When you chose to stay on a decade old OS, 3 major revisions behind what is currently out there, you sort of chose what sort of support you were going to get.
Nobody is supporting Ubuntu 6, yet you seem to expect people to support the Windows equivalent.
I know XPers refuse to admit it, but they run an antiquated OS, and if you insist on running antiquated operating system software, don't be surprised when the rest of the software you can run starts rusting as well.
Firstly, Windows XP isn't three generations behind, it's two. The current version of Windows is Windows 7, and if you buy a new computer today, that's what you're going to get.
Secondly, Vista doesn't count. Microsoft screwed up severely, and now they have to pay the price for it in terms of PR and market attitude. Windows 7 has been out for just over 3 years, and anyone technically literate who bought a PC 3.5 years ago probably had Windows XP installed on it (and with Microsoft's blessing).
I know XP bashers refuse to admit it, but XP was installed, legitimately and with Microsoft's support (and to their profit), well within the useful lifetime of a typical home PC that is still running today. If MS choose to end support in an attempt to push people onto newer software platforms, that's up to them, and either the market will accept it or it won't.
But calling XP antiquated is just denial. Sorry, but we don't just throw away working systems after a couple of years and climb back on the upgrade treadmill any more.
XP is antiquated in terms of its technology, in particular its security model. Vista, while not a hit with consumers, was a major step forward in security for Microsoft. In fact the massive improvements in security were part of the reason it was a flop, as it suddenly started throwing warnings on all the terrible application security practices that XP tolerated.
XP is antiquated in terms of its technology, in particular its security model. Vista, while not a hit with consumers, was a major step forward in security for Microsoft.
There is a certain irony in making an argument based on the security model in recent versions of Windows while we're in the middle of a thread discussing web browsers. Both Chrome and Firefox go out of their way to circumvent that security model, despite providing arguably the most obvious attack vector on many modern computers.
And frankly, the modern Windows security model isn't that great anyway. We can solve a privileged execution problem by nuking the machine and reinstalling from back-ups. It's a hassle, but it's a controllable risk. This is the sort of thing that the UAC measures help to prevent.
But if you don't have back-ups of your personal files, you're toast if they get deleted by malware. And since you probably have write access to those files even if you're logged in as a low-privilege user, and Windows doesn't separate which applications can access what data to that extent, the likes of UAC won't help you here. Sure, everyone should keep back-ups, but we all know that many people don't.
And the really bad stuff these days isn't destructive anyway, it's about data harvesting. If someone gets in and starts uploading sensitive data, or perhaps sending out phishing e-mails to people who trust the compromised machine's owner and think that's where the messages are coming from, UAC isn't much good there either. You need firewall and antivirus tools for this sort of threat, and we had those with XP, and if you're doing it seriously you don't run them on the same computer you're trying to protect anyway.
If you can upgrade from XP, you should.
Sorry, but I don't think you're anywhere near making a case for that yet.
Most malware does not seek to just nuke user files; it seeks to set up a permanent hidden presence in the machine. Windows 7 makes this much harder to accomplish with technologies like ASLR.
Security depends on layers. Chrome is more secure than IE, but you can run Chrome on Windows 7 too. If Chrome--or one of its plugins--are compromised (it is not perfect software after all), then the security features of Windows 7 will give you better protection than XP.
Maybe you don't believe me, because I'm just some guy on the Internet. That's fair. But I would challenge you to find a computer security professional who thinks XP is as secure as Windows 7.
Most malware does not seek to just nuke user files; it seeks to set up a permanent hidden presence in the machine.
I don't know whether "most" is true, but sure, a lot of malware does that. But that's not why it's dangerous. If you manage to install something that changes my wallpaper to a cute cat picture every few days, it's probably going to be mildly irritating after a while, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Chrome is more secure than IE
Again, I feel the need to point out the irony of your example: Chrome actively circumvents the more recent Windows access control mechanisms by not installing itself properly so that it can do the silent auto-updates without any further UAC-style prompting.
But I would challenge you to find a computer security professional who thinks XP is as secure as Windows 7.
Well, now you're moving the goalposts. But as a guy who spent this afternoon working on security code that's going to be run by the likes of banks and government institutions, I prefer to make my judgements based on evidence rather than hear'say, and so do they. Incidentally, many of those clients are still running Windows 2000 and IE6, obviously along with many other security measures, and installing Chrome in some of those places would probably get you formally disciplined.
Totally agree. As an OS itself, let's just look at it objectively first. Without Internet, you can keep using your OS for a very long time if your usage of daily software doesn't change a whole lot. What could be the basic functions? Writing, printing, maintaining files. All this can be achieved without worrying too much about upgrades. So just on this account, there is no need to disregard XP.
