66% Of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP

And there is ignorance as well....

 

Exactly what are you referring to Kerodo ?

 

People who don't consider 7 an upgrade from XP. 7 x64 for example, is superior to and an upgrade to XP in almost every way imaginable. Security, features, looks, etc. Anyone who doesn't see this is simply uneducated. There is nothing wrong with sticking with XP until your machine dies and you're forced to move on, but to say that 7 isn't an upgrade to XP is simply wrong....

 

Fair enough. To insist, as MS does, that XP users must upgrade (implied by terminating support) to Win 7 irrespective of needs is also wrong.

 

Actually, not only is it not wrong, Microsoft has done more than it reasonably should to support XP. Can you name me any other software vendor who has supported any product version - let alone an entire operating system - for 13 years?

 

My information is that Windows 7 was released to the public October 22, 2009.
In roughly one year, how many security updates, patches, hotfixes, etc. has Microsoft made available so to plug holes and (hopefully) eliminate known vulnerabilities in W-7 ?
Windows 7 is nothing more than a transitional OS; Vista refined and will be replaced in about two years. I believe that it's a pretty good bet that by the time 7's replacement arrives, 7 will have required more security patches and hotfixes than XP needed in a comparable period of time.

Those security enhancements you make reference to are hardly a great leap forward.
It has already been proven that both Applocker and Bitlocker can be defeated.
UAC is one of the most hated of any feature ever introduced by Microsoft and people tend to turn it off- don't they !!!
The signed driver requirement can be bypassed, and this is just the start of it.
As time goes by, more and more malware will be specifically engineered to infect W-7

I understand that some people love W-7 and if it fills their needs, I'm happy for them.
It surely does have more features than XP or Vista.
Now the question is....
What if you don't need those features ?
I don't and refuse to pay for them.
I bought Vista (Ultimate) and consider that one of the worst purchases I've ever made.
I've played around with Windows 7 Enterprise on and off for several months.
It's pretty, but it offers absolutely nothing that I need as long as I have XP.
There it is and there it stays for me.
-And apparently, two out of three Windows users see it as I see it; not as you see it.
Do you really believe that makes them uneducated ?

As for visual appeal; that's personal taste and if you like it better than the look of XP, fine, but to state that anyone who doesn't see it your way is uneducated represents arrogance to the extreme.
Kerodo;
I don't see it your way.
Do you believe I'm uneducated ?

 

The most important aspect of support that only a company can provide is to fix flaws. Advice on how to use a device can be got elsewhere.

Whether a company takes pride in its previous products or not is up to the company to decide. The market will also decide accordingly.

Here's a negative spin and here's a positive spin on a call on MS.

 

A fair point.
Microsoft has been quite liberal in (their) support for XP
Two or three times, I can't remember for sure, Microsoft has rescinded the stated cut-off date for support.

I have no quarrel with Microsoft regarding support options for XP.

Nevertheless, I will continue to use XP as it serves my needs better than any known alternative.

 

While I agree with you, for most who want to upgrade from XP or earlier, an upgrade in hardware will also be necessary. I have three machines in my household I wouldn't dare put Win7 on because I know the hardware either won't support it at all or will labor severely under the additional load the O/S would impose on it.

Can you provide info please?

Sure, because they're clueless as to the benefits it provides, they lack the patience to address the alerts, and probably aren't interested anyway.

Lots of security measures can be bypassed. example: someone writes their login password on a piece of paper and leaves it on their desk for everyone to see.

Don't most of the known malware infect several Windows versions anyway, and would this trend not continue?

There's nothing wrong sticking with Win XP. It's running on three machines in my household indefinitely.

 

A shining example of a logical fallacy. Just because Win7 is more secure than XP doesn't mean its perfectly secure. I'm sure you also know that it's virtually impossible to write 100% bug-free code, right?

Um, Win98 replaced Win95 in 3 years. WinME replaced Win98 in 2 years. WinXP replaced WinME in one. XP's abnormally long lifespan is an anomaly, not the norm, and it was only because Microsoft was too ambitious about Vista and made so many new changes. Ubuntu long-term support releases are supported only for 2 years. Every single version of Mac OS X to date has been replaced by its successor within 1-2 years.

Going by your definition, all of the above - meaning just about everything in the world other than XP - are "transitional OSes". Do I have to explain any further why this is complete nonsense?

There's no need to bet and believe when you can verify. Secunia's statistics already show less vulnerabilities AND a lower percentage of high-impact vulnerabilities for Win7 compared to XP in 2010.

So let me get this straight: just because a padlocked door can be picked, it means that it's no better than a door that's left wide open?

The requirements to defeat properly-configured Applocker and Bitlocker setups are abnormally high. Personally I've never seen a competent Applocker setup to be bypassed. Please prove me wrong.

That's a ridiculously weak argument. So Win7 isn't secure because people turn off the security features?

Yes, by gaining administrator access to install a bootkit. And if someone or something can gain administrator access on your computer without your permission, you have other, bigger problems to worry about.

