Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

XP Apocalypse: One Year Review

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
MrMaguire

MrMaguire

    Designed for Microsoft® Windows® XP

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined 30-April 14
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

So, here we are, April 8th, 2015 and Windows XP is still alive and kicking. I for one am still using it on my main computer and the only compatibility issues that I've experienced were from Pale Moon and Java 8, yet both still work without modification to the OS due to certain circumstances. Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox still work fine, Adobe Flash Player works fine, Apache OpenOffice works fine, Adobe Reader works fine, K-Lite Codec Pack works fine, and the POSReady 2009 updates (or in my case the Server 2003 updates) haven't made Windows catch fire yet.




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
bluebolt

bluebolt

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 90 posts
  • Joined 11-March 13
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Yeah, “Xpocalypse Now” kind of fizzled, didn’t it?  And their script made it sound so dramatic, you know, explosions and disaster and stuff.  As usual, the trailer was more exciting than the movie.



#3
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,313 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

The XP Apocalypse, the Apocalypse that never was! ;)

 

jaclaz



#4
TeeP

TeeP
  • Member
  • 1 posts
  • Joined 08-April 15
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Of course Microsoft would never lie; therefore, we are watching all of our flawlessly running 3.9gb to 4.2gb 6 and 8 core XP systems because we just know that they are destined to bite the dust. Meanwhile, we continue to use these systems for commercial video work day and night.  I have to confess that we tested Windows 7 and 8 on a couple machines to see if they would run our commercial video editing software faster - but neither performed as well as XP (turn off all unnecessary Services for best performance). It's just so terrible to have to shamlessly admit to carrying on with the XP dinosauer.



#5
TELVM

TELVM

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 368 posts
  • Joined 09-February 12
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
... the only compatibility issues that I've experienced were from Pale Moon ...

 

There is an official Atom/XP version of Pale Moon that works fine in XP (and on any CPU, not only Atom processors).

 

Binary Outcast (aka Matt A Tobin) offers an up to date (25.3.1 as of today) 3rd party contributed Pale Moon for XP.

 

 

 

There is even a contributed Pale Moon for SSE that runs on venerable SSE-only processors (Pentium III / Athlon XP).



#6
Dave-H

Dave-H

    MSFN Expert

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

So, here we are, April 8th, 2015 and Windows XP is still alive and kicking. I for one am still using it on my main computer and the only compatibility issues that I've experienced were from Pale Moon and Java 8, yet both still work without modification to the OS due to certain circumstances. Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox still work fine, Adobe Flash Player works fine, Apache OpenOffice works fine, Adobe Reader works fine, K-Lite Codec Pack works fine, and the POSReady 2009 updates (or in my case the Server 2003 updates) haven't made Windows catch fire yet.

I have noticed that I'm no longer automatically offered updates for Adobe Reader on XP.

When I went to the download site to look for a later version XP is no longer listed as an OS option for the latest versions.

However when I downloaded and installed the Windows 7 version, it worked fine!

:)


Triple boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a, Windows XP Professional SP3 32 bit, and Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Dual graphics cards ATI Radeon X850 and Nvidia Geforce 210. 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#7
MrMaguire

MrMaguire

    Designed for Microsoft® Windows® XP

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined 30-April 14
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Of course Microsoft would never lie; therefore, we are watching all of our flawlessly running 3.9gb to 4.2gb 6 and 8 core XP systems because we just know that they are destined to bite the dust. Meanwhile, we continue to use these systems for commercial video work day and night.  I have to confess that we tested Windows 7 and 8 on a couple machines to see if they would run our commercial video editing software faster - but neither performed as well as XP (turn off all unnecessary Services for best performance). It's just so terrible to have to shamlessly admit to carrying on with the XP dinosauer.

 

I'm using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition right now on a Core i5 with 4GB of RAM, it's fantastic. Windows 7 is honestly a nice version of Windows (and a great operating system in general), but despite using it on and off since the middle of 2010 or so, I've never warmed up to it like I did Windows XP.

 

The moral of the story is that you should use what works best for you, and that isn't necessarily what works best for someone else.

 

 

... the only compatibility issues that I've experienced were from Pale Moon ...

 

There is an official Atom/XP version of Pale Moon that works fine in XP (and on any CPU, not only Atom processors).

 

Binary Outcast (aka Matt A Tobin) offers an up to date (25.3.1 as of today) 3rd party contributed Pale Moon for XP.

