People won't abandon Windows 7, OS still found on almost a quarter of all devices

candle_86

Posts: 551   +480
Yes My installation of Windows XP-SP2 is READ ONLY!

It is very easy to accomplish with "Driveshield"

As for XP sp2 not being vulnerable to wannacry.....
Yes, that is also true >
https://grahamcluley.com/windows-xp-wannacry/

In fact, I was the person who first reported that XP-SP2 was unnafected by wannacry

And yes, I guess I do know more than them ?


Anything else?
Yes your reading wrong, it crashed and even they say it's still vulnerable and suggest patching at a minimum. Honestly you fail to understand their point,and have no bussiness claiming your a security expert plain and simple,also your little tool would be just as effective on windows 10 except you'd also be able to use modern hardware and software, the fact is you have to take a drastic measures normally reserved for education or public kiosk type systems to secure your system, XP isn't secure your drive is there is actually a difference. Your copy can become infected but upon reboot your simply loading the os to it's clean state everytime and loading that into a virtual drive that is wiped. So no XP isn't secure.
 

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 374   +268
Yes your reading wrong, it crashed and even they say it's still vulnerable and suggest patching at a minimum. Honestly you fail to understand their point,and have no bussiness claiming your a security expert plain and simple,also your little tool would be just as effective on windows 10 except you'd also be able to use modern hardware and software, the fact is you have to take a drastic measures normally reserved for education or public kiosk type systems to secure your system, XP isn't secure your drive is there is actually a difference. Your copy can become infected but upon reboot your simply loading the os to it's clean state everytime and loading that into a virtual drive that is wiped. So no XP isn't secure.
Maybe YOU are reading it wrong?
----------------------------------------------
"The team didn’t achieve any infection on Windows XP with Service Pack 2.

They got a blue screen of death (BSOD) on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 but no ransomware payload."
----------------------------
Beyond that, any further reading is irrelevant!

Vulnerable ports were manually blocked in my XP firewall and no further Microsoft security updates were required

https://www.tufin.com/blog/tech-how...walls-to-block-the-wannacry-ransomware-attack

and YES, "MY" copy of XP "IS" secure!

Try again
 
"a very small number of people still use Windows Vista, for some reason."
Some people have laptops / desktops with Vista that don't have compatible drivers for 7.
Then there are those who have the hardware it takes to run Vista and love the graphical effects of the GUI. Those effects have been reduced to nearly nothing in newer OS versions.
"Why are so many people hanging onto Windows 7? "
Because Windows 8 wasn't popular and thus Windows 7 is the last Microsoft OS in which people have a say. A say about system settings, privacy, update policy, telemetry.
Vista drivers can be forced in Win 7. I've done it. Its essentially the same kernel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3ogdy

Shawnonymous

Posts: 17   +7
Use rufus to create usb installer. It never failed me.
There are 3 bios uefi modes. The mode you select in rufus must match the computer bios mode. The best mode is uefi with no csm.
Another great one much like the old YUMI is the new VENTOY for multi-boot. Easiest and most reliable I've used yet.
 
]
The statistics are very misleading. Every android and iOS device runs a Unix variant, making it far larger than windows
Android and IOS have different user agent strings in browsers than their desktop counterparts, making it possible to discern a smartphone OS from a desktop OS. It's very simple.
 

candle_86

Posts: 551   +480
Oh wanted to point out Linux is not Unix, they share some commands which was intentional but it's as close to Unix as Dos was to cpm. So no Linux is not Unix based, it's not a branch off.
 

lazer

Posts: 354   +103
Refusal to adapt and change on a system that has been out for years is a bit backwards for folks that are into tech. Yeh well done, you're on XP you are so different.

Windows 10 is miles better than previous versions. To those worried about privacy, what on earth are you doing in Windows ecosystem then? "Privacy" LOL... cmon.
Refusal to adapt and change on a system that has been out for years is a bit backwards for folks that are into tech. Yeh well done, you're on XP you are so different.

Windows 10 is miles better than previous versions. To those worried about privacy, what on earth are you doing in Windows ecosystem then? "Privacy" LOL... cmon.
why buy into a problematic OS when there is still a good one that works? win7 works and keeps working; win10 generates one problem after the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3ogdy

candle_86

Posts: 551   +480
why buy into a problematic OS when there is still a good one that works? win7 works and keeps working; win10 generates one problem after the other.
Because windows 7 is out of support, load windows 10 1903 it has 2 years of support and if on pro you can stop feature updates. 1903 is what enterprises run on.
 

brucek

Posts: 530   +616
TechSpot Elite
Readers of sites like this likely have informed opinions about which OS they prefer, and a ready ability to implement their desire.

That said, it wouldn't shock me if a big chunk of those 25% are more like the mindset of my parents: they have an ancient computer; the computer appears to work just fine; they are from a background and generation that does not readily discard things that they still perceive to be useful; and they don't believe for a second they know how to "update an operating system."

To me this brings up the question of what should Microsoft's liability be for discontinuing support for security patches of these devices. They have knowledge of the devices, and of the security bugs, and of the consequences of the bugs; and they have the ability to push patches but choose not to do so.

