1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

[WIN10] Gone back to WIN 7

Discussion in 'Windows Operating Systems' started by Mathuisella, Apr 26, 2018.

?

All driver/game/compatability issues aside, which do you perfer 7 or 10

  1. Windows 7

    45.6%
  2. Windows 10

    54.4%
  1. flu!d

    flu!d Never perfect, always genuine

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    17,147
    Exactly, get rid of the settings panel on the desktop - It's ridiculous and an inefficient use of space. The problem is: Microsoft are making the settings panel more and more of a necessity as they make the better control panel redundant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  2. Daft_Munt

    Daft_Munt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    7,198
    Location:
    Hobart, The Federal Group
    Just make control panel replace settings.Then sort out the software stack of ip4.
     
  3. dimension11

    dimension11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    Everyone counts this down like the world is going to end and all computers running windows 7 will suddenly self immolate.

    For the Home/SOHO user it's not going to change anything because 1) They'll be largely unaware and 2) They'll upgrade when they get a new computer, like 99% of home users.
    For enterprises they'll either 1) Already have moved off Win 7, or 2) Don't care and continue using Win 7 anyway or 3) Have already made plans to continue using Win 7 safely for the future.
     
    O-B-E-L-I-X likes this.
  4. Sphinx2000

    Sphinx2000 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Sure, if you never access the Internet on it. Depends on how important your data/privacy/identity is.
    If I was a hacker I would wait to unleash my next Win7 rootkit exploit until after end-of-life support expires, as there will be no support to patch it.

    Hardware vendors, Software vendors, etc will all stop support/drivers/updates - including AV/Malware protection. Win7 will become the new XP. It is over 10 years old after all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
  5. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Ditto. If you're sitting on some unpatched exploit today, you know damned well that's a huge pay day come mid 2020.

    Bigger picture, I bet folks like China and Russia are rubbing their hands together with glee at all the government systems around the world scrambling to keep up. (Which says a lot about any org that can't get a rolling upgrade started in under 4 years, but I'll save my big org / public sector rants for the appropriate thread).
     
  6. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    63,079
    Location:
    brisbane
    Microsoft have already out of order patched things like this, so i don't see this being a real situation except maybe in the minds of the deluded.

    because end of the day we're talking NT 6.1 vs NT 10.

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/micro...server-2003-to-try-to-head-off-wormable-flaw/

     
  7. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    My favourite bit of the article you linked was where they called using an unsupported OS "playing Russian roulette". :)
     
    2SHY and BAK like this.
  8. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    63,079
    Location:
    brisbane
    they definitely are, but some large unexploited 0 day that will just own every W7 machine is laughable at best.

    dimension11 has said it best.

     
  9. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    MUTMAN likes this.
  10. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,971
    MS Shot themselves in the foot when they patched XP after EOL...
    now everyone who wants an excuse to stay on Win7 will say "If its bad, MS will patch it"
     
    Perko, Sphinx2000 and elvis like this.
  11. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Agreed. If you're going to set EOL terms, stick to it. "Tough love", as we parents call it.
     
  12. dimension11

    dimension11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    It's interesting how you quote things which, when happened, Microsoft wait for it, shock horror patched.....Windows XP...something that was supposed to be what, EOL 5 yrs ago?

    Give things a few more years and people will stop developing exploits for Win 7, and the world will be safe again :p
     
  13. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,463
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Sooooooo XP will be more secure than 7 until that happens? :Paranoid:

    Why would you run the risk either way? Windows 7 is a bloated POS these days anyway, all of this crap about telemetry and UI is just a cover for not wanting change, despite the fact that when it's finally forced onto people one way or the other, they'll be used to it within a fortnight at worst.
     
  14. dimension11

    dimension11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    I guess there's 2 approaches to thinking about this, one is that why would you risk running something that is untried and untested? Would you go with an older tool that you know may be flawed but you know how to use, or something that is newer and supposedly better but untried?

    Every version of Microsoft's OSes takes up more room than the last. Looking at my computers, Win 10 takes up around double the amount of space, and for what? Is it doubly as good? Don't think so. And that's not counting the multiple GBs that Microsoft forces you to use to pre-download Candy Crush "just in case" you may want to play it.

    An OS is a platform for me to do stuff on. I don't want to be fighting with it on a daily basis, restarting when I don't want it to, or pre-downloading games I'll never play. Yes, of course all that can be disabled with tools, registry hacks, etc, but then really you've just turned your Win 10 box into a Win 7 box, plus some additional candy dressing.

    Fortunately Win 10 LTSB looks like a nice alternative (essentially the good stuff in Win 10 without all the end user crap), but for now MS seems hell bent on ensuring that this is as difficult as humanly possible for the end user to obtain and install.
     
  15. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Eventually. Not on zero day.

    And more to the point, people who refuse to move on from old OSes are notoriously bad at patching (the "it works, don't touch it" crowd).