However, we cannot divorce Internet from the OS, and consequently you need necessary updates to keep up with the changing time.
You make a good argument that XP is not really that old (it isn't as old as Win95/98/Win2K) and honestly speaking, from my experience, if you are a owner of a reasonable processor (Pentium 4 and above) and if max out on your memory slots (4 Gigs is relatively possible) than I really don't see a reason to buy a new PC if I can hold on to what I have as long as I technically can.
Can you give me one legitimate reason to move off of this OS when 99% of my use of this OS is only through the browser?
I made my hardware compatible by upgrading the memory to the max and my computer (browser in fact) runs as good as any Windows 7 or anything else "new" out there.
I simply see these OS upgrades as marketing ploy to generate more income (nothing wrong with that but I have to have my choices too).
People are simply being suckered in to buying newer hardware which they don't really need.
Newer OS versions aren't just marketing ploy, they also include major security features. This is very important if everything you do is in the browser. There are a world of browser exploits that can compromise your system, and the majority of them target Windows XP due to its security holes (some of which cannot be patched without moving to 7 or 8).
You can continue to make your stand against Microsoft's evil plans, but saving yourself $100 by not upgrading could end up costing you everything in your bank account when you end up with a rootkit that steals your account information.
Don't want to pay for an upgrade? Get Ubuntu. If 99% of your use is through the browser then this choice shouldn't effect you much. Its just as easy to install as Windows for most OEM's as well.
Presumably, and topically, you might try Firefox. Alternatively, you could try to rally developers to write a native-behaving browser based on the Cairo webkit port. It needs substantial love but it would be a project that would really better the options for a modern browser on Windows.
Writing a new web rendering engine is, of course, both virtually impossible and foolish.
Opera is a pretty decent browser, and it runs particularly well on older hardware (which, if you're running XP, may be relevant).
I think a lot of people are still on Windows XP because it was the first version of Windows that was really "good enough" for most needs. That said, Win 7 really is better and is totally worth the ~$100.
I don't really have a clunker, so I upgraded the memory to 3Gigs and my XP is using the least minimum services and startup EXEs, hence I am really happy with the host OS to run my browser which is what I use all the time anyway.
The bare bone XP with least minimum running services is as good as Windows 7. But if only people could see.
It's really not. You seem to be hiding behind the browser, thinking that as long as you have a secure browser, your OS is secure as well. This isn't the case. Windows XP is a major nightmare, especially if "minimum services" doesn't include an active firewall, AV, anti-spyware, and anti-rootkit tool. If you're running XP without all of that (as well as occasional one-off, offline scans with a different AV tool), you're asking for trouble.
Windows XP is seriously bad news when it comes to being online, with any browser.
I think you've been drinking kool-Aid, or you don't know how keep the running OS secured with the least minimum requirements (assuming you are talking about a home PC which is mainly used for leisure and sometime typical banking needs).
You can very well (still) run Microsoft's security software which has virus scan. You can occasionally run (still) freely available good spyware scanners. The firewall that came with the XP does its job.
The point I am making, which seem to be lost on everyone here, is that, if you upgrade your relatively decent hardware with enough RAM, and if you remove all the crappy services and EXEs from the startup, you can have a reasonable experience with older OSs and there is no need to go buy new PCs every other year from Walmarts.
But Microsoft is in the business of selling OSs and they knew what they were doing by removing IE9 from XP and they also know what they sell with every new updates of Office (go back to Office97 or 2003 and you can still use the basic function as same as today's Office).
So when it comes to the browsers in today's time, it really does look pathetic with very few choices on hand. You have a corporation owned Chrome which wants to know when did you pee in the morning and what did you eat last night and where. Then you have a decently run Firefox but that is the only choice right now and it is troubling that it is the only choice right now.
As I mention quite often here on HN, I'm an information security professional. I'm not talking out of my ass, I'm talking from direct, first-hand experience. No one is saying you should buy a new computer, you can upgrade an OS on the same hardware. Use Windows 7, use Ubuntu, use Unix if you want to. Just please don't use Windows XP.
For my own sanity, I'm just going to assume you're 13 years old.
I wouldn't trust Iron. I read that it wasn't made with an eye towards privacy, but towards self-promotion:
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.ht...
I can't find the feature-by-feature takedown I read, but it looked really counter-productive.
No. YOU don't know what running an OS secured with least minimum requirements are until you are running a linux server with all ports blocks from the command line. Then at that point you can use lynx to browse the web if you want the most secure, minimal web browser. Older versions of IE, especially on windows XP are nothing but security flaws.
So when you want to get off of your high horse, feel free to update your OS and install a modern browser. The browser market absolutely does not look pathetic as there are at least a hundred browsers that you can try if you put in any effort. Until then, you actually don't have a valid opinion on this matter.
