Win XP vs Win 7 - an internet security debate.

[kuwanger]

First,Windows XP (pro) was and is for me personally Microsofts best shot.

My favorite version of Windows is probably Windows 2000. From a technical perspective, though, it'd have to be a mix of Vista and NT 3.51--Vista protects against Shatter Attack and NT 3.51 came before efforts to push graphics drivers into the kernel as well as the creation of the "Power User" group (which Vista also backed off on, but I'm not sure if I trust they did a complete job of it on either). I mean, both the 3DS and Switch have shown how much you can trust supposed privilege escalation as well as GPUs ability to counter things.

 

[blahblah]

This thread exists exclusively because the moderating team (not myself) has determined that while all of these posts were in fact off-topic, the discussion itself is an interesting one and one that's worth having. I myself share that sentiment, it belongs in its own thread.

Of course, no one of worth or value cares what a person who routinely abuses what little power they have to ‘win’ an argument online thinks. Or the rest of your friends.

 

[IncredulousP]

Possibly unrelated, but in my experience Win 7 ran a hell of a lot faster on weaker harder than Win 10 currently does. Both have BSOD'd quite a lot, though it seems like (and i can be remembering incorrectly) Win 10 doesn't crash quite as much. My big issue, though, is that the performance of games on my Win10 varies wildly depending on the game, whereas win 7 was more leveled. I had to stop playing certain games altogether in win 10 because of unexplained stutter and slowdowns. For example, rocket league runs like trash on my Win10 machine, but if I boot into Debian instead (on the same machine) it runs beautifully smooth. Another game I used to play on Windows was Awesomenauts, but about 2 years ago I would constantly experience the game pausing every ~2 sec for about .1s. Luckily, this too runs smoothly in Debian. Also, win10 will randomly slow to a crawl sometimes when gaming (I can only assume it's doing it's annoying updating crap in the background) or just minimize my game for no reason. My win 10 is on an m.2 card that is roughly 4x faster than the ssd my debian is on, according to Crystal Diskmark, but Debian still runs much quicker. The constant automated updating in win 10 is quite annoying too, and the large telemetry/background process presence is nuts. So much use of resources for seemingly nothing, my fans will speed up just sitting on the desktop. I didn't have any of these issues in win 7 (though I did have more driver issues back in the day). Plus the UI in 10 is a mess. I've also never been able to get windows store to work in 10, and this is after multiple fresh installs. It just... Breaks and doesn't work. It'll work the first boot after a fresh install but then stops working after I restart. Anyhoo, this is just my personal experience with win 10. I've switched to Debian as my primary OS and love it, none of the bloated processing and telemetry of win 10. It's faster and the games that run on it run much smoother/faster. I only use my win 10 for the other games and emulators.

 

[Foxi4]

Possibly unrelated, but in my experience Win 7 ran a hell of a lot faster on weaker harder than Win 10 currently does. Both have BSOD'd quite a lot, though it seems like (and i can be remembering incorrectly) Win 10 doesn't crash quite as much. My big issue, though, is that the performance of games on my Win10 varies wildly depending on the game, whereas win 7 was more leveled. I had to stop playing certain games altogether in win 10 because of unexplained stutter and slowdowns. For example, rocket league runs like trash on my Win10 machine, but if I boot into Debian instead (on the same machine) it runs beautifully smooth. Another game I used to play on Windows was Awesomenauts, but about 2 years ago I would constantly experience the game pausing every ~2 sec for about .1s. Luckily, this too runs smoothly in Debian. Also, win10 will randomly slow to a crawl sometimes when gaming (I can only assume it's doing it's annoying updating crap in the background) or just minimize my game for no reason. My win 10 is on an m.2 card that is roughly 4x faster than the ssd my debian is on, according to Crystal Diskmark, but Debian still runs much quicker. The constant automated updating in win 10 is quite annoying too, and the large telemetry/background process presence is nuts. So much use of resources for seemingly nothing, my fans will speed up just sitting on the desktop. I didn't have any of these issues in win 7 (though I did have more driver issues back in the day). Plus the UI in 10 is a mess. I've also never been able to get windows store to work in 10, and this is after multiple fresh installs. It just... Breaks and doesn't work. It'll work the first boot after a fresh install but then stops working after I restart. Anyhoo, this is just my personal experience with win 10. I've switched to Debian as my primary OS and love it, none of the bloated processing and telemetry of win 10. It's faster and the games that run on it run much smoother/faster. I only use my win 10 for the other games and emulators.

