Ten years later, Windows XP still dominates the Web

A deliberately biased choice of words. XP won't "die" just as 98 didn't "die". Say it like it really is, when MS officially kills XP, just as it went to extremes to kill 98. Popularity and usage statistics are meaningless when the user can't choose. When the hardware of an XP unit dies, the typical user can't replace it with a new XP unit. If they could, the numbers would be much different. No Windows OS has ever had the opportunity to be developed to its full potential. Microsoft refuses to fix a problem in an older system for the sole purpose of forcing users to the newer one. Often MS says it can't be fixed, and is usually proven wrong (or lying) by some talented amateur coder. Because it's called business or marketing, it's labelled as acceptable. Maybe you think this is acceptable. It's not an acceptable practice to me.

 

Like it or not, that's how it is. Nothing is going to change that either. Might as well accept it and move on. As they say, resistance is futile.

Btw, I often wonder why you haven't switched to Linux. You seem to be a perfect candidate..... just curious.

 

Maybe not for the typical user, but some of the unofficial projects I use and test are incredible. If they ever take off, I wholly expect MS to start some legal attack and attempt to bankrupt the developers.

A big part of the problem for me is that I learned command line on DOS. To me, the Linux command line feels like a foreign language. Using "/" instead of "\", upper and lower case making a big difference, the completely different paths, etc. I have a hard time keeping them separate, trying to break old habits. So much about Linux is completely reversed from Windows. It would have been easier if I'd never learned Windows. I just don't have the time or patience to start over.

 

@ noone_particular & wat0114 & any others that "might" be interested

Are these the Zones you're talking about ?





If so you can add as many as you like in the Reg. I've always added an extra one = Z0 since 98SE IE6 days. You can restrict etc each of them to your liking



Z0 = My Computer

Z1 = Local intranet

Z2 = Trusted sites

Z3 = Internet

Z4 = Restricted sites

I have 5 Zones, as you can see.

 

I obviously don't mean die literally since XP is not a living thing. I mean support will be withdrawn and its market share will fall.

 

"Not if you know how to secure it. I don't plan on dropping it anytime soon"

I'm with you on that

most of the new things that has been put into Win 7
can be done with third party software and that gives
ME the CHOICE of what I want to use, they just added
more bloat to the OS, I would like just a bare bones OS
and I will choose the security that I require

 

That's the ones. Interesting idea for IE users. I've never explored that idea. I either rip out IE or never allow it to be installed in the first place.

 

Actually, nowadays you can go pretty far or actually almost do without the command line in Linux, depending on the distro of course. Many of them now are totally user friendly and made to run almost unaltered right out of the box, so the transition may not be as formidable as you think. But I know what you mean, it's always easier sticking with what you know...

 

A lot of them seem pretty good for "out of the box" systems. Puppy was a very pleasant surprise in that regard. It was also quite comical watching every cat in the room go straight up when I tested the audio. The problems arise when I want to equip the system. With Puppy for instance, I didn't see Tor available in their selections. No idea what will substitute for Proxomitron. I have no idea what the different desktops are or which is closest to what I'd like. For lack of a better description, it feels like "choose your compromise". I've thought many times about taking XP off this unit and replacing it. With which one is the question.

Back on the subject of XP, MS obviously can stop support and force its market share downwards, then pretend that shows 7 or 8 is better. That said, XP won't die. Those who work on unofficial upgrades will see to that. Just like they've done for other versions of Windows, they'll make them better than MS ever did.

 

That approach or similar might be a good way to go. Thanks for the idea! One thing regarding browser Internet access, is I do limit it to selected remote ports such as 80, 443, 1755 & 1935. I've seen malware attempt, besides the usual 80, to connect on remote tcp 81-82 and 8080, so at least those would be blocked if anything successfully launched and attempted to phone home on them.

Yes, those are the ones. I didn't know about the possibility of adding extra zones, something I'll maybe look into, although I don't want to muddle things too much for myself with excessive, high maintenance overhead. Still, it looks like a seriously intriguing idea, because then I could create a zone specifically for Java sites and whatever else. Thanks, CloneRanger, for the tip!

 

I don't know if it works on systems newer than XP, but since these zone changes are kept in the registry, make a registry backup with an app like ERUNT. If it's not possible, then a full system backup. As long as you have a way back to where you started from, experimenting is not a problem.

