Why do you still use Windows XP?

98 Guy wrote in :

As for anti-trojans, I've long since given up waiting for my win-98
systems to become infected by them.

Yeah I'm not worried about actual trojans. I quit worring about them when
playing around with Nimda and Code Red's weird DOS command access. It's just
the principle, stuff does want to get out at times. Demo programs, stuff
trying to send crashlogs to long extinct sites, unwanted update requests,
all sorts... When testing new stuff, LnS is very helpful.

A lot of people handle that with a huge HOSTS file with everything pointing
to 127.0.0.1 but I red that this can slow things down too, and it only works
if we ALREADY know what has to go there. LnS would help with that a lot, but
then LnS might as well be trusted to do handle it all anyway. I like to know
when things want to go online, not because I'm paranoid (which I am at times,
but that's irrelevant). I like it because it's instructive. It can be amazing
what kinds of weird little utility has sockets code in it when it has no
need that it ever tells us about. Never mind the malware, the whole deal is
weirdly interesting at times.

98 Guy wrote in :

Another thing about NAT, is it's fiddly, often awkward to set up,

Most people have no need to change the NAT settings on their modem or
router. So that's not really a valid argument.


Hmm, a lot of people use BitTorrent *HatehateHate*, and other P2P stuff, and
it's often an issue for them. There have been whole forums full of such talk.
Port forwarding is quite the frentic issue in file sharing circles, and I saw
more than enough to last a lifetime. (I learned a lot of my own coding
practice scripting an admin script for a DC hub). Gamers and users of complex
instant messenger programs have similar needs. These are all very common
activities.

98 Guy wrote in :

Nothing to setup
or change - unless you play on-line games or do torrenting. And if you
do either of those, then you're probably going to have the smarts to get
your ports forwarded correctly.



Sorry, I see you mentioned that anyway. But no, they don't. I used to see so
many questions. The noodlebakers always seemed to be the NAT questions, Those
people with a good firewall always had an easier time. Maybe routers are that
bit smarter now, but even so, a firewall with a good GUI beats the hell out
of the average router web interface!

98 Guy wrote in :

In the case of XP, it's always amusing to
find that quite a lot of malware knows how to de-active the internal
firewall and get on with the business of installing trojans, keyloggers,
backdoors, etc.


Definitely. I like a good but unusual tool because it's far less likely to be
attacked, let alone competently. Even the NAT in a BT hub may be suspect. I
have no clue if a backdoor exists, but it if does, it will take a far better
mind than mine to find it, and if found, a huge number of hubs is equally
vulnerable. I just prefer to make my own arrangements. That way they are easy
to port between machines too.

Gone quiet here. I suspect that I'm the only person still awake but that's
about to change.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:33:35 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote in
:

You haven't kept up with what's available in the last 5-8 years or so.
NAT is a breeze to set up now, not like it was 15 years ago. Any kid
can do it. Heck, most of my customers are adults, many of them senior,
and they can do it.



Got a Linksys thinger (wireless access point, but it can do other stuff too),
and NAT in the BT hub. Both recent devices. I still like LnS better.

If by LnS you mean this place, http://www.looknstop.com, then I'll
pass. The vague marketing claims disguised as "features", the lack of
technical details, the broken English, and just the fact that it runs
on the host you're trying to protect all lead me to the same
conclusion: no thanks. If you mean something else, let me know and
I'll be glad to take a look.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:18:58 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:11:27 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:38:21 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:


You did a great job of comparing the versions of Windows.
3.1 sucked, 95 needed help, but 98 was and still is the best.

I guess we all have opinions, and it's no surprise that they differ. I
would say 98 was the best for a very short time, only until 98SE
became available. After that, 98SE was only best until 2000 became
available. Then XP became the best, and now 7 is the best. IMHO, WinME
and Vista never carried the crown, but it seems completely whack to
claim that an OS that was long ago obsolete was and is best. I guess
there's no single definition for 'best'.

Why is "7" the best? What does it offer over XP (besides extra bloat)
for
a seasoned veteran?

I find it interesting that you would put bloat into the "what does it
offer" category, as if that was an advantage.