I always had the opposite experience, although admittedly Windows 10 requires a lot of tweaking in order to be properly usable, in no small part due to all of the annoying quirks you've mentioned. Telemetry can be mostly (not completely) disabled and automatic updates can be postponed by simply disabling the Windows Update service and reenabling it as needed. I heard that with some further tweaking you can use the same tool that's normally used for scheduling updates on Windows Server, but I never went the extra mile - I usually know when it's time to update due to some kind of an important patch. Windows 10 was made "technophobe-friendly" at the cost of power users, but in my experience it has a much smaller footprint than 7 and doesn't use nearly as much resources, on the proviso that you're willing to go through the rigmarole of customising it quite heavily. Even the UI can be tweaked to be 7-like if you really want it to be that way, although I never really had an issue with what was then called "Metro UI".

 

[dAVID_]

Is it even debatable?

 

[IncredulousP]

admittedly Windows 10 requires a lot of tweaking in order to be properly usable, in no small part due to all of the annoying quirks you've mentioned.

True, but if I'm going to fiddle around with an OS, I might as well be fiddling around on a unix-like machine instead of today's proprietary Windows software, where I am more likely to use concepts learned in the future (assuming my career isn't largely Windows IT and development).

 

[Idontknowwhattoputhere]

Why bother with windows when there arch linux?

 

[Foxi4]

True, but if I'm going to fiddle around with an OS, I might as well be fiddling around on a unix-like machine instead of today's proprietary Windows software, where I am more likely to use concepts learned in the future (assuming my career isn't largely Windows IT and development).

That's a fair assessment, although you have to keep in mind that most users, by and large, use vanilla OS'es. Power users customise them for their own enhanced convenience, we're a rather small club.

 

[IncredulousP]

That's a fair assessment, although you have to keep in mind that most users, by and large, use vanilla OS'es. Power users customise them for their own enhanced convenience, we're a rather small club.

I miss the days when power users were the only users. I wasn't born yet, but I probably would have looked back fondly on them.

 

[Foxi4]

I miss the days when power users were the only users. I wasn't born yet, but I probably would have looked back fondly on them.

It's true that in many cases simple functionality is sacrificed for the benefit of the casual user, it's how all this touch-oriented stuff began. That being said, returning to the times of the terminal isn't exactly convenient either. There's a healthy middle ground, I think - I always thought that the Start menu and the overall structure of Windows was just that.

 

[CORE]

Windows XP SP3 is fine along with Vista SP2 and Windows 7SP1 and even Windows 8.1 preferably Embedded.

The real downside is Compatability with newer Software and Graphics API Direct X etc.

Scare mongering about Security Patches for a Bussiness sure but not for most Average Users it depends on what your doing Windows 8 onwards is Official Adware Spyware Keylogger Getting to know what processes do what and what should or not be Running and what Process does what is the Key here dont just take someones word learn.

Overall it would be nice for everyone to have their own precompiled Linux Distro that works with their Hardware 100% and since every Linux Distro is different it would be very near impossible to utilize the same exploit per OS and just Run Virtual Machines of whatever.

In reality stay away from dodgy sites and pay attention to what your installing and those tick boxes get to know what Starts up and is Running via Services or Scheduled Tasks keep those Temporary folders in order and your Registry , these practices wont just help keep your Machine more secure but Run Faster and ofcourse Basic Security Software regardless of which Windows again the main problem will come down to OS Support for the Software which is kind of the point of this thread?

 

[smf]

Why bother with windows when there arch linux?

