Despite Imminent Retirement, More Users Move to Windows XP

If you’re wondering what’s going to happen with Windows XP in two months, the answer is becoming quite obvious. Plenty of users will still be running it when the end of support comes, as new stats show that Windows XP actually boosted its market share last month.

Read the rest here:Despite Imminent Retirement, More Users Move to Windows XP

 

[Coke Robot]

Coke, if you have security concerns, you should not use any Windows. For the internet, use Mint Mate like me. It is a really nice system.

I do have security concerns but with what I know about Windows, it's not worth the effort of jumping platforms. Keep a maintained, up to date version of Windows with a very solid interwebs security suite as well as using the WinRT version of IE 11, I'll be quite fine.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Coke, if you have security concerns, you should not use any Windows. For the internet, use Mint Mate like me. It is a really nice system.

whs, if you think any OS including Linux can't be hacked or infected think again. They have and will be. It's just fact that Windows is popular to make it worth the scum's time. Put Linux on more ATMs and elsewhere and we'll see.

 

[whs]

Coke, if you have security concerns, you should not use any Windows. For the internet, use Mint Mate like me. It is a really nice system.

whs, if you think any OS including Linux can't be hacked or infected think again. They have and will be. It's just fact that Windows is popular to make it worth the scum's time. Put Linux on more ATMs and elsewhere and we'll see.

Sure Linux can be hacked. But fact is that there are a LOT less pieces of malware for Linux than for Windows. And if my virtual Linux maching gets infected, I just roll in a backup folder of the virtual machine and I am back in business in 5 minutes.

Besides, any file I download in Linux I first scan here before I transfer it to the Windows host.

 

[echrada]

Oh my, I am so poor that it is just sickin' it is all I can do to put together enough money to buy. . .(fill in the blank.

It might be amusing to somebody from USA or some from "rich" countries but I assure you it's not the case in at least half the world. I have donated dozen of my old computers to people that can't afford ANY computer let alone to buy something new just to get away from Win XP. They are still happy to have ANY computer, even with "dead" XP. Two of them are getting internet connection from me (sharing WiFi bandwidth) and I'm not about to stop servicing their machines or helping them either.
I find any discrimination disgusting, including by financial status.

Just a Serb.

Please the old if your not from USA myth is also getting a little long in the tooth.

You come across as arrogant beyond anything that I can measure. Shame on you!

That there are people in the world that do not have the same as you might come as a surprise, but there you go.

 

[whs]

This is not a good discussion. Please don't let it derail.

 

[ainteinstein]

Well...if one is concerned with security on their Windows computer the first step would be is not to use MSE and to use another anti-virus program. I would also consider using another firewall and another web browser. And don't forget to add the add ons to you browser such as WOT, NoScript and something like Do Not Track. Next, I would use the live distro , Puppy Linux, loaded on a UBS stick, to boot from, for all my banking needs. That would be the bare basics. Or I could simply go on line with Linux. Remember, if Microsoft hides behind Linux, why shouldn't I? (Microsoft uses Akamai Linux based servers to protect Microsoft.com web site.)

 

[whs]

There is also the alternative that I prefer - run Windows and Linux together. I have several Linux distros in virtual partitions and one is always running side by side. See here for details. If you want the hyperlinks to work, you need to download the PDF from here.

 

[ainteinstein]

Actually, whs, I read your guilds and that was what got me going on my way with this 8.1 computer. Virtual is the best way right now because I can try out the distros without dealing with the secure boot etc. Thanks!

 

[whs]

Very good. I am glad I did not write all that stuff for nothing. Always nice to get some feedback.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Coke, if you have security concerns, you should not use any Windows. For the internet, use Mint Mate like me. It is a really nice system.

whs, if you think any OS including Linux can't be hacked or infected think again. They have and will be. It's just fact that Windows is popular to make it worth the scum's time. Put Linux on more ATMs and elsewhere and we'll see.

Sure Linux can be hacked.

Your next sentence does not fortify this statement whatsover. Hacking to gain entrance and malware are two different entities other than the fact that malware can be one of the tools to hack a system.

But fact is that there are a LOT less pieces of malware for Linux than for Windows.

Thank you. My point exactly. Let’s reverse roles. Let’s say Linux is the most used OS on the planet. Do you think there would be more malware to target Linux? Well, of course. Crooks don’t go to a beach for money to steal. They go to a bank.

And if my virtual Linux maching gets infected, I just roll in a backup folder of the virtual machine and I am back in business in 5 minutes. Besides, any file I download in Linux I first scan here before I transfer it to the Windows host.

You’re running distros via VM within Windows 7. I have to say > I really get a kick out of your justification statements at times. What do either one of these sentences have to do with the subject at hand besides you trying to prove a point that Linux is safer, when in fact it is not. It may be “safer” running in a VM, but it is not bullet proof. Run it in a real machine it is equal to any other OS.

 

[whs]

Thank you. My point exactly. Let’s reverse roles. Let’s say Linux is the most used OS on the planet. Do you think there would be more malware to target Linux?