And if you love Windows XP, we're happy for you. Use it for what it is, there's no need to justify your decision by spreading nonsensical falsehoods. Kerodo was talking about Win7 and Vista being upgrades to WinXP. It should be blatantly obvious that that is true, regardless of whether you need the new features in them or not. You may not, but that doesn't stop them from being upgrades by any reasonable definition.

 

Perhaps not, maybe I was a little harsh. You obviously don't think much of 7, and highly prefer XP. That's fine. I have one machine with 7 and one with XP here. But in the end, you will have to move forward as your old hardware dies, like it or not. Enjoy XP while you can.

 

Oh bugger! Right, that's it ... time to learn Linux ...

 

I'm not sentimental when it comes to XP.

 

Well let's see, I thought it says at the TOP 'Wilders Security Forum'?

Maybe we should change that to 'Wilders Windows Forum', LOL...

Last time I checked security was for all, hehe...

So I use XP yes, but I also run Linux and Win7 and I'm better at Linux so I'd say I'm in whatever percentage that is, hehe...

 

Eice and wat0114;

search for vbootkit 2.0
It was first demonstrated in 2009.
To-date, no fix for it as far as I know.
Implementation must be accomplished by having physical access to the targeted computer or server. At least, that was the case in 2009 before vbootkit 2.0 went open source.
Now, who knows how many variants and capabilities ?

Bitlocker was cracked in 2008, maybe earlier. There are many articles about this and they are easy to find, just as the information about vbootkit 2.0 is easy to find.

And Eice;
A locked door does provide better security than than one that is wide open, provided that locked door (analogous for Applocker and Bitlocker I suppose) cannot be picked or simply kicked in. That said, your analogy is pointless if the door is solid but there is an open "Window" around the corner.

UAC;
poorly designed. People turn it off because it doesn't remember preferences and it's levels of protection are poorly designed. That is not the fault of the user.
It has become a legacy pain-in-the-ass.

Does Secunia explain why the necessity for the number of Hotfixes and security patches (47) in less than one year (NO !).
Windows 7 is claimed by Microsoft to be the safest and most advanced operating system ever, yet 47 security updates and patches have been deemed necessary and issued for Windows Seven; more are on the way next week.
That number does not include updates for .net framework or Windows Defender definitions updates.
No logical fallacy here; Windows 7- like XP- is full of holes.
Windows Eight will be as well.
It's the nature of the beast, so get used to it !

 

It really begs the question of whether YOU searched for vbootkit, because a search on my end quickly turned up this link. With or without BitLocker, it's obvious that you shouldn't allow strangers to boot your PC from removable media anyway if you value what's on your PC. Configuring your BIOS to not boot from removable media, and protecting it with a password, is all it takes to defeat the attack you described.

And yes, we can know "how many variants and capabilities". It's not black magic. It's computer code, and code can't automagically get on your computer and execute just because a hacker somewhere snaps his fingers and wiggles his toes.

Notwithstanding that your example of vbootkit is actually an example of an attack that FAILS to defeat BitLocker: BitLocker is an encryption technology. It is not a security feature - it does nothing to protect against malware and intrusion attacks. AppLocker, on the other hand, IS a security feature, but you haven't tried to provide any evidence of it being bypassed at all. The fact that you talk about BitLocker in an attempt to prove that Win7 is no more secure than XP begs the question of whether you even understand what is security at all.

Except that the "window" comes with its own "locks" as well (proper BIOS configuration and password). Your failing to lock the window and then putting the blame on the padlock on the door is yet another example of the numerous logical fallacies peppered throughout your post.

Stop making up nonsense because you don't have the facts to substantiate your argument. How is not the fault of the user if - as you admit - they turn it off? UAC prompts you only when you request operations that require admin access. What is it exactly you're doing that requires admin access all the time? Browsing the web, reading/checking email, online chatting, file sharing, media playback, word processing, etc. certainly don't. Do you meddle with system files or install/uninstall software all day long? Even if so, there are third-party solutions that let you manage UAC prompts, just like how you manage your security in XP with a half-dozen of third-party security apps.

UAC is in fact very well-designed. To the best of my knowledge, it's more configurable than its equivalents in Linux and Mac OS X, and less intrusive (you don't have to type a password if you don't want to, one keystroke is enough to dismiss the prompt). Its application in IE's Protected Mode is perhaps the reason Pwn2Own hackers admit that IE8 on Win7 was THE hardest browser to crack. I know its easier to just spew rhetoric than to educate yourself on it and actually use it so you can make informed comments, but the downside is that its hard for other people to take you seriously when you try to pooh-pooh something you obviously have minimal knowledge about.

You're merely reiterating your previous, already-debunked argument. Ergo, you're still not making sense. You made the claim that Win7 was likely to suffer from more vulnerabilities than XP over an equivalent time period, and I have showed you that your claim was demonstrably false. I have also already explained to you that it's impossible to create something as complex as an operating system and have it 100% free of bugs. Which of those did you not understand?

PUH-leeze. Why do you insist on making arguments that are so obviously nonsensical? What does .NET Framework security have to do with regard to Win7 security? It's a piece of software that can be installed on XP as well. You might as well say that Firefox and Flash vulnerabilities prove that Win7 is insecure.