For traffic on non-standard ports, I have the firewall set to prompt me. With port 8080 for instance, I've seen it used by legitimate sites. If I remember right, the older versions of Apache used that port if they were configured to be started manually. That port list would also block access to FTP sites.

 

For starters, yes, XP was an excellent performing, easy to use OS when it came out. It was never more than that and even performance went down as time and patches rolled on. All Windows versions eventually suffer this fate.

 

I don't think it slowed down over time, if anything it sped up. We just don't see XP much except for older slower machines and now that we know what it's like to use an OS that makes use of newer performance technologies (and a few UI tricks to make things "feel" faster) it's hard to go back to that.

 

I just wanted to touch on your Linux concerns a moment. Actually, if you use the mentality of "choose your compromise", you'll do just fine in Linux. I'm not saying it to belittle the OS, it's just simply how things still are on that side.

 

Windows 98 has a .02% market share. As far as I'm concerned... that's a dead OS.

 

I totally agree that the new technologies and tricks spoil us. But, I disagree that XP sped up over time. The only place where this might be true, imho, is Windows ME. But honestly, what real harm could you do to that OS?

 

Yeah, I've got everything imaged up to date

True, 8080 and I think even 81-82 are at times used by legit sites, but unfortunately the one drawback with Win fw w/advanced security, is it won't prompt that way, although it will log them. I've tried some interfaces in the vm such as those from Sphinx and Binisoft, but I always find something buggy with them, which I don't like. Anyway, blocking those ports outright isn't causing me to miss anything I can't do without

 

That's one reason I prefer a 3rd party firewall.

IMO, the main reason Windows slows down is because it's a garbage collector. It ends up filled with useless registry entries from apps long gone or updated, files that are associated with apps no longer there, usage records dating back to who knows when, etc. There's more involved in lost performance than meets the eye. Graphics and chipset drivers are examples. The latest drivers always emphasize improvements for the latest OS. At times this comes at the expense of the previous OS versions. I have 2 PCs in front of me that run much better with a slightly earlier version of these drivers than they do with the last compatible versions. I'm pretty much convinced that MS coerces the manufacturers in this regard. Just another way of forcing planned obsolescense and making the new products appear to be better.

As far as I'm concerned, those numbers mean absolutely nothing. Many of the uncommon linux distros have usage percentages that low. Are they dead too, even with active development? Statistics is nothing more than a way to make numbers say what you want them to.

 

Again with "statistics are meaningless." Believe what you want, when an OS isn't officially supported, has been losing users for years, and has .02% of a market I'm gonna call it dead. You call it whatever you like.

 

Not a problem. If an OS is actually such a small percentage of the potential targets, it only means that you're out of the line of fire and unlikely to be hit. That assumes their percentages are based on something more reliable than user agents. I'd love to see where they count mine. What MS and its puppets consider dead is of no consequence to me. AFAIC, if it works, runs the apps I need, resists attack, and remains stable and reliable, it's very much alive and will most likely still be so long after they kill their current "superior" OS in preference of their next "latest and greatest".

 

I am very interested in trying out projects like these. Can you please link me to all of them that you use, either here or in a PM if you can't post them publicly. IMO you are someone who knows what he's doing which is why I would like to learn from you.

 

Perhaps a bizarre analogy, but: My 1995 International Harvester pickup truck is no longer "officially supported", also has a much <.02% market share, admittedly it's quite outdated, but it functions fine for what I use it for, but still it's far from dead.

 

Computer : Car analogies are never my favorite haha

 

Case and point: I ran XP on this old dinosaur of a computer. Had a whopping 8 GB hard drive. It suffered from hard drive failure, so I replaced it with a 280 GB drive, maxed out the RAM, and upgraded the video card. Now XP runs fast and efficiently on it. Boot-up speed is just about the same for my XP, Vista, and Win 7 machines. I suffer from no lags when on the internet or running multiple applications simultaneously. So based on my experience, XP isn't any slower or faster than Win 7 or Vista.

 

I disagree about XP speeding up overtime, but from my experience, I don't believe it slowed down over time. However one factor to consider is that many users don't have adequate RAM installed in their computers which will cause slowdowns due to the increased RAM usage caused by updates and also due to newer applications being ever more memory hungry. I do not recommend running XP with less than a gig of RAM, and having at lease 2 gigs if you run a lot of applications.

I do remember reading a magazine article eight years ago about XP running slower with service pack 1 installed for some people. However I never noticed any difference.