Anti-virus Question

Jim Cockfield · Nov 13, 2013

Aberaeron said:
I use Norton on three machines on a three machine license and it has worked well for several years. These machines are no longer front-line machines so in 11 month's time I will be cancelling Norton, if only because it is not free or even cheap.

I had one machine with AVG and it caught a bad virus that took some professional effort to clean. Since then I have run two newer machines and the older one that caught a cold on free Microsoft Security Essentials and have had no issues whatsoever over several year's use. So go figure, as the saying goes.

Depending on your ISP, you may be able to get Norton at no extra charge.

I use Comcast, and they offer it at no extra charge. See this page:

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/downloading-the-norton-security-suite/

Although that was not always the case (an understatement), I've been impressed with the progress they've made lately. For example blocking 100% of the malware used in the most recent studies at av-test.org for August 2013, as well as having an extremely low impact on system performance.

See the latest tests at av-test.org for Norton Internet Security here:

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=133132

I've been very critical of Norton brand products offered by Symantec in the past, as they just didn't live up to the legacy that Peter Norton established many years ago (I used Norton products under earlier DOS releases for that matter, as Peter Norton had some super useful utilities; and companies using the Norton name long after he stopped contributing to any code used in them have always rubbed me the wrong way.

But, lately, I'll have to admit that Norton Internet Security appears to be a very good product.

The price is also "right" in some cases (free if you're using an ISP like Comcast that provides it at no charge to their subscribers).

Even though I use a different AV product in my Windows installs right this minute (Emsisoft Anti-Walware, which uses the Bitdefender Engine, as well as it's own engine for Malware detection, behavior blocking, etc.), I've been using Norton DNS servers off and on for a while now.

Their DNS service is free (and they tend to do a a pretty good job at keeping track of web pages with malicious content, and those types of DNS servers offer another layer of protection). See this page for more info about Norton DNS (a.k.a., Norton ConnectSafe).

http://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/homePage.do

The easiest way to use it is by simply plugging in the IP addresses for their DNS Servers into your router. See this page for more info:

http://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/huConfigureRouter.do

I use other similar services from time to time, too (for example, OpenDNS, Comodo DNS, etc.). Most of them are free, and try to keep track of pages that have been reported to contain malicious content, so that your access to them is blocked by default to help prevent you from being infected via "drive by" malware that's been planted on (sometimes legit) web sites.

I have my PCs setup so that I can change DNS servers with a mouse click. But, Norton seems to do as good of a job as any of them at alerting you to pages that may have malicious content that you try to access.

Given the improvements I've seen in Norton Internet Security at preventing Malware Infection (as in the latest test results at av-test.org for August 2013, with it blocking 100% of the malware samples used, with very low impact on system performance), it looks like Norton Internet Security is shaping up to be a very nice product.

--
JimC
------

digital ed · Nov 13, 2013

Jim Cockfield said:
Aberaeron said:

I use Norton on three machines on a three machine license and it has worked well for several years. These machines are no longer front-line machines so in 11 month's time I will be cancelling Norton, if only because it is not free or even cheap.

I had one machine with AVG and it caught a bad virus that took some professional effort to clean. Since then I have run two newer machines and the older one that caught a cold on free Microsoft Security Essentials and have had no issues whatsoever over several year's use. So go figure, as the saying goes.

Click to expand...

Depending on your ISP, you may be able to get Norton at no extra charge.

I use Comcast, and they offer it at no extra charge. See this page:

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/downloading-the-norton-security-suite/

Although that was not always the case (an understatement), I've been impressed with the progress they've made lately. For example blocking 100% of the malware used in the most recent studies at av-test.org for August 2013, as well as having an extremely low impact on system performance.

See the latest tests at av-test.org for Norton Internet Security here:

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=133132

I've been very critical of Norton brand products offered by Symantec in the past, as they just didn't live up to the legacy that Peter Norton established many years ago (I used Norton products under earlier DOS releases for that matter, as Peter Norton had some super useful utilities; and companies using the Norton name long after he stopped contributing to any code used in them have always rubbed me the wrong way.

But, lately, I'll have to admit that Norton Internet Security appears to be a very good product.

The price is also "right" in some cases (free if you're using an ISP like Comcast that provides it at no charge to their subscribers).

digitalshooter · Nov 13, 2013

[No message]

digitalshooter · Nov 13, 2013

you get to do your work.