 

 

 

There is even a contributed Pale Moon for SSE that runs on venerable SSE-only processors (Pentium III / Athlon XP).

 

 

FYI the XP/Atom build of Pale Moon also works on Windows 2000 with the unofficial updates, but for some reason it won't install (even using the Application Compatibility Launcher) until regular Firefox is installed first.

 

 


I have noticed that I'm no longer automatically offered updates for Adobe Reader on XP.

When I went to the download site to look for a later version XP is no longer listed as an OS option for the latest versions.

However when I downloaded and installed the Windows 7 version, it worked fine!

:)

 

I didn't notice that. Probably because I've only just started using Adobe Reader after using Acrobat for so long.


Edited by MrMaguire, 09 April 2015 - 12:33 PM.

  • Tommy likes this

#8
Tommy

Tommy

    Brooke's Tommy honey <3

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • Joined 19-February 10
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

I've never warmed up to Vista or 7. I'm not saying they're terrible operating systems but they're just not for me. I feel that there's too much crap bloated under the hood that bogs things down, especially on older installations, while at the same time giving out cool but unnecessary eye candy. Windows 8 on the other hand, I think is terrible. You should never have to install or mod an OS to make it do something older versions could easily do. So unofficial mods aside, out of box it's bad. I do kinda like XP, it was never my favorite but it definitely does what it needs to do and at a pretty good rate. My personal belief was that Service Pack 3 made it bog down just a bit as in my opinion, Service Pack 2 seemed snappier. The problem is that software makers are purposely adding more and more junk to their software that really isn't even that necessary and calling it standard, just so people are forced to upgrade to stuff they really don't have to. Even on Windows NT, as long as you had a PDF viewer and even a basic PDF printer driver installed...what else do you really need in the line of PDF? Adobe Reader basically does the same stuff it did way back when, and maybe it has a few new features that I don't know about since I haven't used it in many years, but it's still not really necessary. The new Vista version of Pale Moon works on Windows 2000. I haven't tried it on the vanilla SP4 version, but with the UURollup, it works just fine as long as you trick the installer into thinking you're on Vista. Their thing though is because XP is no longer secure and their whole goal is speed and security. It's just adding more junk to make other things prematurely obsolete. Take Microsoft Office as another example. How much extra does it really do from say Office 97 or 2000? Yes there will always be new features, but does it really have to be so advanced as to keep it from running on older operating systems? Most of it I'm sure is just to make sure you keep the economy going and keep upgrading, but there are a few problems with that. First off, compatibility, especially for businesses. When you have hundreds of client computers working just the way you need them to, sometimes they cannot upgrade to something without having to change their entire setup. That's not an easy feat. That leads me to another big problem, cost. Not only is it the cost of the operating system licenses, but also the software that needs to be updated to run on the new operating system, and possibly even hardware replacement because it is obsolete on the new operating system. In this struggling economy, this isn't even near feasible for most companies. It might not make as much of an impact on the normal consumer as a lot of them just buy new computers every few years anyway. But as we get into Core i7 times, and even from the Core 2 times, computer replacement really isn't always a necessity because most computers truly could last a decade now unless of course the web finds new ways to spam up websites to bring your computer down which is happening to a lot of Pentium 3 and early Pentium 4 computers now. Offline, they can be awesome, but the web slows it right down. But I'm really branching too far out now. All I can really say to sum everything up is that you should use what works for you, not what the computer industry and standards tell you to use. As long as it serves its purpose for you, then stay with it.


Daily running Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and Windows 98 Second Edition

2dtzy51.png
stillwin9xmsfnbt0.png


#9
MrMaguire

MrMaguire

    Designed for Microsoft® Windows® XP

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined 30-April 14
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

The new Vista version of Pale Moon works on Windows 2000. I haven't tried it on the vanilla SP4 version, but with the UURollup, it works just fine as long as you trick the installer into thinking you're on Vista. Their thing though is because XP is no longer secure and their whole goal is speed and security. It's just adding more junk to make other things prematurely obsolete.

 

Ooh, how are you tricking the installer into thinking that you're on Vista?

 

I heard that Pale Moon doesn't support XP anymore because they're using a newer SDK from Microsoft or something.

 

Windows 8 on the other hand, I think is terrible. You should never have to install or mod an OS to make it do something older versions could easily do. So unofficial mods aside, out of box it's bad.

 

I agree. I would take Windows 8 over Me, but Me definitely has the superior interface. The inner workings of Windows 8 really seem impressive, if only it had a sensible interface.