And Windows Defender definition updates? Are you honestly being serious, or are you really that uninformed? And, ironically, you follow your arguments with the claim of "no logical fallacy here". Words fail to describe just exactly how far you crossed the boundary and into nonsense territory with that one.

Of course it will be "full" of holes. The beauty of that claim is that, because software will always have security vulnerabilities, you can easily shift the goalposts as required on how much constitutes as "full" as the vulnerabilities arise. But it's also the nature of the beast that Win8 will likely be more secure than Win7, and definitely MUCH more secure than XP. Get used to it.

 

I say that I can merely achieve the security and looking features that I want with third part applications using XP, and for my use I won't have any differencens

 

I couldn't say better.

MS will, as soon as it launches another OS, spread that 'Win 7 is obsolete', and so on... we already seen that before. This business model will *NOT* work forever. Did I hear 'Google'?

Please, people, learn to say *NO* to things that deserve it and make your own decisions, otherwise you will always be a some kind of a... slave. Seems pretty obvious, but the vast majority just follows the crowd.

 

Eice;

The paragraph beginning with "search for..." referenced the rootkit that is able to defeat Applocker.
The next paragraph which begins with the word "Bitlocker" referenced the exploit which defeats that application.
Neither of these statements are rumor; they are based on absolute fact.
I constructed my post in modular form (Am I going too fast for you ?) first addressing Applocker, then Bitlocker so that you might better grasp the absolute fact that exploits that have proved to defeat both applications.

Regarding the article you referenced; it is new to me; this is the first time I've seen it.
Of course, it has nothing to do with Applocker;
how convenient !

In your mind, you are convinced that your points are all unequivocally valid and mine are all seriously flawed.
I won't bother to address every one of your misconceptions.
This back and forth with you achieves nothing.
My points are valid and you know it.

Your hysterical reaction to all of this brings me to wonder if you have a vested interest in Windows Seven.
Something over and above being a satisfied user.

Now, I have to go to work.
You be sure to have a nice day.
I feel certain our paths will cross again, perhaps when you post asking for help in removing a rootkit that has hijacked your "bulletproof" operating system.

 

I have seen no such thing. If you have the evidence, just post it here instead of beating around the bush.

The only thing I know about your points is that they're a load of tripe. It's disappointing, really, that you claim to be a "satisfied" XP user, but feel the need to bring to the discussion a bunch of nonsense and demonstrably false claims just so you can reassure yourself that you've made the right choice.

What makes you think that my discussion here has anything to do with being a Win7 user? I'm just allergic to nonsensical BS, that's all.

Perhaps I will, or perhaps I won't. Who knows. Judging from the level of your comments so far, however, I feel as certain as you do that you will have nothing useful whatsoever to contribute, should I ever ask for that assistance.

Funnily enough, if the statistics are any indication, the "majority" who's "following the crowd" in this case would appear to be XP users.

 

Why wont Windows XP Die already.
windows 7 is a much better OS.
the under the hood changes from xp> Vista was huge.
I hate using Windows XP and I have to frequently due to my customers having it. there is so many useful features in windows 7 that i have wanted from windows for years.
I can understand that in a business environment the cost of the licensing hardware upgrades,testing and downtime isnt always worth it.

for home users its a no brainier to get windows 7 on any new computer purchase.

 

Quite simple really....there are millions of PC's in this world that run just fine on XP. Yes they are the PC's of yesterday that you (I, everyone) once bragged about.

Really ? and if so why does it really matter to the "66% Of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP" ?

Do CD/DVD's burn better in Win 7 than they do in XP ?
Do movies look better in Win 7 than they do in XP ?
What about music ? is it better in Win 7 than XP ?
How about internet, is better looking in Win 7 ?
Chat ?, Office ?, IE, Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome, iTunes and on & on.....

Hey maybe someone in this thread will understand, it's all about application's ! Yes all the same most used, popular programs that work just as well (the same) in Win 7 as the do in XP.

Hmmm, for any user doesn't Win 7 come on all new PC's ? what kind of brains does that take ?

Actually, for the home user who's old XP ridden box still works and does everything they need, "its a no brainier" not to buy a new PC. The only reason to do so is if they need/want things done faster. And that comes from hardware advancement, not OS.

My new laptop came with Win 7 and it works just fine the same can be said for my old laptop running Vista, and my older laptop running XP

My desktop is stuck in XP land, it'll stay that way till XP is no longer supported both as an OS and applications (programs).

Have a good day, and I'm sorry for my "ignorance"

 

Hi Ben:

Are you saying I'm ?

Seriously I have:

1) Vista
2) xp sp3
3) windows 7

They all work so I'm unconcerned who has what. I wonder if users like me are in there survey.

 

In this tough economy,nothing will make the PC user "upgrade" until they can afford in financially.Until then,I'm 99% postitive,that they'll keep using their PC with XP,Windows 98,etc,etc.

It's not the age where anyone and everyone can just go out and buy the newest,lastest greatest thing on the market,period.Especially since what they DO HAVE is working just fine in their day to day life.

 

Correct.