Had a client, yes had a client 2 weeks ago call me and advise he had a virus. This was late in the afternoon so I told him I would be out the next day, when would he be in? He said any time but my secretary will be here call first.

He emailed me bright and early the next day and said he found a woman in his building and it was more convenient for him to get her to come remove the virus. The next day I got an email from his secretary asking for his email password, I asked why and she said that they were now totally restoring his computer.

Gave her the password and told her, I hope they recovered all of his data! There was no response to that!

Jim Cockfield · Nov 13, 2013

I've seen tons of malware on machines running fully updated Norton branded AV products in the past.

So, I've been a bit critical of it (rightly so, as it was just not "up to par" compared to some of the competing products not all that long ago).

But, anymore, it seems to have a pretty darn good product from what I'm seeing from tests performed by very respected sources (as in the tests of it at http://www.av-test.org I referenced in my last post). This test result:

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=133132

Not only did Norton Internet Security block 100% of the malware samples used in the August 2013 tests there, but it had the lowest impact on system performance compared to any product offering anywhere near that kind of protection.

So, yes, I'm pretty impressed with recent test results of Norton AV products.

Given that it's offered at no charge to Comcast Subscribers now (the ISP I'm using), Norton may be a good solution to consider instead of renewing my subscription to Emsisoft Anti-Malware.

Norton is definitely a product to keep an eye on, as Symantec seems to be doing a much better job at making sure it's offering top notch protection, compared to the way they were handling it not all that long ago.

--
JimC
------

digitalshooter · Nov 13, 2013

ESET response

Posted Group: ESET Moderators

Posted

Hello,

ESET will be supporting Microsoft Windows XP for quite some time into the future. Keep in mind that ESET still provides support for Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 4.0 SP 6a as well as Microsoft Windows 2000, so support for an OS isn't going to go away right after the manufacturer stops supporting it.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

--
Thanks,
Digitalshooter
PS: all posts are just my opinion!

Mark H · Nov 13, 2013

malch said:
Mark H said:

In my previous job of nearly 25 years (research\design\development\production support), on a daily basis I'd be mixing with all different levels and backgrounds of people - from the very top Chairman & Chief Exec (on the odd occasion),

Click to expand...

Well, it seems the CEO was likely a big part of the problem:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/239545...-visiting-pornographic-websites#axzz2kXXhtRzn

Believe me - if you new the company that I worked for, and the Chairman & Chief Exec', you might see how very very unlikely that might be.

Quite apart from the ethos/reputation of the company, the IT department has all Internet content centrally filtered, monitored, and blocked just as they see fit.

Accessing pornography (or anything similar) would in most cases be considered as 'gross misconduct' resulting in instant dismissal (it has happened).

Mark H · Nov 13, 2013

Scott Eaton said:
Seriously...those of you still running XP can't afford a job to get a new computer with more than 3gig of RAM? That blazingly fast Pentium 4 too hard to give up? Try banging on the ceiling and asking the parents for an increase in your allowance.

Seriously...

If you have a Windows XP system that does everything you need, why waste any money buying something that just does exactly the same thing for you?

I could afford to buy a hundred new computers if I wanted to - and indeed, for what its worth, I have actually got an i5-2500K based system, and a copy of Windows 7, 'waiting in the wings'.

But I don't absolutely 'need' to upgrade, other than I want FSX simulator to run slightly faster FPS at 2560x1600 with all effects set to highest values.

Probably 95% of those people using XP don't need to upgrade - although, between Microsoft's policy, and inevitable hardware failure/obsolescence, will effectively force them to in the long run..

Scott Eaton said:
OEM Support for XP might already be expired. Extended support only applies to people with Volume License support - not OEM. Support for Server 2008 is already long in the tooth. 2003 needs to die as well. Try doing basic active directory diagnostics on 2003 and you can't do anything without installing some absurd developer kit.

'Extended Support' for XP continues until 08 April 2014 (next year).

'Extended Support' includes security updates for everyone using XP.

'Extended Support' includes 'pay per incident' support for all users (but who ever pays Microsoft for such support anyway?).

Scott Eaton said:
I support a lot of desktops running XP - all of which are running in VMware or Xendestop as virtual desktops that can be set for no-differential disks. Only way it's safe. The OS still works, but Microsoft is already refusing to patch zero day exploits for XP such as the latest TIFF exploit. Get real.....

