66% Of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

Oh wait, i was talking in a consumer perspective
HAHAAHHA, me and my wrong point of view

 

No reason to sugest otherwise, except on new notebooks, you may find the bios locked to work with newer OS, if you can set it to compatibility then your ok. other than that I'd say yes

 

I did not read every single post but from what I saw there was some heated debate and much nonsense being posted.

There also was a comment about this forum being called Wilders Security. In that spirit, yes, a car analogy:

So you are driving an old car, with old technology and it's perfectly fine for you. A new car costs much money and brings subjectively no advantages for you that could justify that cost. You can keep on driving that car in your garden, patch and fix it in your garage (as the manufacturer isn't supplying spare parts anymore) but if you don't pass the vehicle inspection you can't drive on public streets as you are (well, your car) a safety hazard to everyone.

I'm not going to talk about an Internet driving license but imagine an annual computer inspection. If you connect your computer to the internet you bear the responsibility to prevent it from becoming a zombie as that affects everyone.

On an offline PC I don't see the problem with running an unsupported OS but if you open it to the world better make sure you know damn well what you are doing. Some of you think they know how to keep their system secure without official support or to keep an aging OS secure against modern day threats. But this is not the norm and I don't believe half of you know what they are doing (please show me how you use ring 0 protection against ring 0 threats, kernel vulnerabilities. Isn't that impossible by design?) But OK, I hope your detection mechanisms work and the risk is only a statistical chance anyway so it's not THAT bad.

But this IS bad: To root for, publicly, without knowing your audience, on a security forum, that it's fine to run an - in the extreme case - unsupported OS or to claim that a modern system, designed with the modern threat scape in mind doesn't offer ANYTHING in terms of improved security.

 

In the spirit of the car analogy:

I like my 76 4x4 pickup truck. It is made of real metal, not the skin thin stuff in newer cars. It has lots of room to work on it under the hood. It has minimal electronics to get messed up. All in all it is a great vehicle.

But, I find myself more attracted to fuel injection and the economy it brings. I like the wiper delay, the heated seat, the AC, the cruise control. I like all that stuff because once I used it I noticed how nice it was to have.

I still have my old truck, and it runs great. But I rarely use it because I really like the features on my newer truck. But, I can most certainly quantify and qualify those features as a reason to pay more for it, although I don't "need" to. It is, as always, a matter of preference... and also one of fuel mileage and comfort on long trips

Sul.

 

XP is still quite common in business environments here in the U.S. Business is often quite slow and hesitant to update to the latest and greatest.

 

I run XP Pro on my little home network that includes 3 PC's and 2 Notebooks. I like it's lightness and the fact that is extremely tweakable. I like it cause I grew with it. I've been using it since I was in elementary school, so it's the OS that I've grown with. I'm used to it's colors, and I'm used to it's menus and I know where things are. I know how to fix it with almost no effort. All I know about computers I learnt it while using XP, so it's more like a nostalgic feeling.
I've been on Vista of course, switched back to XP simply because I felt homesick.
Haven't had the chance to use 7 long enough, only while dealing with client's computers, but I personally can't afford spending money on hardware for 5 computers, let alone the price for 5 Windows licenses.
I know the time will come when I'll have to irremediably upgrade but just not yet. Or else I might simply migrate to Linux.

 

i am one of the xp users. combining bufferzone and shadow defender on xp makes me more secured than any windows 7 with any internet security suite out there...why upgrade to windows 7 or vista (NOT!!!) if my OS works perfectly?

 

This ^

100% truth!

You do not need the latest,greatest OS to be safe.

 

I am certainly glad that you are secure in your security but do you actually believe this? Of course you can believe it, that is fine. It is however, an opinion, like much of this thread is

There is no compelling reason to update, never was. They could have just kept on updating w2k, or XP, forever I suppose. I think they just want our money

Sul.

 

I like windows Seven so much that I wouldn't go back to XP.
However, during the World Economic Crisis, companies cannot easily Upgrade their Setups.
Moreover, there are Application Compatibility issues.

 

Is an OS mainly used for security purposes? Is upgrading worth the costs? What about the time and effort to adapt to the new environment?

There are just way too many factors to consider when it comes to upgrading...I am of the opinion that we should just the let the individual (or company/organization) take upon the responsibility to decide when he/she wants to do it. Otherwise, it's a merry-go-round set of arguments unless someone is willing to shell out cash for the upgrade and 'fix' the possible problems arising from it.

P.S. Using Windows 7 but not one of the early birds so to say...