I remember when it was AmigaOS/OS2/BeOS arguments. I used *ix in the 1990's, no X just telnet. Windows was better, I occasionally try *ix but it's not improved enough.

People with a different experience may have fallen in love with *ix. Mostly it seems to be from a time when Windows became uncool and *ix became cool. The same thing that means people switch from facebook to instagram to snapchat for arbitrary reasons & mostly just to be different.

My TV, Phone, NAS & routers all run *ix. That is more than enough for me.

 

[CORE]

I would be using Linux if it was more friendly with my Hardware

 

[Foxi4]

I remember when it was AmigaOS/OS2/BeOS arguments. I used *ix in the 1990's, no X just telnet. Windows was better, I occasionally try *ix but it's not improved enough.

People with a different experience may have fallen in love with *ix. Mostly it seems to be from a time when Windows became uncool and *ix became cool. The same thing that means people switch from facebook to instagram to snapchat for arbitrary reasons & mostly just to be different.

My TV, Phone, NAS & routers all run *ix. That is more than enough for me.

I still have a working Amiga 600HD, I occasionally connect it to my Windows PC to mount the hard drive under WinUAE and copy over some content. "Only Amiga makes it possible", until the end of time.

 

[kuwanger]

People with a different experience may have fallen in love with *ix. Mostly it seems to be from a time when Windows became uncool and *ix became cool.

Linux became cool. BSD was hip. UNIX became evil. Honestly, I fell in love with Linux mostly because of bash and gnu tools. Too much of BSD seems stuck being UNIX compatible over sanity. Oh, and I did try using OS/2 for a while as well. Overall it sucked worse than Windows 9x, even if conceptually it was better. :/

 

[linuxares]

Ugh I read this topic over, and you guys... just you guys.

XP = It's a dead OS. Stop using it. No it will not magically get a virus if you go online with it. As Foxi4 said, it's obsolete so not even malware people develop stuff for it since the userbase isn't there.
7 = It wasn't made with "performnce" in mind. They made it good, a better Vista. Performance just happen to be ONE of the instances of developing.
10 = Clearly a better Windows 8.1. Yes I also agree with Foxi4 that it's a lot lighter. It's bloated by all means, but nothing a good Powershell script can't remove.

If you want performance, just stick with a well optimized SSD, and 8-16gb of ram. If you care about Security, use a *nix OS, or BSD.
Most people won't get a virus if they visit CNN, NBC etc. But as soon as they start going on "biological" sites and such, the risk goes way up. Stop being Paranoid or go back to C64.

 

[Alexander1970]

Hello.

Linux in my opinion is great and very,very powerful.I think it changes through the years from a "small" 1 Diskette OS to a full-featured OS.

It has the misfortune,it grows out for all people when Windows 95 had peak season.
And they had no money/"influential"people and ressources to overtake MS.

Personally i can´t use it.I no longer do Network/Server/NAS/Programming etc. things,i´m an "sober" person who is satisfied with Windows 10.I´m not longer tinker around with hardware configurations/DMA/IRQ/Soundcard settings or "Damn,the this only piece of unknown hardware in the Hardware Device Manager engaged me the whole night" etc.

Whatever for ? After 20 Years in PCs i enjoy the "easy" Windows times today,i don´t care about "Microsoft is listening/watching what you doing etc. i´ve nothing to hide.
For me it´s nice to turn my PC on,working in peace with a OS that i can trust (not in security but in stability )

( but when the night comes,i´ll change to an pc-monster....harrr harr harr,then i say "Windows,you´re next....and then sitting til dawn to kill all MS "spying/phoning home things,before i´ll go back to my coffin...)


With the end od Windows XP maybe a little PC "spirit" is dying from me.

 

[FAST6191]

Somehow my head hurts more reading this than when it was stuffed in the old thread.