That is complete nonsense - they are not 'refusing' at all.

The exploit has only been made public last week, and it doesn't only affect XP - if you run Office 2003/2007 the exploit will work regardless of what OS they are running on.

Scott Eaton said:
If it wasn't for Chrome and Firefox XP wouldn't be able to browse the internet.

Comical.

Some 20~30% of all Internet users, are browsing using XP right now, and a similar proportion of those are using 'Internet Explorer' - millions upon millions (of which, I am one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Scott Eaton said:
Best AV software there out there is not surfing with admin rights which isolates crapware at worst in your local profile. NTFS has been out there for over a decade now, and malware can't get around NTFS restrictions even with very rare rights elevation exploits.

Limited user accounts are a good idea - but they are certainly not a 'cure all'.

Running good AV should be the first line of defence - it will stop the vast majority of malware from even getting as far as testing the OS defences (defences which, as we all know, are all too frequently exposed as having flaws).

David Lal · Nov 14, 2013

Mark H said:
Some 20~30% of all Internet users, are browsing using XP right now, and a similar proportion of those are using 'Internet Explorer' - millions upon millions (of which, I am one).

Mark, I agree with you. I am the IT Director for quite a large Swiss organisation and a software developer. Most of the people I look after still use their PCs only as glorified typewriters and for undemanding spreadsheets. Windows XP is more than good enough for all of them.

Indeed, it's good enough for me too although I do have a Win7/i5 machine as well which I never use for the internet, save in dire emergency.

In my experience, all the famous name antivirus products whether they be free or paid for, can and have failed.

Despite all the usual precautions I managed to get myself a zero.Access rootkit infection recently which was very difficult to remove. I used the free Malwarebytes Anti Rootkit tool (mbar.exe) and also RogueKiller (roguekiller.exe), also free, to resolve the problem. I did also switch to AVG 2014 (free version) - although I'm sure its protection one day will fail me.

Every 2 days or so I now scan my own machine(s) with mbar.exe and roguekiller.exe in addition to a complete scan with AVG.

The other thing that I do on a weekly basis is create a complete drive image of my PC which I store on an external USB hard drive. For this I use the excellent Macrium Reflect (paid version, although there is a free one too).

Macrium is very good. It has saved my bacon a few times by allowing me to put the machine back flawlessly to how it was a week ago.

David

carl english · Nov 14, 2013

Would you believe some are still using w95

carl english · Nov 14, 2013

Mark H said:
Jim Cockfield said:

Mark H said:

malch said:

Mark H said:

It always makes me laugh/sigh when I see various others (not mentioning particular names) banging on about 'Sandboxie/VMs' - just what on earth are they getting up to/what sites are they frequenting (that I'm not) - for the most part, it's just more, crazed paranoia!

Click to expand...

I dunno about "banging on" but I have mentioned sandboxes here.

Click to expand...

I was only 'exaggerating for effect' - I actually just had one particular person in mind (and not you).

Click to expand...

You seem to do a lot of that kind of thing "exaggerating for effect", including as much name calling as possible when someone else has an opposing viewpoint.

Click to expand...

No - I do not 'do it a lot' .

Yet again, you repeatedly attempt to superimpose your selective interpretation/view.

Mark H said:

As pointed out in this response, perhaps you should look in the mirror

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52518997

"Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before using tactics like calling someone else condescending, patronizing, ridiculous, ignorant, paranoid, etc. etc. etc.;, and just stick to debating the facts instead.

Click to expand...

I'm fully cognisant of, and calibrated in, what I post - and I will only use such descriptions where I see them to be justified.

It is not a 'tactic' - it is a genuine and valid reaction to your behaviour.

You are the one here, who should be 'looking in the mirror' .

Mark H said:

Mark H said:

It's not that anyone seriously 'bangs on' about Sandboxie - but rather, that I've long noticed one person, for quite some years (going at least as far back as 2008) still popping up from time to time with the same personal recommendation.

I'm surprised Jim hasn't taken it upon himself to give them the same 'friendly advice' that he recently offered 'Joe186'... - not that it ever stops him from repeatedly recommending 'Emisoft' via 'newegg.com', ad nausea (slight exaggeration again). ;-)

Click to expand...