I am not aware of any other product category in which a manufacturer can escape liability for harm caused by their product by using the "well we make a newer safer version and we want to sell that one" excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister_K

candle_86

Posts: 551   +480
Readers of sites like this likely have informed opinions about which OS they prefer, and a ready ability to implement their desire.

That said, it wouldn't shock me if a big chunk of those 25% are more like the mindset of my parents: they have an ancient computer; the computer appears to work just fine; they are from a background and generation that does not readily discard things that they still perceive to be useful; and they don't believe for a second they know how to "update an operating system."

To me this brings up the question of what should Microsoft's liability be for discontinuing support for security patches of these devices. They have knowledge of the devices, and of the security bugs, and of the consequences of the bugs; and they have the ability to push patches but choose not to do so.

I am not aware of any other product category in which a manufacturer can escape liability for harm caused by their product by using the "well we make a newer safer version and we want to sell that one" excuse.
So First should be held responsible that a foxbody Mustang lacks modern safety features, what about a wreck in 53 Ford that the driver is ejected should they be required to foot the bill because it doesn't have seatbelts?

Every company ends support at some point and no they don't keep supporting it, aftermarket companies sometimes do but there is no requirement for them to do so. We just threw out our old fridge because the control board fried and parts are no longer made for it.

Also home ocs make up about 10% of the total market, so that 25% is mostly enterprise and small bussiness which are migrating as their internal programs are tested and fixed.
 

brucek

Posts: 530   +616
TechSpot Elite
So First should be held responsible that a foxbody Mustang lacks modern safety features, what about a wreck in 53 Ford that the driver is ejected should they be required to foot the bill because it doesn't have seatbelts?

Every company ends support at some point and no they don't keep supporting it, aftermarket companies sometimes do but there is no requirement for them to do so. We just threw out our old fridge because the control board fried and parts are no longer made for it.

Also home ocs make up about 10% of the total market, so that 25% is mostly enterprise and small bussiness which are migrating as their internal programs are tested and fixed.
Not sure where to draw the line exactly, but I will say I just got a recall notice for the airbags in my 18 year old car. That car is a lot older than Windows 7, and the airbags in it will only ever apply to occupants of that car -- vs. an intentionally unpatched system which can be used to attack the entire internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3ogdy

Mister_K

Posts: 1,973   +630
Readers of sites like this likely have informed opinions about which OS they prefer, and a ready ability to implement their desire.

That said, it wouldn't shock me if a big chunk of those 25% are more like the mindset of my parents: they have an ancient computer; the computer appears to work just fine; they are from a background and generation that does not readily discard things that they still perceive to be useful; and they don't believe for a second they know how to "update an operating system."

To me this brings up the question of what should Microsoft's liability be for discontinuing support for security patches of these devices. They have knowledge of the devices, and of the security bugs, and of the consequences of the bugs; and they have the ability to push patches but choose not to do so.

I am not aware of any other product category in which a manufacturer can escape liability for harm caused by their product by using the "well we make a newer safer version and we want to sell that one" excuse.
Problem is, you will still get the ones hat resist the patches even if it means safer system. They are already in the mindset of refusal. You will have to upgrade eventually.

Windows 10 is miles better than Windows 7, I genuinely cannot understand why you would use it. Simple clean UI (subjective), cleaner/faster kernel, DX12+ better optimised third-party software. It's like when users do not update their browsers, making whole load of headaches for developers. Inb4 conspiracy* with data mining/spying.

Also majority of our use is out of the OS inside third-party apps which will deliver better support for latest version of the OS. Whether its gaming or content creation.

If you are worried about the "spyware" part, well majority of websites are tracking people and some even record unanimously your mouse usage. Just look at the data you can gather with HotJar or Google Analytics. Not because they give a **** about you the individual on a personal level and want to be nosy about your "private life" but to improve the usability of the software/website.

Now if all you do is document work and web browsing, who cares.
 

brucek

Posts: 530   +616
TechSpot Elite
You're probably replying to the thread as much as to me, so I get it, but as to the part that specifically relates to what I was saying:

- All the technical advantages and disadvantages go straight out the window. Not a single one of those phrases means anything to people like my parents or the many like them. They aren't making a decision, they are running on inertia.

- Even if they did make a decision, they are not changing out their operating system for the same reason they are not considering changing out the engine in their car: they wouldn't dream it is something they are qualified to do (even if to us it seems simple and straight forward.)

As to the "who cares", the issue is the harms from unpatched systems go not just to the users of those systems, but to all the systems that can be attacked via the unpatched system once it is compromised. If you're wondering how a teen can get a million zombie systems to execute a DDOS attack for like $1.50, Microsoft's refusal to press "Send" on patches it already has is part of the problem -- and I for one would like to shift the costs back to them.
 

candle_86

Posts: 551   +480
You're probably replying to the thread as much as to me, so I get it, but as to the part that specifically relates to what I was saying:

- All the technical advantages and disadvantages go straight out the window. Not a single one of those phrases means anything to people like my parents or the many like them. They aren't making a decision, they are running on inertia.

