# Support is ending for some versions of Windows



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/...-windows-vista-without-service-packs?os=other



> Support for Windows Vista without any service packs ended on April 13, 2010.
> Support for Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2) will end on July 13, 2010.*
> 
> If you're running one of these versions after support ends, you won't get security updates for Windows.


----------



## Morny (Oct 12, 2005)

Thanks Mumbodog for the info. I'm not ready to go over to Wnd7 and by choice would prefer to go back to W2K Pro, now that was a lovely OS and it was stable, too. :-D


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

W2K was nice but it is insecure as XPSP2 will bee soon, no security updates, and these days you will be infected quickly without them.

.


----------



## Morny (Oct 12, 2005)

I have WndXp Pro SP3 but after installing SP3, it did slow my PC down a bit. I still use OE and think it's a lovely program and will continue to use it. Had thought of Live Mail (I keep keying Love, LOL) but decided to skip it.


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

Mumbodog said:


> W2K was nice but it is insecure as XPSP2 will bee soon, no security updates, and these days you will be infected quickly without them.
> 
> .


You'll only get infected if you don't take adequate precautions. If you do take adequate precautions (browse the net through an NAT router, turn off vulnerable and unnecessary Windows services, use a third-party software firewall, use Spywareblaster, don't use IE but instead use Firefox, routinely don't allow javascript - only case by case and as necessary to permit something to work - and don't use Outlook Express) then you'll be fine.

I still have a couple of Win2K virtual machines in daily use here. They never get infected.

Also, I browse the net all the time using WinXP Pro, and I turned off all Microsoft updates years ago. That system (a laptop) has never been infected - even though I often connect from airports and cyber cafes with it. I don't even run antivirus software on it. Usually, though, when I browse with it I do it via my home workstation which runs linux. I establish an SSH tunnel from wherever I am to a proxy server on my workstation, and access the web that way.


----------



## Morny (Oct 12, 2005)

Thing is, one minute you are saying to do all these things to stay protected, then you're saying you go online and browse and never have been infected? Not sure I know what you mean. 

Do help an oldie out here, LOL


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

You find a conflict in what I said...where, exactly? None of the things I do to protect WinXP prevent me from browsing. They have historically been adequate to prevent my windows systems from becoming infected regardless of any unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows.

However, I am a sophisticated user so I don't lead with my chin on the 'net...and that counts for a lot too.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Morny said:


> Thing is, one minute you are saying to do all these things to stay protected, then you're saying you go online and browse and never have been infected? Not sure I know what you mean.
> 
> Do help an oldie out here, LOL


Hi Morny 

It's about being able to use third party software and devices like an NAT router to make up for the short comings of an OS and extend the usage past the MS deadline for support.
But when third party support no longer provides a reasonable safety buffer like MS 9x users now experience....it's time to upgrade.

Safe surfing is also a contributor to a healthy computer


----------



## TheOutcaste (Aug 8, 2007)

Mumbodog said:


> W2K was nice but it is insecure as XPSP2 will bee soon, no security updates, and these days you will be infected quickly without them.
> 
> .


Win2K with SP4 still gets security updates. Support ends 7/13/2010, so 2 months left.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071

Of course, the fact that it still gets security updates doesn't necessarily mean it's as secure as later versions of Windows.


----------



## Mumbodog (Oct 3, 2007)

@ jiml8

You are correct, but we don't recommend your method to most users here, those that know how to don't need instruction, and those that don't should not be led in that direction, too risky for those that are not knowledgeable.

The only reason I run AV is to check files that I download, not that they are from risky places, you just don't know these days, servers getting hacked all the time.


@TheOutcaste, thanks, I have not used W2K in so long i assumed it was past its support life for security updates.
Thanks for keeping things straight, as usual.

.


----------



## jiml8 (Jul 3, 2005)

Mumbodog said:


> @ jiml8
> 
> You are correct, but we don't recommend your method to most users here, those that know how to don't need instruction, and those that don't should not be led in that direction, too risky for those that are not knowledgeable.
> 
> .


Yes and no.

I agree that someone who doesn't know what he is doing shouldn't try this.

BUT...

Often, the knowledge that something CAN be done provides the spur to become knowledgeable in how to do it. And that isn't a bad thing.

Note that I'm not recommending that Joe Clueless follow my lead, but I am mentioning it so that Jane SomewhatCluedIn gets an idea that might prove useful.


----------