 

But as we get into Core i7 times, and even from the Core 2 times, computer replacement really isn't always a necessity because most computers truly could last a decade now unless of course the web finds new ways to spam up websites to bring your computer down which is happening to a lot of Pentium 3 and early Pentium 4 computers now. Offline, they can be awesome, but the web slows it right down.

 

Unfortunately that seems to be what sidelines most computers that otherwise stand the test of time. More JavaSludge* and Adobe Flush** content is what everyone wants nowadays. Around July/August last year, something very interesting happened with Flash Player, it got better! All of a sudden, playing 360p YouTube videos in full screen on a Pentium M was doable again, and with CPU cycles to spare. I believe it was because Flash Player had been optimized for less powerful hardware, so all of us on dinosaur computers got to reap the benefits. :angel

 

*JavaScript

 

**Adobe Flash Player


Edited by MrMaguire, 10 April 2015 - 10:49 AM.

  • Tommy likes this

#10
Tommy

Tommy

    Brooke's Tommy honey <3

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • Joined 19-February 10
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

 

The new Vista version of Pale Moon works on Windows 2000. I haven't tried it on the vanilla SP4 version, but with the UURollup, it works just fine as long as you trick the installer into thinking you're on Vista. Their thing though is because XP is no longer secure and their whole goal is speed and security. It's just adding more junk to make other things prematurely obsolete.

 

Ooh, how are you tricking the installer into thinking that you're on Vista?

 

I heard that Pale Moon doesn't support XP anymore because they're using a newer SDK from Microsoft or something.

 

 

Basically I just used the tool included in Blackwingcat's KDW wrapper package. Though he said it's obsolete, I still use it for the tool which you can use to set compatibility for the installer, or you can even change what it displays in the registry and doesn't have any ill effects. Sometimes though I've had to actually use the option to change the registry to a different Windows version because the installer didn't care if I set the version of Windows before clicking install for some reason. I bet it might even work to install Pale Moon on XP. I bet there's no difference in the packaging, except it just looks to see if you're running Vista or higher. Although I noticed Flash 17 with Pale Moon and watching YouTube videos makes it stumble a bit at times on Windows 2000. I haven't tried it on anything else but sometimes I have to right click a few times on the button on the taskbar and it'll unlock itself so I don't know what that is all about.

 

As for Pale Moon not supporting XP. That could be part of it, but on their site it says because Microsoft has discontinued XP support that they have too simply because the OS isn't secure anymore and their goal is to be as secure as possible. If Mozilla still supports XP, why not Pale Moon as well? But I guess it's their prerogative.


Edited by Tommy, 10 April 2015 - 09:15 PM.

Daily running Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and Windows 98 Second Edition

2dtzy51.png
stillwin9xmsfnbt0.png


#11
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,784 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I heard that Pale Moon doesn't support XP anymore because they're using a newer SDK from Microsoft or something.


As for Pale Moon not supporting XP. That could be part of it, but on their site it says because Microsoft has discontinued XP support that they have too simply because the OS isn't secure anymore and their goal is to be as secure as possible. If Mozilla still supports XP, why not Pale Moon as well? But I guess it's their prerogative.

 
While the Moonchild Productions does not support XP anymore for the main Pale Moon version, they do direct those interested to the 3rd party versions from Binary Outcast and Roman Štefko, as well as keep their official Atom/XP version up-to-date. It's not at all the same as just dropping support.
 

There is an official Atom/XP version of Pale Moon that works fine in XP (and on any CPU, not only Atom processors).
 
Binary Outcast (aka Matt A Tobin) offers an up to date (25.3.1 as of today) 3rd party contributed Pale Moon for XP.
 
There is even a contributed Pale Moon for SSE  that runs on venerable SSE-only processors (Pentium III / Athlon XP).

 

In fact, this very post was actually written and posted using Štefko's Pale Moon for SSE 25.2.1 on an Athlon XP running Win XP SP3.



#12
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,313 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

As for Pale Moon not supporting XP. That could be part of it, but on their site it says because Microsoft has discontinued XP support that they have too simply because the OS isn't secure anymore and their goal is to be as secure as possible. If Mozilla still supports XP, why not Pale Moon as well? But I guess it's their prerogative.

 

Still, it is the usual, "simplified" shortcut that is mostly FUD :(.