Anyway. On discussions of microarchitecture. If we had some kind of cheesy film plot thread where we were stuck with a beowulf cluster of those machines or those of the same vintage, and somehow needed a distributed/parallel supercomputer type performance out of them whilst wringing every drop of performance from a standard OS (or standard OS with a bit of registry, or equivalent, fiddling), all while having to fend off basic fire and forget type malware attacks then sure.

This ain't that though.
We had one guy, running one laptop, presumably from behind a standard home, with a general knowledge of IT and best practices thereof. Reasons for it might vary from just for fun, because my old games run (DOS-XP was not bad, or can be made to work, DOS-vista and beyond is more tricky), run better or run acceptably whilst also doing the old shit as well, to use with a legacy printer/plotter/cctv camera...
I agree it would not do for a banking computer, or be made seriously secure whilst also being online in a non whitelist fashion.
Back to performance they were all still contemporaries as well -- in some regards the performance of a top tier p4 in various single core tests (which is still a lot of programs, never mind legacy stuff) will beat out more than just the lowest of low and underclocked things in the core i[number] regime. This is not that though and things were still close enough that the chosen optimisation of MS' compiler is not going to make a lot of odds when the rubber meets the proverbial road and you are going to need complicated measuring setups to even see it.

For the basic business or grandparent case. The end of contemporary browsers a while back did hurt a little bit, as did certain anti viruses ending support after a fashion. Anecdotally I kept several running well past the end of XP, and had no real troubles. Eventually the desire to do more and more overtook the hardware, at which point nice refurb machines with comparatively blistering performance were often in the sub few hours of my time range, and most things other than legacy fancy printers had all become online services.

Some seemed to view it as tantamount to some kind of virtual equivalent of following all the chemistry fun and games stuff from my old books (if you have mice you can paint your seeds in red lead don't you know, should your pet have fleas then DDT is good stuff to dust in their fur (though you might want to prevent them from licking themselves, lest they get sick), and if you have a hankerchief loaded with mercury in your pocket you can make certain old UK coins appear more valuable than they actually are at a glance). I know we all have different approaches to safety and security but I can't see how to get to the virtual equivalents of near calling for the people in hazmat suits and forced evacuations.

 

[kuwanger]

Back to performance they were all still contemporaries as well -- in some regards the performance of a top tier p4 in various single core tests (which is still a lot of programs, never mind legacy stuff) will beat out more than just the lowest of low and underclocked things in the core i[number] regime.

Will they?

 

[smf]

Oh, and I did try using OS/2 for a while as well. Overall it sucked worse than Windows 9x, even if conceptually it was better. :/

I liked OS/2 all the time it was up against Windows For Workgroups 3.11, but once Windows 95 was out then IBM lost.

Windows NT was conceptually better, but it was a heavy weight in comparison. Windows 95 managed some amazing feats for it's time, the way they got it supporting 16 bit software to the level it did as well as 32 bit is quite cool.

If you care about Security, use a *nix OS, or BSD.

If you care about security then don't use a computer. It's a myth that *ix and bsd are secure, the truth is that nothing is secure. Saying it is just a way of driving sales.

It has the misfortune,it grows out for all people when Windows 95 had peak season.
And they had no money/"influential"people and ressources to overtake MS.

I'm sure if you consider it an underdog then it sounds more deserving, but it didn't really have misfortune.

http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/brahma/Resources/beowulf/papers/ICPP95/icpp95.html

It's problem was that it wasn't good enough as a desktop OS. Linux had a clear run as they didn't have to stay compatible with ancient operating systems.

Back to performance they were all still contemporaries as well -- in some regards the performance of a top tier p4 in various single core tests (which is still a lot of programs, never mind legacy stuff) will beat out more than just the lowest of low and underclocked things in the core i[number] regime..

I thought the reason they pulled the pentium III M chips is because they outperformed the p4 chips at all but the lowest clock speeds & so people were trying to ship them on desktop motherboards. Intel wanted to push on with the p4 to avoid embarrassment, thinking they could front it out if they could figure out how to clock it fast enough. IIRC The Pentium III M was upgraded to become the Pentium M which was upgraded to become the Intel Core