I also did not appreciate your "It's not your job Jim..." post in another recent thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52489573

Click to expand...

I'm sure you didn't - perhaps, just the same as the OP of that thread didn't 'appreciate' your unwarranted intervention.

Mark H said:

I look at post patterns from members for a living (and have for 10 years), and the OP of that thread was "out of line", period.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense - period.

You were "out of line" - far more than the OP of that thread ever was.

Mark H said:

I look at a lot of forum posts every day, and take actions against those types of members looking to cause trouble in forums or use the forums for personal gain (as his posting pattern looked like).

Frankly, he's lucky he wasn't banned for more than one reason, including posts that broke the rules as far as Spam is concerned (making multiple posts linking to a site without any new content), and for "trolling", as IMO, the posts being made were designed to "rile up" members, just for fun.

Click to expand...

Your repeated claim that "he's lucky he wasn't banned... [etc]" is absolutely laughable.

He did nothing even close to justifying anything of the sort. At the very worst he might have been sent a polite PM from a moderator (although I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have even felt the need for that).

Your 'opinion' on such matters does not/did not justify your to intervention - particularly with the high-handed/self-appointed manner in which you did (whether you see it that way or not).

Your unnecessary intervention, and that of one or two supporters, was the instigation of all the trouble in that thread, not the OP, nor his original message.

Mark H said:

Yep... it's not my job (at dpreview.com) to point out those types of things.

Click to expand...

Correct - so next time, don't do it.

Mark H said:

.../..

As for my posts about Emsisoft, as pointed out multiple times in other posts, newegg.com doesn't even offer Emsisoft products anymore (no listings for them period).

Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake Jim - get a sense of humour!

I mad it abundantly clear that I was teasing - quote... " ...(slight exaggeration again). ;-) "

Sorry Jim, I know you are always ready to help but on this occasion I side with Mark.

Mark H · Nov 14, 2013

carl english said:
Would you believe some are still using w95

LOL - still good for playing 'Tetris'.

I must admit, I am sometimes minded to reconnect an old Windows 98 13GB HDD that I still have - long retired, but still resting in an old 850 MHz PIII, 768MB machine - and go 'surfing' with IE6 (?) just 'for old times sake'. :-O

That PIII machine, (originally bought as a 600MHz PIII (~~socket~~ Slot 1), with just 128MB, in Dec 1999) was still my main PC until as late as Feb 2011, though heavily upgraded, including Windows XP on a 80GB drive (and it's still sitting behind me right now, and runs XP, Office, Photoshop CS, FS2002, etc, reasonably well) - even with just 600MHz and 128MB, it was actually a Dell 'XPS' model of its day.

One last anecdote... in Dec'99 it cost me about 150 GBP (about 240 USD) just to add a 4x speed CD-RW drive as an optional extra (later sold that to a work colleague for just 5 GBP).

Wm. L. · Nov 14, 2013

Scott Eaton said:
Seriously...those of you still running XP can't afford a job to get a new computer with more than 3gig of RAM? That blazingly fast Pentium 4 too hard to give up? Try banging on the ceiling and asking the parents for an increase in your allowance.

OEM Support for XP might already be expired. Extended support only applies to people with Volume License support - not OEM. Support for Server 2008 is already long in the tooth. 2003 needs to die as well. Try doing basic active directory diagnostics on 2003 and you can't do anything without installing some absurd developer kit.

I support a lot of desktops running XP - all of which are running in VMware or Xendestop as virtual desktops that can be set for no-differential disks. Only way it's safe. The OS still works, but Microsoft is already refusing to patch zero day exploits for XP such as the latest TIFF exploit. Get real.....

If it wasn't for Chrome and Firefox XP wouldn't be able to browse the internet.

Best AV software there out there is not surfing with admin rights which isolates crapware at worst in your local profile. NTFS has been out there for over a decade now, and malware can't get around NTFS restrictions even with very rare rights elevation exploits.

Thank you for pointing out these important things. I face similar arguments seen in this thread and guess the poor logic and choices make are because they don't see and feel the repeat mistakes people make that a sys admin does.

It's also a good reminder because people should use the time between now and April for making plans if they need some 32 bit or legacy compatibility. If they've ditched that Pentium 4 you mentioned they can start checking out the benefits of visualization too.