    So yeah, it got patched *eventually*. Not before it cost Maersk over USD$300 million. Not to mention all the smaller business affected around them, either directly by WannaCry/NotPetya, or indirectly by related business. Not to mention all the individual computers out there hit by the same exploits (Wikipedia estimates 200,000 computers in 150 countries - just incredible numbers).

    Once Windows 7 goes EOL, are you going to maintain a vigilant, manual checking+patching strategy? Or will you just be another statistic?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
  16. dimension11

    dimension11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    And neither were the other affected OSes either, so I'm not sure what your point is.
    I disagree with this. It's a generalised statement that really is comparing apples to oranges. Of course there's some relation, since sometimes people who use old OSes are forced to for some technical reason. However, generally people either 1) are using old OSes because they can't be bothered to upgrade, aka "it came with my computer", in which case they're probably no better or worse than someone running a new OS, or 2) they've made a concious effort to stay with the old os for some reason aka. Required for a certain application, or personal choice, in which case I think the choice of whether or not to patch is really a moot point since they're probably invested in other security methods.

    Relying on patching to avoid becoming another statistic is kinda like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Of course there are privately, responsibly reported bugs and that proportion is increasing every day with the ever increasing bug bounty programs, however, the most devastating ones were found in the wild.

    In some way, Microsoft had managed to completely turn the software development paradime on its head in the past 10 years. There literally is no other model in existence where a company is allowed to release a flawed product and spend the next 10 years fixing it one month at a time. Imagine if you had to bring your Toyota to the workshop every month, not for maintenance, but to fix flaws in the core design. No other industry does it. The fact that the tecj industry does it, let alone gets away with it and somehow makes it your fault, boggles my mind. "Hey we released a broken product and *you* didn't patch it and it's *your* fault". Imagine if you got a house built and the gas pipe exploded. And suddenly it's your fault for not noticing that the joint was a little loose. This is what the tech companies have managed to get away with. Of course software development is hard and it's very costly to create perfect software, but it's doable. So rather than saying that it's the fault of the end user for not patching, let's actually take the companies to task for creating flawed software. Go read the EULA of just about any major software developer. The stuff they write in there, no other industry can get away with.

    So no, I'm not vigilant in patching, but no I'm not another statistic. But then I'm not your average use case or end user either. I don't have SMB or RDP exposed to the public. I don't run a plastic box router that came with my ISP. I'm the 0.1%, and no I've never ever been bitten by a virus in over 20 years of computing. It's possible, but it isn't easy.
     
  17. tensop

    tensop Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,517
    the difference is the downpipe on your house doesnt have tens of thousans of chinese, russian and eastern european hackers trying to find flaws in the iron lattice that makes up your pipe.

    MS sucks, we know - but unpatched windows these days is just too damn risky
     
    elvis likes this.
  18. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    13,971
    This is the danger MS courted by patching XP.

    "They patched XP for $badthing, ergo, if they don't patch XP, it can't be that bad"

    Which is patently false, and will be with 7 as well.

    For every EternalBlue they patch (which was patched, in supported OS, well before NotPetya) there is a hundred RCE's that aren't patched, any one of which could be used to cause someone a very bad day.
     
    elvis likes this.
  19. dimension11

    dimension11 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    If you wanna stretch the analogy to the ridiculous extreme, then sure, the extreme weather, heat, cold, rain, rust, rodents, and various flora and fauna surely would be as bad if not worst.

    I'm not sure where you got the whole "assume it's not bad unless MS released a patch for an EOL OS" from. That's another false assumption up there with "people who use old OSes are bad at patching". There are different classes of RCEs. One that requires you to do nothing other than be connected to a network is far different to one that you need to trick a user to open something, which is far different to one that requires, say physical access to the machine. This is clearly demonstrated both in the MS internal documentation as well as reflected in the bounty payouts. They're all bad, but some are worse than others, and sometimes by a mile.

    I would love to patch my machines, but for me, and rightly so, patching is only one aspect of keeping a system safe, and I wouldn't rely on that solely for keeping my system safe. It's kinda like locking the front door of my home but leaving the window open, and assuming the house is safe.

    I bet if MS decided to release the Win 7 patches going forward for a reasonable fee (say $100 per year) I think alot of people would bite. I wouldn't be surprised if someone also worked out a way to port those patches to general Win 7 machines kinda like how they did with XP. I bet also, if MS decided to release the Win 10 LTSC to the general public as a different SKU, alot of people would bite too, even if it was for abit more than Pro.

    Remember that patching has bitten people in the past before. To the tune of losing an entire OneDrive, to crashing systems etc. It's not like patching is something that is entirely risk free. I think for the general user the advice is always to keep an up to date machine with the latest patches, however remember, we're the 0.1% that go beyond just relying on patching and using an AV to keep a machine safe.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  20. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    41,388
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Very much this. News worthy issues are fine to argue over, but all the little stuff that remains unpatched will cause grief.

    The desperation in the above posts to justify the use of an unsupported OS is just that - desperate. No verbal or written argument mitigates the risk. Unsupported software is more risky than supported software.

    77 days and counting.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: