Win XP vs Win 7 - an internet security debate.

[linuxares]

Oh of course, there is no such thing as a "Safe" computer. Just a "safer" on *nix since a lot of virus makers do it for Windows, since it's a bigger user base.

 

[Foxi4]

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

If I recall correctly, PIII pushed a higher number of instructions per cycle due to a shorter pipeline (10-stage in PIII, 20-stage in P4), but the Pentium 4's ran at a much higher frequency (couple hundred MHz on PIII versus couple GHz on P4) so they more than made up the difference. They did perform poorly in legacy applications due to structural differences between older generation CPU's and Netburst ones, which required code to be recompiled specifically for them. The problem with P4 was that it couldn't scale upwards past that point due to the way it was constructed, power leakage and thermal management problems etc. and while it was a good solution for its time, ultimately multiple smaller, slower cores won against a single extremely fast one.

Oh of course, there is no such thing as a "Safe" computer. Just a "safer" on *nix since a lot of virus makers do it for Windows, since it's a bigger user base.

Desktop user base, sure. With that said, must networking equipment, or embedded equipment in general, runs on Linux. There's plenty of incentive to hack Linux-based systems, it's the structure of the OS itself that keeps it more secure than Windows. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks - I prefer to live dangerously, but without the headaches of being further away from the system itself.

 

[Alexander1970]

Oh of course, there is no such thing as a "Safe" computer. Just a "safer" on *nix since a lot of virus makers do it for Windows, since it's a bigger user base.

Its like the old people who always trust the nice young man on the door.........and then all money and neat is gone.
How many times magazines/newspapers/media etc. says "Don´t open unkonwn Mails/their attachments !!"

As i write earlier,worms like SASSER are funny.I remember this day it spreads (working at his time in a PC Service)the phone never stops to ring and at the front are hundreds of people over the day.It was really funny.Why ?

99% of them did not have a FIREWALL installed (or have it activated in Windows XP).
The best OS can´t avoid such things,when the tiny,little thing between Monitor and Keyboard/Mouse won´t.

 

[Foxi4]

Its like the old people who always trust the nice young man on the door.........and then all money and neat is gone.
How many times magazines/newspapers/media etc. says "Don´t open unkonwn Mails/their attachments !!"

As i write earlier,worms like SASSER are funny.I remember this day it spreads (working at his time in a PC Service)the phone never stops to ring and at the front are hundreds of people over the day.It was really funny.Why ?

99% of them did not have a FIREWALL installed (or have it activated in Windows XP).
The best OS can´t avoid such things,when the tiny,little thing between Monitor and Keyboard/Mouse won´t.

You are correct in saying that the weakest link is always between the machine and the seat, however there's definitely a gradation of security depending on the setup itself. Some computers simply can't be secure because their security measures are grossly out of date, that's not debatable.

 

[Alexander1970]

ALL Pcs can be scured.IF and thats the point,YOU (the user) have interest in it.There´s not only the "other" side (hackers/crackers etc.) but in my opinion its highly provoking for the people to get INSIDE an PC then KEEP people away.I think thats inside the human gene. (the human is also not a born vegetarian/vegan.....)

And every NEW OS which is praised as the "MOST SECUREST" is that for what THEY waiting for.If these people weren´t here,Windows XP AND 7 is always an secure OS without doubts.

and don´t forget the REALLY "annoyance" people.....their lifework consists ONLY to pester/plague the IT/PC world... not more,not less.Whatever their life experience was/is.

 

[smf]

If I recall correctly, PIII pushed a higher number of instructions per cycle due to a shorter pipeline (10-stage in PIII, 20-stage in P4), but the Pentium 4's ran at a much higher frequency (couple hundred MHz on PIII versus couple GHz on P4) so they more than made up the difference.

No, the PIII went to 1.4ghz. I'm pretty sure they stopped selling them pretty soon after the p4 launch, which at the time maxed out at 1.5ghz.

The p4 was a disaster for intel, it was late and people got sacked and the design was radically butchered part way through just so that they could actually deliver something. Later they realised that because they neutered the original design so much, there were parts of the cpu that were constantly starved. So they invented Hyperthreading.