Wm. L. · Nov 14, 2013

Mark H said:
Limited user accounts are a good idea - but they are certainly not a 'cure all'.

Running good AV should be the first line of defence - it will stop the vast majority of malware from even getting as far as testing the OS defences (defences which, as we all know, are all too frequently exposed as having flaws).

Defense needs to happen in a number of ways, and there is not one cure all. Many depend too much on anti-virus software.

What human behavior, AV software and user rights will do flies in my face often because I'm over many servers, multiple sites, and hundreds of employees. The hundreds of users part really shows how much you can't count on anti-virus software.

Every one of my virus problems this year that required attention or posed risk started with users that had elevated rights and in some cases the Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrated by the particular users.

A lot of the XP defense and use I see is a bit like somebody knowing and having access to a proper delivery truck but choosing to take their new mattress home tied to the roof of their car and flying fast down the freeway. Problems and disasters are rare when my associates and I can get our users to move that mattress secured in the right vehicle vs let them tie it to the roof with twine. Many do get home with the bailing twine method but the idiots I pass on side of the road don't look like they're having fun. Then there are times when the actions others on the road impact you.......

I'm sure I'll have some Win XP running after April just like I know Win2K is running a few machine controllers but it will all be done with care. Don't forget the market for exploits and how patches often go across several platforms. I'm pretty sure this means XP will be quite the target after this coming April.

malch · Nov 14, 2013

Wm. L. said:
Wm. L. said:

Running good AV should be the first line of defence - it will stop the vast majority of malware from even getting as far as testing the OS defences (defences which, as we all know, are all too frequently exposed as having flaws).

Click to expand...

Defense needs to happen in a number of ways, and there is not one cure all. Many depend too much on anti-virus software.

I agree. Too many folks think they're covered just because they bought some AV program or another.

If there's a "first line of defense" it's probably a good firewall with stateful packet inspection. Keeping the operating system and critical apps up-to-date with security-related fixes is critical too. But at the end of the day, what goes on between the users ears is the most important of all.

Resident AV scanners can provide some protection but they don't cover everything and detection rates are far from perfect, especially on very new malware. They also steal a lot machine resources; more than I find acceptable.

Mark H · Nov 14, 2013

Wm. L. said:
Mark H said:

Limited user accounts are a good idea - but they are certainly not a 'cure all'.

Running good AV should be the first line of defence - it will stop the vast majority of malware from even getting as far as testing the OS defences (defences which, as we all know, are all too frequently exposed as having flaws).

Click to expand...

Defense needs to happen in a number of ways, and there is not one cure all.

We agree there.

Wm. L. said:
Many depend too much on anti-virus software.

One of the biggest problems would appear to be that far too many people are depending on such poor AV software as that of Microsoft's 'Defender/Security Essentials'.

Wm. L. said:
What human behavior, AV software and user rights will do flies in my face often because I'm over many servers, multiple sites, and hundreds of employees. The hundreds of users part really shows how much you can't count on anti-virus software.

No AV/IS software can be perfect - but all the evidence shows that good AV software dramatically reduces the risk of malware infection.

So you can 'count on it'... to dramatically reduce the risk, but not to completely eliminate the risk.

Wm. L. said:
Every one of my virus problems this year that required attention or posed risk started with users that had elevated rights and in some cases the Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrated by the particular users.

A lot of the XP defense and use I see is a bit like somebody knowing and having access to a proper delivery truck but choosing to take their new mattress home tied to the roof of their car and flying fast down the freeway..../.... but the idiots I pass on side of the road don't look like they're having fun.

You analogy may entertain - but, in itself, it is materially worthless, and does not actually validate the contention (specific to XP) in any way.

There are several hundred million people currently using Windows XP, and the vast majority are not 'idiots' anymore than users of later Windows OS are - for example, significant numbers of Windows Vista, and Windows 7 users (or should that be "idiots" or sufferers of the so called "Dunning-Kruger effect" ?) are known to turn their UAC off... http://www.matousec.com/info/poll-archive.php?poll=21

[And incidentally - citing the incredibly feeble " Dunning-Kruger effect" theorem, really just has the effect of making one look rather conceited, and hypocritical almost by definition.]

Wm. L. said:
Don't forget the market for exploits and how patches often go across several platforms. I'm pretty sure this means XP will be quite the target after this coming April.