Nice theory but that's not the way it is right now.

What do either one of these sentences have to do with the subject at hand besides you trying to prove a point that Linux is safer

I think you missed my point. If I had to run XP because I owned programs that I need and run only in XP (or I cannot or don't want to spend the money to upgrade), I would seperate the internet activities via a virtual Linux. That does not make the system 100% bullet proof but it is a lot better than running wide open with a system that is no more being maintained. Matter of degree - nothing is perfect.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Thank you. My point exactly. Let’s reverse roles. Let’s say Linux is the most used OS on the planet. Do you think there would be more malware to target Linux?

Nice theory but that's not the way it is right now.

What do either one of these sentences have to do with the subject at hand besides you trying to prove a point that Linux is safer

I think you missed my point. If I had to run XP because I owned programs that I need and run only in XP (or I cannot or don't want to spend the money to upgrade), I would seperate the internet activities via a virtual Linux. That does not make the system 100% bullet proof but it is a lot better than running wide open with a system that is no more being maintained. Matter of degree - nothing is perfect.

Ok. My misunderstanding. Your running a Linux VM within an XP machine for contact to the Inet, therefore shielding XP. That would decrease the odds of infection due to less malware aimed at Linux. More difficult to hack as well by placing more layers.

Is a VM heavy laden on resources? I have two tabs of Modern/Metro IE, a Word doc, notepad, and Task Manager open and using Defender. It's eating 52% or 1GB of my Ram, which is half. How much more would a VM eat up?

 

[whs]

You define the amount of RAM that you like to allocate to the virtual machine. DSL will run in 256MB and Mint is best in 512MBs. It is also ok with only 1 core. But note, those resources will only be used when it is actually running and doing things. During that time the host is only humming along. For disk space you should figure appr. 10GBs for Mint - nearly half of that is used by VMware Player.

I have all my virtual systems on an external SSD - even 8.1. That way I can attach them to any system. That is as fast as the internal SSD on eSata and nearly as fast on USB3. USB2 works but is a bit slower. Spinners work too but not as good. Even my fastest USB3 stick does not work well. No idea why because it is a lot faster than a spinner (see data below).

For windows 8.1 that is a different story. I give it 3GB and 3 cores. But that is only on my desktops and my biggest laptop.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Nice setups, whs. They run leaner than I thought. My system cold handle that I think. I'd like to tinker with that some day. I'm too busy right now. Thanks for sharing.

 

[pparks1]

As far as 8.1 requiring more resources, I'm not sure yet why this is the case. I certainly see it with server 2012r2. Compared to 2008 and standard 2012, the 2012r2 is really slow. At least under vmware workstation 10.

Vms can be very lean. I usually give them between 512 and 2gb. The beauty is you can start then lie and just raise them off you need to, unlike a physical computer.

I use a ton of vms. Between work and personal exploration and training classes and labs.

 

[whs]

Nice setups, whs. They run leaner than I thought. My system cold handle that I think. I'd like to tinker with that some day. I'm too busy right now. Thanks for sharing.

When you get to it and need more info, let me know. I'll make you a custom tut.

 

[ainteinstein]

HippsieGypsie,

What is using all of your RAM? Now I do know 8.1 eats resources like popcorn, but I switched to 8.1 to compare. I am only using 564 mb of RAM with the following...Firefox (with add on's), I have 6 tabs open and one tab is youtube listening to an album. Opened up the Task Manager and Notepad. Now my firewall is ZoneAlarm and I use avast! So perhaps Firefox and avast! use less resources? Interesting.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

I meant to answer straightway, but got busy with other things.

With nothing open and idling my RAM runs at about 35-40%. I sign into my PC with a MS account using Defender, native firewall, and Office 2013 Pro, so there are many background and Windows processes that run. 18 background and 26 Windows to be exact.

MS Windows Search Indexer is a heavy in background processes at 13MB. All the others run at roughly 4-5MB average depending on activity.

In Windows processes Services run at about 110MB. Windows Explorer at 32MB. Defender at 18MB. Desktop Manager at 14MB. All the others average at roughly 6MB each.

Windows 7 ran a little higher than this with gadgets. They ate a lot. Glad to get rid of them.

Why do you ask? Do you think this is high?

 

[ainteinstein]

HippsieGypsie

No, you are more than likely about right on. What I was trying to figure out was how you were running 64 bit on 1 GB of RAM. But, your spec's do state 2, so I got my question answered. I know with this system that I have 42 processes right now running in the background plus the two active, one being the virtual machine. And yes, running a virtual machine does use a bit of RAM. But please remember, I have not tweaked this machine and um I can get lazy and look at it like this...can I up the RAM? Yes? Good...easy fix. Sometimes the pain ain't worth the gain. Also, if it ain't broke...leave it alone.

And when you are ready to try virtual, I know whs will get you going right. Read his stuff on that, and it got me up and running.

And please, at least to me, you don't have to apologize for "life's issues". We all have them, and we get back when we can.

 

[whs]

And when you are ready to try virtual, I know whs will get you going right

You bet and I am glad you got up and going.