You are not following my initial lament. I mentioned Walmart. Does it give you any clue? The people who buy Microsoft's "upgrades" does not have the word Lynx in their consciousness to begin with.
People here bring out strawman at every opportunity (or they feel gratified clicking a downvote arrow - big deal!).
I have nothing against Firefox and I use it daily. But people on the Internet are better off adopting the diversity of browsers and the one which is providing more innovative and evolutionary services, should be adopted. The ones which are status-quo (Chrome is really a bazaar of products being sold) and the ones trying to maintain their race (Firefox: we-want-to-be-the-only-nice-guys), should get enough pressures to compete. But obviously I can only speak for myself.
It sounds more like you're bringing out the strawman when you start talking about the average person who buys a computer at Wal Mart. We're not talking about them. We're talking about you. There's a plethora of competitive browsers in the market. You just happen to be using an OS that is not competitive in the market anymore.
The only developers who still see a return from going out of their way to support Windows XP are malware authors.
Last I checked, almost all applications I have on my XP is being supported by software developers (given that I don't have many). From the perspective of Office, all open-source alternatives to MS are supporting XP. Firefox is still supporting XP. Chrome and Opera does as well. So are you suggesting that they are breaking the security model by supporting XP. Why would they? I have yet to see any disclaimer from any of them that says that I should use their software on AS IS basis.
As I said, I think XP is a fine OS for most people, but you don't use it in a vacuum (obviously, since you're posting here). Support for XP at the OS, application and driver level is only going to get worse. And this will become a bigger and bigger problem.
Also, Windows 7 is actually just a better OS. In my experience the kernel is more stable and the memory management is better.
Well, I don't disagree. With every passage of time, things expire and new things evolve. But you can already imagine that by the time people like myself get to using the Windows 7, the Microsoft, along with the whole cabal of browser makers and websites, would want me to upgrade to Windows 13, and by then, there will be security professionals not talking from their ass trying to convince that Windows 7 is a security nightmare.
It might be "as good as" if you're just using it to run a browser. But in my experience Win7 has been snappier to use than XP on the same machine, software vendors are starting to stop supporting XP, the UI is more pleasant (subjective), and the 64-bit support is much better. Just a few things.
Why dont you consider installing Ubuntu for a change ? I'm not sure if antivirus/firewall vendors are even supporting XP and you really dont want to be running XP without protection.
Perhaps you use a lot of Microsoft Word - Google Docs is a fine replacement. For basic Excel use, Openoffice/Google Docs is good enough (problem happens when you are doing advanced macros).
Perhaps you use Photoshop - Gimp is a fine replacement unless you are using it professionally.
Why dont you mention your specific OS software needs and we will be happy to suggest alternatives.
FYI, my entire family (wife, parents) use Linux and are pretty happy with it.
Nothing wrong with Ubuntu and I'd use it eventually if I really have to. But in order to just use a browser (which is what I use mainly) I don't have a great need to move to Ubuntu from XP.
You seem to do, considering you cannot find an up to date browser to your liking. It also seems to be a valid alternative considering you do not want to buy software upgrades (OS).
Opera, Chromium, WebKit (yes, there's a Windows build ... no idea if it's OK on XP). Plus derivatives of the popular browsers. Safari. What are you looking for?
Safari is not supporting latest version on Windows, and if they were to support, I'd assume they'd also want people to have the latest OS. I have not gone the Opera route yet in a substantive way.
People above seem upset that there are still people out there using XP. My main point is that there should be multiple choices of reasonable browsers including even for older hardware.
The way I have seen things move, the Firefox is as same as anything else when it comes to utilizing a whole lot of memory.
I am debating this notion of all browsers. There is Chrome, there is Firefox, there is IE and there is Safari.
Chrome is a marketplace, so they'll be there selling you products (and yourself to the products) as long as they can.
Microsoft doesn't want you to use XP anymore, so they are not providing you updates. Safari for Windows is pretty much the same story now. Which practically leaves Firefox and Opera. Two choices.
I am arguing for more credible and substantive choices. I have not used Opera substantively but Firefox to me seems stuck in the past. If I were to add further thoughts, I see that the basic use and function of browser has remained the same for very long time. Just look at the bookmarks manager. Have you seen any browser provide native innovation to their bookmarks manager? The last upgrade in Firefox was several years ago when they introduced Live Bookmarks, but things have gone quiet.
This is just one example of basic functions of everyday use of browser. Has anyone seen any innovation in browser functionality in a long time? It used to render HTML websites in the beginning, and it is still rendering websites (so what if the websites have evolved - the browser has practically not evolved for the daily usage of average users).
So what are the options left any more?
It seems things are getting pathetic in the browser market.