 

Now 8 (eight) years have passed since Vista (and the adoption of the new, enhanced, security models like UAC DEP, ASR, and what not) and there have been not those catastrophic, selective (i.e. XP only ) security exploits, all the vulnerabilities that have been found and have been patched have traditionally been largely "cross OS" (i.e. the same vulnerability affected indifferently XP, Vista and 7, and now 8/8.1 and were patched for each of them) as they were mostly to be found in "generic" code that was common between these OS's.

 

As always I may be wrong, but IF in any way Windows XP was in practice "not secure anymore" or "less secure" than 7 or 8/8.1, now, one full year after the end of support deadline we would have had between 15% and 25% of all the internet connected PC's :w00t: compromised one way or the other :ph34r:, and since this has not happened yet the "not secure anymore" or "less secure than" appears like nothing more than an unverified  theory or of some wishful thinking.

 

jaclaz


  • JodyT likes this

#13
MrMaguire

MrMaguire

    Designed for Microsoft® Windows® XP

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined 30-April 14
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

 Although I noticed Flash 17 with Pale Moon and watching YouTube videos makes it stumble a bit at times on Windows 2000. I haven't tried it on anything else but sometimes I have to right click a few times on the button on the taskbar and it'll unlock itself so I don't know what that is all about.

 

I've noticed that on both Windows XP and Vista. I also noticed that Pale Moon would struggle to open a lot of web pages. Both of those problems seem to have stopped all of a sudden.



#14
JorgeA

JorgeA

    FORMAT B: /V /S

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 3,512 posts
  • Joined 08-April 10
  • OS:Vista Home Premium x64
  • Country: Country Flag

This information may be relevant/useful for anybody who might be concerned about their XP system's security:

 

Removing admin rights would ease 97 percent of critical Microsoft flaws

 

Almost every critical vulnerability in Microsoft software published in 2014 could have been mitigated simply by removing admin rights from users, UK security firm Avecto has calculated after studying Patch Tuesday advisories for the year.

 

A year ago an Avecto analysis of the 2013 figures told a nearly identical story, with 92 percent of the most serious flaws de-clawed by removing admin rights, a figure that has now climbed to 97 percent.

 

Breaking this down, admin rights were necessary to exploit 97 percent of Windows OS flaws, 99.5 percent of those in Internet Explorer, and 95 percent of those in Office.

 

Considering that AV testing labs say that standard security suites protect against 95-99 percent of threats (unless you use Microsoft Security Essentials ;) ), this one step of switching to a standard or "limited" account may provide a degree of protection comparable to using AV software. In combination with the use of such software and other protective measures, I suspect that XP fans will have little to worry about for years to come.

 

--JorgeA

 



#15
Tommy

Tommy

    Brooke's Tommy honey <3

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 556 posts
  • Joined 19-February 10
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Considering that AV testing labs say that standard security suites protect against 95-99 percent of threats (unless you use Microsoft Security Essentials ;) ),

It's 'essential' that you use a different AV software. lol

 

On a serious note though, I used MSE a bit and honestly, I didn't see how it protected me from much. I'd rather get a few false positives from AVG than nothing at all from MSE as I think with all the time I've used MSE or had clients that used it, it didn't find much of anything if at all in the line of viruses whereas other suites like AVG did.


Daily running Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and Windows 98 Second Edition

2dtzy51.png
stillwin9xmsfnbt0.png


#16
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 272 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

As always I may be wrong, but IF in any way Windows XP was in practice "not secure anymore" or "less secure" than 7 or 8/8.1, now, one full year after the end of support deadline we would have had between 15% and 25% of all the internet connected PC's :w00t: compromised one way or the other :ph34r:, and since this has not happened yet the "not secure anymore" or "less secure than" appears like nothing more than an unverified  theory or of some wishful thinking.

 

jaclaz

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I don't think that neccessarily there would have been attacks if XP were that insecure.  I always took the secuirty issues as Microsoft trying to mitigate security problems and be ready by getting users off the OS.

 

As for Moonchild, he simply wants Pale Moon to support current dekstop OSs.  The is an XP build for Pale Moon (not the Atom one) and that is for x86 and x64 builds, maintained by Matt Tobin.  The link is here:

 

http://binaryoutcast...projects/pm4xp/

 

Support will expire in July 2015 though for this build.  As for Firefox supporting XP, but not Pale Moon, all I can say is that Moonchild says he is forking Pale Moon in a different direction thatn Firefox, so it's no longer considered a clone or custom build, but rather a separate browser originally based on Firefox.  Pale Moon dispensed with Australis and uses it's own identifier for add ons and what not.  We'll see, though for now I'm a happy user of the x64 build.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users