it wasn’t from anything I wrote or inferred because if it was, you could not have gotten it more wrong. Single data points will reveal the range of a subject under analysis, not the statistical deviation nor the shape of the curve, be it bell, double bump, or straight incline/decline, or some indescribable random pattern. I thought we were discussing points far FAR beyond what was a forgone assumption on my part.
I the end my recommendations, or those from -bill, I suspect would not vary from yours in the least concerning those who are uncomfortable with the end of support, and I don’t feel like you’ve given any quantifiable reason for those who will remain becoming more cavalier as far as proactive means to protect themselves.

I accept the rest, none of us really know but I listen to enough “in the trenches” podcasts to get some decent idea about what’s happening in the real world. Listen to the most recent The Geeksters podcast for a good example. Far and away my analysis always leads me away from malware attempting to exploit OS or third party programs and toward a programmer or malicious program user attempting to exploit an average population that uses computers on a network and on the Internet. In other words it’s overwhelmingly social and not physical until the social barrier is exploited, and that more easily exploited social population is shrinking as far as XP goes, and I believe more social restrictions will be imposed, namely by businesses, who continue to use XP. The Geeksters podcast again, to use an example, many employees at what sounds like a large company (nationwide at least) opened an attachment…and fun ensued! NOT. To me the problem and resolution was obvious, and unfortunate to say, but lowest common denominator-based (because if I was IT-based, I would LOVE all the permissions and security impediments I rail against otherwise :^_^:). An update would have had the slimmest of chances to be effective facing the onslaught of social behavior.

Reply | Quote

I’ve been away from this thread for a few days and I’ve lost the pulse so I shan’t comment on much except; and this may help clear up some of the observatory misconception ruirib is including, and which I will not take offense to even though I have scientific methodology both in training and innate behavior (to the great suffering of my artistic ability!), and particular ire for folks who do not engage in sound statistical analysis.

Where did you ever come up with such irrelevant and ridiculous statement like that? Hopefully it wasn’t from anything I wrote or inferred because if it was, you could not have gotten it more wrong. Single data points will reveal the range of a subject under analysis, not the statistical deviation nor the shape of the curve, be it bell, double bump, or straight incline/decline, or some indescribable random pattern. I thought we were discussing points far FAR beyond what was a forgone assumption on my part.
I the end my recommendations, or those from -bill, I suspect would not vary from yours in the least concerning those who are uncomfortable with the end of support, and I don’t feel like you’ve given any quantifiable reason for those who will remain becoming more cavalier as far as proactive means to protect themselves.

I accept the rest, none of really know but I listen to enough “in the trenches” podcasts to get some decent idea about what’s happening in the real world. Listen to the most recent The Geeksters podcast for a good example. Far and away my analysis always leads me away from malware attempting to exploit OS or third party programs and toward a programmer or malicious program user attempting to exploit an average population that uses computers on a network and on the Internet. In other words it’s overwhelmingly social and not physical until the social barrier is exploited, and that more easily exploited social population is shrinking as far as XP goes, and I believe more social restrictions will be imposed, namely by businesses, who continue to use XP. The Geeksters podcast again, to use an example, many employees at what sounds like a large company (nationwide at least) opened an attachment…and fun ensued! NOT. To me the problem and resolution was obvious, and unfortunate to say, but lowest common denominator-based (because if I was IT-based, I would LOVE all the permissions and security impediments I rail against otherwise :^_^:). A missing update would have had the slimmest of chances to be effective facing the onslaught of social behavior.

Look, for whatever reason, I don’t really enjoy your approach to these issues. So I will stop discussing it with you.
Have a nice weekend.

Reply | Quote

And I don’t enjoy yours either but I don’t hold a scrap of ill will just to be clear, because if all the factors were linear and comparable I would agree on every point.

Reply | Quote

And I don’t enjoy yours either but I don’t hold a scrap of ill will just to be clear, because if all the factors were linear and comparable I would agree on every point.

No ill will either. We both should stick to discussions we enjoy :).

Reply | Quote

Rui,

What will constitute ‘good enough’ protection is likely by definition a subjective, personal decision – one hopes based on at least some understanding of how different forms of protection work against the existing and potential threats out there. Discussions like this one can help people think about and perhaps even learn something more about those details so that they can better balance their protection choices to achieve decent protection on the one hand and a system they like working with on the other.

The main point I’ve been trying to make is that there is NO single form of protection (including running a Windows version that receives on-going security updates) that people cannot do without while still achieving ‘good enough’ protection – probably even by your standards – via use of other protective measures whose strengths can adequately mask any ‘holes’ left by the lack of that particular measure.. To pick one extreme example, while I admit that I’d be hesitant to run unvirtualized Win9x systems connected to the Internet (especially given that I’m just as happy running Win2K or XP) resources are available to do so with what is reported to be reasonable safety and some very knowledgeable people do just that (see discussions at msfn.org). To pick another one, even a system lacking firewall and real-time anti-malware protection that includes some form of HIPS can be virtualized and treated such that running it connected to the Internet can be considered safe (though I might find that sufficiently inconvenient that I’d seek a different solution).

I learn more from discussions with people I don’t agree with – sometimes directly from what they say, certainly from what disagreement makes me think about more than I otherwise would have, and to some degree even from mere communication failures (though those last can get frustrating). Thanks for this one.

Reply | Quote

Bill,

I agree with just about everything in your last post, both on the technical aspects and on the benefits of having a disagreeing opinion. Some of such opinions convey quite valid points and it would foolish not to consider them. Not only do some points raised in such discussions have merit of their own, but also the analysis of our own “weak” points may make us consider things we never even thought about before. We can always learn something when we are willing to listen attentively :).

Thank you too.

Reply | Quote

With each new version since Win 7 Redmond is trying to force the user to arrange his/her life according to the lame style of those engineers. Windows XP should be allowed support for those who know how to tie their shoelaces and hang up their clothes.

Reply | Quote