- Even if they did make a decision, they are not changing out their operating system for the same reason they are not considering changing out the engine in their car: they wouldn't dream it is something they are qualified to do (even if to us it seems simple and straight forward.)

As to the "who cares", the issue is the harms from unpatched systems go not just to the users of those systems, but to all the systems that can be attacked via the unpatched system once it is compromised. If you're wondering how a teen can get a million zombie systems to execute a DDOS attack for like $1.50, Microsoft's refusal to press "Send" on patches it already has is part of the problem -- and I for one would like to shift the costs back to them.
your recall notice for 18 year old airbags is an oddity, as for shifting the cost lets use the car again. Microsoft built the engine, but Dell or HP built the car. Ford run's Mazada engines in some cars or did at one point, should Mazda be responsible for a recall or should ford? That's right Ford is, so if your parents don't want to replace the OS that's their choice but their issue is Dell or HP or whoever made it. But this analogy doesn't work fully in this instance. It's lifespan of the product, when Microsoft released Windows 7 they said it would be supported for 10 years, they said that on day one, just because your parents didn't look into it is not Microsoft's fault, Ignorance is no defense sorry to tell you that. The lifecycle fact sheet is public information, anyone can look it up. Microsoft extended XP support because of enterprise customers not adopting Vista, but Enterprise customers started shifting to 10 in 2016 it was never the same situation, but Microsoft choose to extend XP support, their original life cycle had windows XP dying out in 2011, 10 years after rtm, they decided to give everyone 3 extra years, but the key is they decided.
 

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 374   +268
Readers of sites like this likely have informed opinions about which OS they prefer, and a ready ability to implement their desire.

That said, it wouldn't shock me if a big chunk of those 25% are more like the mindset of my parents: they have an ancient computer; the computer appears to work just fine; they are from a background and generation that does not readily discard things that they still perceive to be useful; and they don't believe for a second they know how to "update an operating system."

To me this brings up the question of what should Microsoft's liability be for discontinuing support for security patches of these devices. They have knowledge of the devices, and of the security bugs, and of the consequences of the bugs; and they have the ability to push patches but choose not to do so.

I am not aware of any other product category in which a manufacturer can escape liability for harm caused by their product by using the "well we make a newer safer version and we want to sell that one" excuse.
Microsoft is not liable for refusing to patch an out of support O.S.

They ARE however liable for putting backdoors in the operating system, forcing end users to spend endless hours searching for ways to disable all the malware and spyware (making users opt out, instead of opt in to intrusive software), preventing end users from opting out of ALL the malware and spyware (only "some"), including blackmail and/or extortionary terms in their license "agreement" (?), backdooring their bitlocker encryption scheme and violating the National Security of anyyone who uses Spyware Platform 10

Yes, they are liable for many things and their Monopoly license is Null and Void under actual LAW, but they are not liable for refusing to update an O.S. after its service life has ended
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3ogdy and lazer

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 374   +268
Because windows 7 is out of support, load windows 10 1903 it has 2 years of support and if on pro you can stop feature updates. 1903 is what enterprises run on.
Being out of support is irrelevant if you are a real security expert (Like Me) :)

I use Windows XP-SP2 "online" without any Microsoft security updates and never have problems with malware

I can also permanently stop Feature Updates on any version of Spyware Platform 10 as well...

It's easy to do!
 
Last edited:

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
It was totally understandable during the Windows 8 era (a real POS operative system), but today with Windows 10 I definitely don't understand...
Windows 7 is an aging software.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,496   +5,870
But yet you don't understand why people would choose to stay with an OS that works for them. I upgraded during the free upgrade. However I wouldn't have bothered if I had to pay for Windows 10.

Windows 10 has always been an irritation in my side. That is something Windows 7 never did. I was a strong advocate for Windows 7 the day it was released. I had been using it 9 months while in beta when released. Advocating so strongly for Windows 10 goes against my opinions for the OS. I consider Windows 10 a necessary evil because there are no other comparable options.

If they brought back Windows 7 update support and added DX12. I'd drop Windows 10 just as soon as I had time.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 397   +215
But yet you don't understand why people would choose to stay with an OS that works for them. I upgraded during the free upgrade. However I wouldn't have bothered if I had to pay for Windows 10.

Windows 10 has always been an irritation in my side. That is something Windows 7 never did. I was a strong advocate for Windows 7 the day it was released. I had been using it 9 months while in beta when released. Advocating so strongly for Windows 10 goes against my opinions for the OS. I consider Windows 10 a necessary evil because there are no other comparable options.

If they brought back Windows 7 update support and added DX12. I'd drop Windows 10 just as soon as I had time.
I never saw Windows 7 is bad. I was very happy about it.
But we are in 2020 and it just old...
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,496   +5,870
But we are in 2020 and it just old...
My point though is age doesn't mean anything, if it still gets the job done.

With that said. Anyone that shops, does banking, or keeps job related secrets on their machine, should be using a currently supported OS. But other than that. I'm not going to shake my finger at anyone, regardless of their OS of choice.