SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-need-to-get-them-to-buy-the-new-version dept.
Windows XP holdouts are even more danger than ever after Microsoft abandoned anti-malware support for the ancient platform.
Redmond overnight stopped providing XP support for new and existing installs of its Security Essentials package.
The run-as-needed Malicious Software Removal Tool has also been axed, while support for patching ended in April last year for those who aren't paying large wads of cash to stave off an upgrade.
"Please note that since the above real-time protection products have limited effectiveness on PCs that do not have the latest security updates, your PC will still be at risk for infection," Redmond says.
"We strongly recommend that you complete your migration to a supported operating system as soon as possible so that you can receive regular security updates to help protect your computer from malicious attacks."
Netmarketshare.com data shows XP is alive and kicking
Windows XP's market share still beats its loathed successor Windows Vista, MacOS and Linux on the desktop.
The operating has a 12 percent market share or 180 million users, according to netmarketshare.com , putting it in third spot just behind version 8.1 representing 13 percent of installs, and version 7 with a whopping 61 percent of installs.
Are you still running Windows XP? What about your company?
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by number6 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:14PM
Running Windows XP SP3, not updated since June 2011, automatic update service disabled, remote desktop service disabled, many many more services disabled.
I have the bare minimum of drivers installed.
When the computer boots up and I look at my process manager (Process Hacker), I see not much more than a dozen processes all up.
If I hide 'signed processes' from the view, I see only these four: *System Idle Process *DPCs *Interrupts *ProcessHacker.exe
I have no anti-virus or any other automated anti-malware tools installed (I hate them all). I have a few run-on-demand tools (made by Chinese hacker friends) which can scan and take control of every single thing on a Windows system down to 'Ring 0 and all Kernel Modules; these tools launch themselves with random names at every launch, for example: 'utgrfsdduyhrdc'.
I run Sygate Personal Firewall Pro 5.6.3408, IMHO the greatest Firewall ever made for NT5 systems. I have its advanced rules configured to block internet access to the system files 'SVCHOST.EXE' and 'RUNDLL32.EXE'.
I have Sandboxie 3.58 installed. I have Internet Explorer browser and various other system files and directories configured to be redirected and trapped in a Sandboxie sandbox at every launch.
I have no file associations in my system for automatically opening PDF, HTM, MHT and URL files; when I need to view one of these files I use the context menu and choose a program.
I have fully disabled the 'autorun' feature of Windows when you plug in an external device.
I have Shadow Defender installed. When I feel like playing with dangerous code and binaries and bloated system-wrecking programs, I create a snapshot of C: drive using Shadow Defender and I play around to my hearts content; sometimes I stay in this state for days and weeks. When I am through with playing around, I save to another drive the data I wish to keep, I reboot the computer and it reverts back to its pre-snapshot state.
I run Windows XP in bare-bones 'Classic View', default blue desktop, details view everywhere in Explorer. I have customized Explorer to have only one thin toolbar for all buttons; I get maximum vertical space.
The Windows XP Explorer NEVER insults my intelligence and obeys all my commands, actions and preferences AT ALL TIMES. This is NOT THE CASE with other Explorer incarnations of the Windows NT6 family (Vista, 7, 8, etc)--some things that piss me off for instance: Lack of customization options of the toolbars; Full Row Select feature drives me insane; Auto Sort feature drives me insane; Activating the 'Search' panel is not like the old one which I prefer.
I also prefer the pure 2-D native graphics subsystem in Windows XP over the later 3-D graphics subsystem. I can understand how the newer generation of Windows users who have grown up with the modern internet and mobile devices and the smooth-zooming smooth-scrolling 'wow' quality of todays graphics subsystems...but this is not what I want; I want the operating system GUI to feel completely static and unmoving and lifeless; I don't want my keyboard and mouse and selections hooked except in a very narrow defined way; I want the operating system to shut up and play dead and live a boring life in the background.
I have a native 'Classic Start Menu' without resorting to third-party software or hacks.
I prefer the higher contrast of white text over dark blue solid background when selecting things and for title bars as done in Windows XP (and 2000, 2003).
One gripe I have about some current programs is they are HARD-CODED by their developer to have the Windows 7/8 theme such as flat light-blue title bars and translucent selection colors!!!! For fucks sake, why don't you let the native operating system draw this shit; why don't you offer the user a configurable preference?????
Lastly.....If I download a program and I see it has the 'Ribbon'-style graphical interface, I immediately delete it from my computer; I like traditional text-button toolbars with menus expanded and navigated by use of the ALT and ARROW keys.
Cheers.
P.S. (1) -- In case you were wondering, my XP system runs as fast and stable as the day I installed it.
P.S. (2) -- I think Windows Server 2003 support was ended the other day if I am not mistaken. A few of my 'underground' buddies revere Win2003 much more than WinXP. I am told that a fully customized and tweaked Win2003 is blindingly fast with stability and features which leave WinXP in the dust!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:50PM
I use XP on the machine I get most of my income on. I use Windows 7 or Vista on everything else.
I am commenting for two reasons; one, I approve of your use of XP and most of the reasons. I would pay for a means to place the XP shell and the commands I am used to, on top of Windows 7 (which I have become more accustomed to; I disabled the libraries and added quick launch back etc...).
But my largest reason to comment is that if you believe people want wowee graphics due to mobile, I think you are not looking at the same Windows 8 and mobile OSes anyone else is looking at. They kind of look like they came from a different era of suck. XP looks old next to them, but it also looks like it has potential--a potential that is being aggressively diminished.
But that's all arbitrary, you are a security risk because you were monitized up front in an OS not conducive for the sharing economy, as opposed to a continuous monetization over the "life" of the operating system and its hardware... People will laugh at you because you're using something old, regardless of how well it performs, or how secure you make it.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:07PM
+1 for Sandboxie
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday July 17 2015, @05:24AM
I am going to steal your computer and take it home, where it will never leave my side. Seriously, you hit on a lot of my gripes and reasons why XP will remain my everyday OS for the foreseeable future. Win 7/8 make me wish to do their UI devs great bodily harm.
Worth noting: security patches show hackers exactly where to look for security holes. Absent patches to reverse-engineer, those holes become far less roadmapped.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.