Eventually they got the clock speeds up, but nowhere near the original 10ghz they aimed for.

Intel also made the mistake of tying themselves to RDRAM. I've tended to have Dell computers at work for years and it's the only time I've ever owned a Dell computer when buying the memory afterwards was more expensive than getting Dell to supply and fit it.

 

[Foxi4]

No, the PIII went to 1.4ghz. I'm pretty sure they stopped selling them pretty soon after the p4 launch, which at the time maxed out at 1.5ghz.

The p4 was a disaster for intel, it was late and people got sacked and the design was radically butchered part way through just so that they could actually deliver something. Later they realised that because they neutered the original design so much, there were parts of the cpu that were constantly starved. So they invented Hyperthreading.

Eventually they got the clock speeds up, but nowhere near the original 10ghz they aimed for.

Intel also made the mistake of tying themselves to RDRAM. I've tended to have Dell computers at work for years and it's the only time I've ever owned a Dell computer when buying the memory afterwards was more expensive than getting Dell to supply and fit it.

The RDRAM was a bad bet for sure, and the performance boost was certainly not as big as expected from a generation leap. It was just barely, narrowly faster, and only in optimised applications.

 

[Alexander1970]

The Willamette P4 was an absolute disaster.

In the first half of 2001:

- in the neck/overtaking - the Athlon Tunderbird,faster than all Pentium III/4 CPUs
- AND their own product,the PIII Tualatin which was quite faster than the P4.

Because of the instabil clock frequenzy AND they had used lot of engineers/techicians working on that ITANIUM Projekt. The Tualatin PIII was produced on 130nm technology,the P4 on 180nm.

The Tualatin Pentium was still there - in the Laptops.Without it they where not there on the Level from today.

But everthing changes at the second half of 2001,all was good again for Intel.

 

[smf]

But everthing changes at the second half of 2001,all was good again for Intel.

Northwood didn't come out until 2002, AMD were cheaper and were at their heals for most of the year.

Intel pulled ahead with the 3ghz Hyperthreading p4 in 2003, but it was short lived.

They did a few more die shrinks, but AMD still kept up & were cheaper.

The final netburst designs (tejas & jayhawk) were cancelled and they cobbled Core together from the P6 derived Pentium M.

Which turned out to be an excellent idea. The 1.6ghz Pentium M can outperform a 2.4ghz Pentium 4.

It took until Core 2 until they supported 64 bit, which is when the Pentium 4 really became obsolete. AMD invented x64, but Intel profited the most from it.

 

[Alexander1970]

I´ve been talking about the Willamette disaster.
Northwood/Prescott are far,far away in this times.I´ve selling PCs in this times and it was not funny,believe me.
We are "ordered" (cause of the "conditions" of the bying prices) from Intel to push the Willamette PCs in the first half of 2001.Every day the same procedure,PCs go out and came immediately back.

And funny,there was no care about Internet security & co.

 

[blahblah]

Is it even debatable?

Only in the eyes of Foxi4

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

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.

It's not exactly magic. There is a sizable user base that you can infect with zero effort. Any HackForums 14 year old can buy some bad ads. Malware people still develop for the platform & they don't even need to, everything that is needed has already been written.

7 = Wrong. Completely wrong. Your argument is ahistorical and contradicts what Microsoft said publicly at the time and what journalists reported independently. Improving performance over Vista was a design goal. This has been documented.

10 = Too complicated. Windows 10 is a lot of things. Windows 10 is not lighter than Windows 7 or Windows 8/8.1. This is an objective thing that can be measured. Bloat or no bloat, the modern Windows kernel alone is more demanding. The essential system processes consume vastly more resources than what is consumed under Windows 7 to run the essential processes, even after you 'debloat*' the Windows 10 install.

CNN, NBC, blah blah blah take ads through ad networks that routinely get tricked by shady actors. Malvertising is a clever thing and the incentives on the part of the ad networks are not aligned so that they would have much of a reason to take meaningful preventive action.

*Debloating is kind of a tell. In this context, it indicates a semi-technical user. The vast, vast majority of the stuff that the internet writ large considers bloat in Windows 10 are applications that are not even running all the time. Debloating can reduce the size of your Windows install, but there isn't that much constantly running junk that can be removed without incurring serious consequences in terms of usability.

