Why do you still use Windows XP?

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in
:

So? Some claim old people are outdated too. And who was that democratic
politician again who said something like people over 60 have outlived
their usefulness to society and should get out of the way and die?

Wasn't that part of the back story in Stanley Kubrick's
"Clockwork Orange" movie?


Or Logan's Run. No-one over 21....

"BillW50" wrote in :

Well... I dunno. I do both. Restoring from clean backups takes time for
one. And some malware doesn't give you any signs that your computer is
even infected. So without an AV, you wouldn't really know if you were
infected or not.


True, up to a point. Ok, I can never be absolutely sure, but then I can't run
ANY network stack and be sure of no backdoor. I have to take some chances.

By running a reduced W98, I have what amounts to a strong compact engine
whose form and behaviour I make myself familiar with. That way it's harder to
miss something wrong. The people who really need to be concerned are those
who let a new, unfamiliar, hacker-target OS sprawl heavily across several
tens of gigabytes, and who don't know where their own data files are. THAT's
an accident waiting to happen.

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
98 Guy wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
People say using IE6 is bad at rendering nowadays.

It is. IE6 has been a horror show for the past 4 or 5 years.

Heck that is nothing compared to how bad pages look
under FF2.

You need to do more homework. IE6 is universally recognized as a
highly non-compliant browser. Macro$haft designed it that way on
purpose - to twist web-conventions to suit their own needs and plans
at the time.

I have no problem with non-compliant browsers. As I believe in freedom.
And compliances are for dictators and commies. And I am all for people
trying to find better ways to do something. Sometimes they work and
sometimes they don't.

And I still have machines with both FF2 and IE6 on them. And I can tell
you that IE6 still today renders webpages far better than FF2 does.

I would have stuck with IE6, but some sites balked at it. I think the
online banking site was one, and there were a few others, so I finally had
to throw in the towel.

BillW50 wrote:
In m,
Ant wrote:
On 3/13/2012 3:48 AM (Los Angeles/L.A.'s time zone), BillW50 typed:

People say using IE6 is bad at rendering nowadays.

It is. IE6 has been a horror show for the past 4 or 5 years.

And outdated.

So?

Exactly. Who cares if its "old"?
Then again, I guess some "have" to have the latest cars too, LOL.

Some claim old people are outdated too. And who was that democratic
politician again who said something like people over 60 have outlived
their usefulness to society and should get out of the way and die?

I think it was a Republican, come to think of it. :-)
Remember in the health care debates? One of their "solutions" was to just
"hurry up and die", if you can't afford health insurance. :-)

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in :

So? Some claim old people are outdated too. And who was that democratic
politician again who said something like people over 60 have outlived
their usefulness to society and should get out of the way and die?



He was an idiot. All there is to know. People should be free to make their
own mistakes, but being free to make the worst mistakes of the past is a
liberty they should not be easily granted. If young people actually DO
learn
from the past,

I've been around long enough to say, unequivocably, they don't, and they
never will. It's just the nature of mankind.

and manage to avoid a third world war caused by repeating
dangerous and stupid mistakes from the past,

Same comment.

they might value the old for the
protection, which extends well beyond childhood care. As for the rebels, I
know from my OWN rebellions that there is nothing in rebellion if you act
like there is nothing to rebel against. (Even law breakers have to know
and
respect the law, to beeak it in any meaningful way). There is no problem
disagreeing with the past, but the fastest way to outlive usefulness is to
act like none of it matters. It is also the best way to get REALLY scared
of
growing old!

About that AV thing, I guess I got used to Ghost, and changing the OS for
a
previous clean copy at need. I used to use and like AV (early Kaspersky),
but
I found preparing clean sources for recovery easier than keeping virus
signatures up to date. That's because once I have local sources, in clean
backups, I don't have to think about them regularly.

In m,
Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
In ,
98 Guy wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
People say using IE6 is bad at rendering nowadays.

It is. IE6 has been a horror show for the past 4 or 5 years.

Heck that is nothing compared to how bad pages look
under FF2.

You need to do more homework. IE6 is universally recognized as a
highly non-compliant browser. Macro$haft designed it that way on
purpose - to twist web-conventions to suit their own needs and plans
at the time.

I have no problem with non-compliant browsers. As I believe in
freedom. And compliances are for dictators and commies. And I am all
for people trying to find better ways to do something. Sometimes
they work and sometimes they don't.

