This is what gets me about Microsoft... it seems like they never learn their lessons from past mistakes, and the only time they got it right was with XP.
Oh please, the pattern is much, much, MUCH older than XP. Microsoft has a consistent pattern, at LEAST two decades old, of royally hosing things only to fix them later.
1.0 -> 2.0
3.1 -> 3.11
95 -> 98 (and then further still with 98SE)
NT3 -> NT4
2000 -> XP
(they left ME behind because XP was right around the corner)
Vista -> 7
8/8.1 -> 9?
You could even see the start of this back in MS-DOS. 6.0 was terrible. 6.22 was actually pretty awesome for the time.
8 is actually pretty remarkable in how much it got RIGHT compared to previous flops. It got some much-needed backend work and significant small improvements like the task manager and better UEFI integration.
-E- Oh dear, the ignorance is strong in this one.
Windows 7 I didn't mind TOO much, considering once i found out about unlocking the administrator accout i was content, but the whole "services" thing that Windows 7 uses turned me off quickly.
Services were actually introduced in NT3.1 and were very very much so an integral part of the XP you seem to love so much.
And about that: Frankly, 7 is worlds better than XP, almost entirely because of features that were half-baked in Vista; most prominently UAC, implementing critical security infrastructure that Linux had decades before, and the new virtualization-based compatibility system. That's their pattern: they do smart things wrong in one version, then fix it all to be done correctly the next.
It depends on the specific company you work for. This one medical billing company i worked for had only a handful of Windows computers (cause all the other computers were just one small white monitor with a black screen and orange text like the program was built into the computer). and only the supervisors and one outside the hallway were windows XP. The scanning/sorting section and the one in the server room were using Windows 98.
You must not be in a first-world country or something. HIPAA auditors would punitively terminate that company in six seconds flat if they found something that ancient and vulnerable storing patient records.
Then there's my mom's job... she's a real estate broker, but her boss wants to upgrade all the computers to Windows 8 when their all using XP. Everyone is pissed about the decision cause they don't like the way it looks nor do they care to learn how to work it.
Upgrading to 8 I'll give you, but an upgrade from XP is only prudent, ESPECIALLY for a nice hacker target like a real estate office. XP has been EOL for a good long time now and has more than a few well-known unpatched vulnerabilities that could bankrupt your mother's company in a heartbeat.
Thats just my problem... people SHOULDNT HAVE TO even think about using compatability mode. When people hear "upgraded version of windows", they think something that can do the job better... not something that needs a friggen handicap. I can only recall ONE time i had to use "compatability mode" on Windows XP, and that was just to make a game that was made around the Windows 98/2000 era look a little better and run a little smoother. otherwise without it, XP did just fine on it's own. With Vista, and 7, its almost a requirement to use compatability mode, because the OS is literally telling you "NOPE, don't feel like running this, unless you treat me special, then I'll think about it".
XP often didn't need compatibility modes on many things because old NT and a good part of 98 were part of its pedigree; ancient unmaintainable things built-in that needed to go for the safety of any data sitting on a Windows PC. Nevermind that when you actually needed compatibility settings, they almost never worked. A great many programs that wouldn't work on XP, period, fly just fine on Win7 with a compatibility flag or two. That the OS handily remembers for you each time you run the program. So, um, suck it up?
And with all the windows prompting, and with all the professional anti-virus programs in the world, there are still silent threats today that make it past them... threats that act like just regular programs. I'll give a perfect example (and yes, I'll use a mother again cause its a perfect senario that can happen to anyone thats not-so computer savy). My mom happens to use her Windows 7 Hewler Paket laptop not only for work, but to also play games and browse the web. One day she notices that her homepgae is just an "about;blank" page. After more than one occasion from me to set up her homepage permanently, it still shows an "about;blank" page. Not only that, but whenever she would go on facebook, her laptop would just reset itself. My dad decided to get a hold of Microsoft's IT department so they could remote desktop her laptop to diagnose the issue, install their "professional" anti-virus program, and run it to clean whatever infections she had (and yes, he had to pay out the ass for it). Still wouldn't work. So one night, i take the laptop and do my own diagnosis. After looking through all her installed programs and using google to get more info, it turns out she had a friggen Trojan that was leeching onto her toolbar on Internet Explorer that came from a program that she never uses, but must have "accidentally downloaded" & installed. I can almost guarentee you that she's probably not the first victem of this either.
An anti-virus can only do so much. It's far more important to keep software on your computer up to date, ESPECIALLY Flash, Java, and your web browser. I know, Oracle makes this a pain in the ass, but that doesn't make it any less crucial. The anti-virus can only do so much, try to identify malware before you accidentally run it and catch files being written to disk. If something flies in via a browser/plugin/OS exploit, it starts out operating in a space that no other app can easily look at, and can take steps to hide from or disable/destroy running protections before the anti-virus has time to react. UPDATE YOUR SHIT. ALL OF IT.
Last edited: 7 February 2014 9:53am