There's a reason that the 'debloated' versions of Windows that Microsoft themselves have built and licensed (to enterprise) are a lot less usable. Windows without advanced multimedia support, without search indexing, without previews inside Explorer, without .Net support, without Superfetch, without basic functionality will actually run better. The rest is just reducing the size of the Windows install. Pointless.

 

[Ryccardo]

There's a reason that the 'debloated' versions of Windows that Microsoft themselves have built and licensed (to enterprise) are a lot less usable. Windows without advanced multimedia support, without search indexing, without previews inside Explorer, without .Net support, without Superfetch, without basic functionality will actually run better.

Hmmm? EnterpriseS (LTSB/LTSC) has all of those things, unless you mean the N versions (enterpriseS or not) (which don't have the "media features" - which I agree is a noticeable handicap - but you can enable or disable them anyway on the regular versions)

Debloating can reduce the size of your Windows install

until the next update (unless the update fails to install because you removed something it's trying to change)

but there isn't that much constantly running junk that can be removed without incurring serious consequences in terms of usability.

Not exactly the biggest examples of gratuitous performance waste, but it's quite telling how Windows 10 includes what is flagrantly adware with no other purpose out of the box ("Get Office", which actually creates spam notifications, and Phone Companion or its successor built into UWP system settings)

Also ironical is how almost 15 years ago Microsoft got into major legal trouble for allegedly anticompetitive behavior after having bundled a browser and audio/video player, yet nowadays they bundle: two browsers, one media player and two halves, a photo editor, a cloud storage system, a place to download DRM'd software...

 

[blahblah]

Hmmm? EnterpriseS (LTSB/LTSC) has all of those things, unless you mean the N versions (enterpriseS or not) (which don't have the "media features" - which I agree is a noticeable handicap - but you can enable or disable them anyway on the regular versions)


until the next update (unless the update fails to install because you removed something it's trying to change)


Not exactly the biggest examples of gratuitous performance waste, but it's quite telling how Windows 10 includes what is flagrantly adware with no other purpose out of the box ("Get Office", which actually creates spam notifications, and Phone Companion or its successor built into UWP system settings)

Also ironical is how almost 15 years ago Microsoft got into major legal trouble for allegedly anticompetitive behavior after having bundled a browser and audio/video player, yet nowadays they bundle: two browsers, one media player and two halves, a photo editor, a cloud storage system, a place to download DRM'd software...

I am not referring to Enterprise. I'm talking about stuff like Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs.

I agree with your comment RE: debloating

Get Office is just junk, but Phone Companion is a legitimate thing. People expect the ability to send SMS through their PC & get notified when they get a text.

 

[Ryccardo]

Phone Companion is a legitimate thing. People expect the ability to send SMS through their PC & get notified when they get a text.

(Unless they gratuitously changed it as they often do) it's not Phone Companion's job, you just use Cortana (and its notifications sync) for that; Phone Companion is just advertisements (text me a link to MS apps) and a battery/free space indicator (which has been there since XP+WMP10 if you go to the phone's properties in My Computer)

(and luckily I'm not representative of your people why have a space hog requiring an account just to avoid me walking, in the worst case scenario, across the room?)

 

[blahblah]

(Unless they gratuitously changed it as they often do) it's not Phone Companion's job, you just use Cortana (and its notifications sync) for that; Phone Companion is just advertisements (text me a link to MS apps) and a battery/free space indicator (which has been there since XP+WMP10 if you go to the phone's properties in My Computer)

(and luckily I'm not representative of your people why have a space hog requiring an account just to avoid me walking, in the worst case scenario, across the room?)

Cortana is a bad way of sending and receiving SMS. Not really natural. A dedicated app is what not people expect. Phone Companion is discontinued, replaced with the Your Phone app. That new app has the functionality I describe built in rather than the app being a collection of links to other Microsoft apps that have this functionality.

It’s nicer to be able to use a your computer to send a text. The app is tiny and provides real utility that mainstream users rightfully expect to be built into the OE.