Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : How to Install XP, from now on?? |
|
Answer» Support for XP is coming to an end. Brut I fear someday my XP based laptop shall crash and I will not be able to install XP from the OEM disk because MS no longer supports XP. Why not? I still have a Dell computer running very well in Win XP SP2 and automatic updates turned off. Quote from: jason2074 on June 30, 2011, 11:13:15 PM Really? I thought SP2 and no updates would catch fire! So I don't need to worry? Quote So I don't need to worry?AFAIK, YES. As long as you have your original, OEM discs, drivers intact and more importanly the computer hardware still healthy. I never bothered updating to SP3. Why? Cause I was really observing what would get wrong if I do not. And it has been running for more than 4 YEARS now till SP2 became obsolete from MS support. You are only trap with the limited functions on upcoming softwares required running new operating systems, Vista, Win 7 and son on. But would browsers, softwares, antivirus that were with SP2's that are compatible be gone? Its the thing that I will never know but for sure, it will be a long time slow demising factor. well... if i were you, jason2074, i would update to SP3 before support is COMPLETELY dropped because of the security loopholes. you can skip the updates that only serve to add features... windows xp will be around and has been around for a long long time... i grew up with windows xp.Quote because of the security loopholesI know. The system is for basic browsing and applications packed with an updated antivirus, MBAM,SAS ,windows firewall. Quote I never bothered updating to SP3. Why? Cause I was really observing what would get wrong if I do not.Quote from: Transfusion on July 01, 2011, 12:55:27 AM because of the security loopholes.Name one.http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Microsoft+issues+large+security+update.-a0131437314 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6677366.html http://vista.blorge.com/2010/08/23/microsoft-refuses-to-patch-widespread-security-loophole/ http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2030627/microsoft-issues-windows-live-messenger-security-update Quote from: Transfusion on July 01, 2011, 05:01:23 AM http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Microsoft+issues+large+security+update.-a0131437314The "Service pack" that fixes it is SP2, Either way, there aren't any details. They don't cite any source for this. It basically says "These products have vulnerabilities that are fixed" What vulnerabilities? How do I mitigate the issue on my 24/7 server until I can schedule downtime? How do I know if I'm affected? Quote http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90877/6677366.htmlThat is about Internet Explorer. Quote http://vista.blorge.com/2010/08/23/microsoft-refuses-to-patch-widespread-security-loophole/1. This doesn't mention the OS. 2. It was published in 2010, so it probably isn't specific to XP SP2. 3. It probably refers to something like this. I remember this nonsense. The "flaw" has to do with The DLL search order; when loading a DLL Windows checks: 1. The directory from which the application loaded. 2. The system directory. 3. The 16-bit system directory. 4. The Windows directory. 5. The current directory. 6. The directories that are listed in the PATH environment variable. The vulnerability is triggered only when loading documents from a remote share or WEBDAV (or it was, until it was patched, but it wasn't patched in SP3, in fact, it's unrelated to XP specifically). An "attacker" would either need to convince to person to map some random network location as a drive or connect to a WEBDAV location, at which point they will have to go through another 2 or 3 security prompts to open a file. Then because of the search order, a malicious dll that the program normally would load can be placed in the network path, and contain arbitrary code. Additionally, this is a coding problem on the part of the application, and how it calls LoadLibrary. If the developers of said programs (including some Office applications) had bothered to read this, they would know how to mitigate this concern. DLL's implicitly linked to the executable (and thus resolved by the PE Loader) aren't compromised by this, as far as I can tell; it's only DLL's loaded dynamically via LoadLibrary, LoadLibraryEx, CreateProcess, or ShellExecute functions; and only when those functions are only given a dll filename, rather than a fully qualified path name. And only if the application hasn't used SetDllDirectory() or SetSearchPathMode(). Bottom line: This is a security flaw in the way the applications were written. It's the EQUIVALENT of saying BSD is insecure because you can write a program with buffer overflows. Of course you can, but you sure as *censored* aren't going to get past any sort of security audit. Quote http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2030627/microsoft-issues-windows-live-messenger-security-updateThat is a problem with Live Essentials. There are some very annoying commonalities between these types of "advisories": They never have any bloody details. They don't say What the "attack" or vulnerability entails. All they say is it's a vulnerability. No details on what the problem is, or how to mitigate it on earlier systems- which you can always do given the proper amount of knowledge on the issue. Whether that is because the people reporting it have decided that their readers are sheep who will follow any advice given on the basis of "increasing their security" or whether Microsoft is actually not publishing that stuff (equally likely) I don't know. How can users with a clue know if the problem affects them specifically? They can't. They are just supposed to "drink the kool-aid" and presume that these "security updates" are necessary. And when folks go so far as to repeat complete generalizations like "SP3 has fewer vulnerabilities than SP2"; It fixes some known vulnerabilities, but it no doubt adds countless others. And backing up such a claim only with links that appear to be problems with specific applications and not the Operating System doesn't quite help, either. When I said "Name one"... I meant name one security issue that probably affects a Windows XP machine running SP2 as opposed to one running SP3' with details on exactly what sort of problems could occur. Even the Application-specific issues you listed still require that the victim be targeted specifically, use a specific browser, and go through at least one or 2 security prompts.Wow. That was one huge post. *cools the flames of argument* Okay, its clear who has the upper hand now... You can slipstream SP2 into a standard windows installation, i.e. do not need to redownload SP2 and wait after you finish installing windows. http://www.winsupersite.com/article/product-review/slipstreaming-windows-xp-with-service-pack-2-sp2 Also XP support lasts til 2014...Quote from: patio on July 03, 2011, 08:11:23 PM Also XP support lasts til 2014...So, do I have three years until ... I have to learn to live with Windows 7? No. If you think about it logically you theoretically have all the time in the World... I still for example have an older laptop that i run Win98SE on... When support ended it didn't blow up... My favorite machine in the arsenal happens to run Win2K... It hasn't blown up either... All i see blowing up are your windbag news reports and updates..... Hopefully.Quote from: Geek-9pm on July 03, 2011, 08:47:00 PM So, do I have three years until ...End of Support in no way means they will shut down the activation servers. For all we know, the activation servers are the same ones used for activating Vista and 7 installations. "End Of Support" means "End of Support" (or in this case extended support). Extended support means they'll support users but they'll have to pay for the privilege. Typically, however, this has nothing to do with the standard user. Most users got their windows license when they purchased the machine and are therefore supported by the manufacturer, who probably botched around with the install anyway so MS isn't going to have the first clue what they did with the ISV kit. Windows XP was released in 2001. That was a decade ago. That's eons ago, in "computer time". PCI-Express, multiple core machines, and gobs more memory have become commonplace since, and people still insist on installing XP on their newest machines. This doesn't make sense to me. If you buy a new machine, you either get a OS that can take proper advantage of it's facilities (Vista/7, or a recent Linux distro or FreeBSD release, or something) or you shouldn't even bother with a new machine. It's the logical equivalent of buying a machine designed for windows 98 and wiping the drive and using MS-DOS 6. The only reason is the users NOSTALGIA and personal feeling that the OS is better, and is not based on anything that is testibly falsifiable. The best you can hope for is they'll simply move the goalposts of the discussion. Older Machine=Older OS. Newer Machine=Newer OS. retrofitting an older OS to a newer system is the equivalent of taking your old engine out of your old car and putting it in your new car on the basis that "it will be more familiar". Yes, all that backfiring and crashing that you bought the new car to stop will still be just as familiar, and the fact that you have to skip gear 3 because the gearbox is shot will be familiar. And then you can rant about how t his new computer acts exactly the same as the old one, all the while oblivious to the fact that you are running the exact same Operating System as you were before. |
|