And I still have machines with both FF2 and IE6 on them. And I can
tell you that IE6 still today renders webpages far better than FF2
does.

I would have stuck with IE6, but some sites balked at it. I think the
online banking site was one, and there were a few others, so I
finally had to throw in the towel.

Yes true nowadays. But there was a time when IE6 was the most used
browser and whether compliant or not, it was still widely supported.
Although recently its use has fallen to below 1% and it is now deemed as
good as dead by most.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
One idea I really like is Windows Embedded. There are other software
that does something similar. But what basically happens is that all
writes are redirected to somewhere else (like to RAM or to another
drive). So nothing on your boot/system drive is changed at all. Windows
thinks it is writing there and things are written and re-read with the
updated information, although...

When you power off (you don't even have to do a proper shutdown either).
And when you boot up later, none of the changes stuck and you are back
to day 1 all over again. So any updates, malware, or whatever are
totally gone. To me, if you are not going to run an AV, this is the real
way to go.
[]
Sounds interesting.

Does it have a facility for "save the current in-RAM situation"? I mean,
say you install something (software or an update) and are actually quite
pleased with the result, is there a way of saying you want to keep it
after all (i. e. update the "embedded" with the modified)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
One idea I really like is Windows Embedded. There are other software
that does something similar. But what basically happens is that all
writes are redirected to somewhere else (like to RAM or to another
drive). So nothing on your boot/system drive is changed at all.
Windows thinks it is writing there and things are written and
re-read with the updated information, although...

When you power off (you don't even have to do a proper shutdown
either). And when you boot up later, none of the changes stuck and
you are back to day 1 all over again. So any updates, malware, or
whatever are totally gone. To me, if you are not going to run an AV,
this is the real way to go.
[]
Sounds interesting.

Does it have a facility for "save the current in-RAM situation"? I
mean, say you install something (software or an update) and are
actually quite pleased with the result, is there a way of saying you
want to keep it after all (i. e. update the "embedded" with the
modified)?

Saving all writes to RAM, the default is 512MB. Which I don't recall if
you can make larger or not. At any point in time you can say I want to
save everything so far and turn this feature off. And it will dump
everything and commit (write) everything to the drive. All is well up to
this point and if you want to toggle it back on you can. But it doesn't
count unless you reboot at this point. Or you can continue and it still
won't count until you reboot (it is acting just like regular Windows at
this point). As it remembers how you have it set before rebooting.

Buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it for 512MB isn't a
lot of room. Having a swapfile on this protected partition won't last
long and you will fill up 512MB very fast. So use swap on another
partition or just turn it off. And the least amount of writing really
helps out of lot. As you have to do something when this space starts
running low. I can run about 18 hours with some browsing and email and
newsgroups, so it isn't that bad before filling up with some light duty
tasks.

The RAM option I don't recall if you can save it or not. But there is a
buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it to another partition
option. Same idea with a twist. You don't have to worry about filling up
the RAM. And if I remember right, it can continue after reboot after
reboot. And no changes are committed to the protected drive unless you
tell it so. Once you do, you are stuck until you reboot once again (just
like the RAM option). Meaning once you tell it to commit you are stuck
there until a reboot. And like the RAM option, if you want this
protection turned on again, you have to tell it before a reboot.
Otherwise it acts just like regular Windows in this state.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

In message , BillW50
writes:
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
One idea I really like is Windows Embedded. There are other software
that does something similar. But what basically happens is that all
writes are redirected to somewhere else (like to RAM or to another
drive). So nothing on your boot/system drive is changed at all.
Windows thinks it is writing there and things are written and
re-read with the updated information, although...

When you power off (you don't even have to do a proper shutdown
either). And when you boot up later, none of the changes stuck and
you are back to day 1 all over again. So any updates, malware, or
whatever are totally gone. To me, if you are not going to run an AV,
this is the real way to go.
[]
Sounds interesting.

Does it have a facility for "save the current in-RAM situation"? I
mean, say you install something (software or an update) and are
actually quite pleased with the result, is there a way of saying you
want to keep it after all (i. e. update the "embedded" with the
modified)?

Saving all writes to RAM, the default is 512MB. Which I don't recall if
you can make larger or not. At any point in time you can say I want to
save everything so far and turn this feature off. And it will dump
everything and commit (write) everything to the drive. All is well up to
this point and if you want to toggle it back on you can. But it doesn't
count unless you reboot at this point. Or you can continue and it still
won't count until you reboot (it is acting just like regular Windows at
this point). As it remembers how you have it set before rebooting.

Buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it for 512MB isn't a
lot of room. Having a swapfile on this protected partition won't last
long and you will fill up 512MB very fast. So use swap on another
partition or just turn it off. And the least amount of writing really
helps out of lot. As you have to do something when this space starts
running low. I can run about 18 hours with some browsing and email and
newsgroups, so it isn't that bad before filling up with some light duty
tasks.

The RAM option I don't recall if you can save it or not. But there is a
buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it to another partition
option. Same idea with a twist. You don't have to worry about filling up
the RAM. And if I remember right, it can continue after reboot after
reboot. And no changes are committed to the protected drive unless you
tell it so. Once you do, you are stuck until you reboot once again (just
like the RAM option). Meaning once you tell it to commit you are stuck
there until a reboot. And like the RAM option, if you want this
protection turned on again, you have to tell it before a reboot.
Otherwise it acts just like regular Windows in this state.

Sorry, that answer went way over my head )-:. Thanks for trying anyway!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

....Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message , BillW50
writes:
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
One idea I really like is Windows Embedded. There are other software
that does something similar. But what basically happens is that all
writes are redirected to somewhere else (like to RAM or to another
drive). So nothing on your boot/system drive is changed at all.
Windows thinks it is writing there and things are written and
re-read with the updated information, although...

When you power off (you don't even have to do a proper shutdown
either). And when you boot up later, none of the changes stuck and
you are back to day 1 all over again. So any updates, malware, or
whatever are totally gone. To me, if you are not going to run an AV,
this is the real way to go.
[]
Sounds interesting.

Does it have a facility for "save the current in-RAM situation"? I
mean, say you install something (software or an update) and are
actually quite pleased with the result, is there a way of saying you
want to keep it after all (i. e. update the "embedded" with the
modified)?

Saving all writes to RAM, the default is 512MB. Which I don't recall if
you can make larger or not. At any point in time you can say I want to
save everything so far and turn this feature off. And it will dump
everything and commit (write) everything to the drive. All is well up to
this point and if you want to toggle it back on you can. But it doesn't
count unless you reboot at this point. Or you can continue and it still
won't count until you reboot (it is acting just like regular Windows at
this point). As it remembers how you have it set before rebooting.

Buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it for 512MB isn't a
lot of room. Having a swapfile on this protected partition won't last
long and you will fill up 512MB very fast. So use swap on another
partition or just turn it off. And the least amount of writing really
helps out of lot. As you have to do something when this space starts
running low. I can run about 18 hours with some browsing and email and
newsgroups, so it isn't that bad before filling up with some light duty
tasks.

The RAM option I don't recall if you can save it or not. But there is a
buffering, caching, or whatever you want to call it to another partition
option. Same idea with a twist. You don't have to worry about filling up
the RAM. And if I remember right, it can continue after reboot after
reboot. And no changes are committed to the protected drive unless you
tell it so. Once you do, you are stuck until you reboot once again (just
like the RAM option). Meaning once you tell it to commit you are stuck
there until a reboot. And like the RAM option, if you want this
protection turned on again, you have to tell it before a reboot.
Otherwise it acts just like regular Windows in this state.

Sorry, that answer went way over my head )-:. Thanks for trying anyway!

I think he said 'yes'. And that it was like a ruminant animal that can't
**** anywhere so it fills all its stomachs over the course of a few hours
till it can't eat any more.

Seems to me it's trying to be two things and in conflict with itself for
trying. Worse, it looks like a variant of the old-windows-runs-out-of-stuff-
it-needs-because-it-can't-or-won't-let-go problem. Once it was handles, DLL's
and GDI resources, now it looks like the content in real or virtual RAM. Got
to wonder why Microsoft are so afraid of UN-loading something. Living in a
small space always demands that something should go to make space if a new
thing is needed.

This is yet another reason I like a small W98 core. if the system hates
unloading stuff, then borks, better to prevent it loading satuff unless you
really need it. It looks like nearly 20 years of development have done
nothing to change that rule.