No, I agree it's a distinctive DISADVANTAGE. But taking it literally, it
does "offer" that, but it's an "offer" I sure have no interest in. :-)

It's hard to say definitively whether it's more bloated or not, though.

I don't see how it's so hard. It IS (as are each of the succeeding OS's).

Just as one example, for a ballpark guideline, I seem to recall Win98SE
needing around 200 MB for the OS; and XP about 2 GB, and a LOT more than
that for Vista, Win7, or what-have-you. And that's just for a minimal
install.

And just take a look at the size of the restore points, as another example.
Win 98SE's were tiny (those rbxxx.cab files created by scanreg); XP
typically is around 200 MB, I think Vista (and later) are over 500 MB or
more, but I'm not sure.

AND the amount of RAM required for each OS for reasonable operation.
That's probably the most telling.

Etc, etc, etc....

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:46:03 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

98 Guy wrote in :

Another thing about NAT, is it's fiddly, often awkward to set up,

Most people have no need to change the NAT settings on their modem or
router. So that's not really a valid argument.


Hmm, a lot of people use BitTorrent *HatehateHate*, and other P2P stuff, and
it's often an issue for them. There have been whole forums full of such talk.
Port forwarding is quite the frentic issue in file sharing circles, and I saw
more than enough to last a lifetime. (I learned a lot of my own coding
practice scripting an admin script for a DC hub). Gamers and users of complex
instant messenger programs have similar needs. These are all very common
activities.

Those aren't valid concerns anymore, for the most part. BT clients no
longer need port forwarding, nor do modern IM clients, at least that
I'm aware of. I agree, those used to be concerns back around 2004 or
so.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:30:50 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:58 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

All this boils down to one thing: we should speak for ourselves, and not
claim to speak for some majority. Plenty of people are vague about that,
and in the case of commercial enterprises, often deliberately. To assume
otherwise is naive. The really careful and honest ones are STRICT about
the extent of their claims.

I agree, but then why call something disingenuous when you know next
to nothing about it? While I'm happy to see you've come to my side of
the discussion, I'm puzzled by why it took so long.



I just think that being deliberately vague while representing a company's
authority is disingenous, or at least a sort of unprofessional cock-up.

I guess we're back to disagreeing then, because to me, "not supported"
couldn't be more clear.

98 Guy wrote:
BillW50 wrote:

I see. And that would bother me. As early 2006 machines just
doesn't cut it for me today. Although later 2006 to 2008 are
my favorite machines. I am not impressed with newer machines
than that.

What makes 2006 a dividing line in PC technology, may I ask?


snip

And what good is 512MB or even 1GB of RAM for a W98 machine?

You're joking - right?

And you're the one complaining about win-98 having system-resource
problems? Now I know why...

Actually, there is no relationship between the amount of RAM installed and
that lousy system resource problem (64K heaps are insignificant in terms of
size). IOW, I don't care if you've got 500 MB or 1 GB of RAM or whatever:
it doesn't help that system resource limitation, which is ever and always
present, and can't ever be eliminated. There is no relationship between the
amount of RAM you've installed, and the system resource problem. And you
should know that.

Sure I have added more RAM than 64MB to a W98 machine before.
But I never saw any advantages to using more.

Same reasons that you wouldn't want to run XP with less than 512 mb ram.

Except XP generally benefits a lot from having 1 GB of RAM. (512 absolute
min).
But you can do well with much less RAM in Win98, since Win98 doesn't need as
much for its OS needs. I found 512 MB of RAM more than sufficient for
everything (in Win98SE). Granted, I wasn't running 10 apps at once,
however. But who would?? Especially with that darn system resource heap
problem, which could often turn up at the most unexpected moments.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:15:03 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote in
:

That little word "if" is the key. The vast majority of computer users
don't want or care about any APIs. APIs are used by developers, not by
end users.

Actually, they just don't know they want it. If it vanished, they'd soon be
asking why all the things they took for granted vanished like bad
metaphysics.

I repeat, end users don't care one bit about APIs. They don't use
them, don't know what they are, and don't care if they come or go. If
the Windows APIs vanished, (why should they?), there wouldn't be a
whole lot of new software, but end users wouldn't make the connection
between that and a missing API.