That is very likely - and Microsoft, in particular, also have a vested interest in trying to scare people in believing it.

However - the vast majority of XP users will probably not encounter those new exploits anymore so than they have encountered any current/past exploits - and furthermore, for some time going forward, the AV/IS companies will endeavour to provide protection against such new exploits wherever possible.

CAcreeks · Nov 14, 2013

Yay! Thanks for asking. I will tell my wife, who has loads of software installed on XP and does not have time to diddle around with Windows 8.1 or whatever.

digitalshooter said:
ESET response

Posted Group: ESET Moderators

Posted

Hello,

ESET will be supporting Microsoft Windows XP for quite some time into the future. Keep in mind that ESET still provides support for Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 4.0 SP 6a as well as Microsoft Windows 2000, so support for an OS isn't going to go away right after the manufacturer stops supporting it.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

--
Thanks,
Digitalshooter
PS: all posts are just my opinion!

CAcreeks · Nov 14, 2013

Mark H said:
carl english said:

Would you believe some are still using w95

Click to expand...

LOL - still good for playing 'Tetris'.

Or the haunted house game, 7th Guest.

However unlike these DOS based systems, Windows XP was very good and solid, especially by the time of SP3.

Having converted to Windows 7, it is painfully obvious that hardly anything has improved over XP. I can move applications around the taskbar, like tabs in a browser. Other than that, I can't think of any significant improvement.

Except 64-bit. Although the IT guys said that 64-bit WIndows XP was solid by the time of SP3.

This says a lot about the amazing achievement that was XP. All the other vendors just repackaged or renamed Unix OS. Microsoft had the courage to create a whole new OS.

Mark H · Nov 14, 2013

Their 'Statistics' charting also works on Vista with IE9 too.

Incidentally, while trying a few recommended potential 'fixes/remedies' (none of which worked) I did a search for 'jscript.dll' and found that there was no less than 15 separate instances

-O) on my XP system.

I suspect it may simply be that AV-Comparatives' coding might be using something that is not supported by the older version of 'jscript.dll' used by IE8...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Version_history

...if so, it seems odd to me that the relevant 'jscript' DLL couldn't have been upgraded at some point via 'Windows/Microsoft Update'.

I don't think I'll pursue it any further, for now - though I might try reinstalling Oracle's Java at some point in future (I got rid of it due to security scares) in case it might be able to substitute for the Microsoft JavaScript DLL (when I previously had 'Java' installed, I remember seeing an additional option of some kind listed in IE's 'Advanced' options).

The interactive charts are very nice/fast, but nothing much more than is in the respective PDF reports.

CAcreeks said:
Yes, good question. It works on Linux running Firefox with an outdated (the final) version of Adobe Flash. However looking at source for the interactive graphic, it seems to be written entirely in Javascript. Maybe try a different browser?

Mark H said:

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

I'm not sure why, but those interactive charts don't work on my PC (XP with IE8) - they used to work some time ago - any suggestion as to what I'm missing, settings/plugins?

Click to expand...

Wm. L. · Nov 14, 2013

CAcreeks said:
Mark H said:

carl english said:

Would you believe some are still using w95

Click to expand...

LOL - still good for playing 'Tetris'.

Click to expand...

Or the haunted house game, 7th Guest.

However unlike these DOS based systems, Windows XP was very good and solid, especially by the time of SP3.

Having converted to Windows 7, it is painfully obvious that hardly anything has improved over XP. I can move applications around the taskbar, like tabs in a browser. Other than that, I can't think of any significant improvement.

Except 64-bit. Although the IT guys said that 64-bit WIndows XP was solid by the time of SP3.

This says a lot about the amazing achievement that was XP. All the other vendors just repackaged or renamed Unix OS. Microsoft had the courage to create a whole new OS.

XP has it's roots in NT that had it's roots from the DEC and IBM people that were from VMS and OS2.

Some of the most amazing achievements with XP were not technical as much as the Microsoft maturing into an enterprise company, and some of their staff doing a very good job of selling into new territory and big projects.

Now back to getting rid of XP and 2003 in that I'm giving a slice of time for 2014 budgets and planning as soon as my lunch caffeine kicks in.

Anti-virus Question

Jim Cockfield

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Jim Cockfield

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

malch

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts