# XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

"*Myth* (Definition) - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. There are numerous Myths floating around the Internet regarding Windows XP, especially relating to Optimizations and Security. Hopefully this site will debunk some of these."


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

That's very good. I saw a similar one a while back, but I had to disagree with many of the comments in that one---some of the "myths" they tried to debunk were actually true.

Hopefully, a lot of people will read this one. It would eliminate many posts and pointless discussions .


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I'd be interested in hearing which of their "myths" you believe to be true. I didn't see any where I really disagreed with their conclusions.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

I believe Elvandil is saying the "other" site, which he doesn't name, is the one that had "myths" that were actually true.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

JohnWill said:


> I'd be interested in hearing which of their "myths" you believe to be true. I didn't see any where I really disagreed with their conclusions.


Yes, I think these are valid and often a bone of contention.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

You're right, I didn't see the "other site" reference.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Don't have have XP so no way to know what is true or not.
But I do know on 98SE that I have many programs that lock the hosts file but only Zone Alarm Pro has worked at protecting the hosts file 100% in test I made. Other protect the hosts file part way to not at all. I have seen false things show up in spybot and cwshredder that are just bad sites I am blocking in my hosts file. cwshredder was always able to delete from it. Spybot deleted some and wanted to reboot to delete the others. 
But with ZA pro nothing was ever deleted. I do my scans now with the hosts file disable so it is renamed so I do not get false reports plus it speeds up the scans.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> Don't have have XP so no way to know what is true or not. But I do know on 98SE that I have many programs that lock the hosts file but only Zone Alarm Pro has worked at protecting the hosts file 100% in test I made. Other protect the hosts file part way to not at all. I have seen false things show up in spybot and cwshredder that are just bad sites I am blocking in my hosts file. cwshredder was always able to delete from it. Spybot deleted some and wanted to reboot to delete the others. But with ZA pro nothing was ever deleted. I do my scans now with the hosts file disable so it is renamed so I do not get false reports plus it speeds up the scans.


You want to seriously consider getting Windows 2000 or XP because real security on 98SE is just not possible. You can easily stop spyware and not have to waste time updating hosts files.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well my next PC I will get XP but not on this one. Do have Windows 2000 my sister gave me but have not used it.


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

hewee said:


> Well my next PC I will get XP but not on this one. Do have Windows 2000 my sister gave me but have not used it.


Wait for Vista Harry. I got a bunch of spare parts to keep ya going till then.


----------



## PixieStrange (Oct 1, 2005)

Mastertech said:


> You want to seriously consider getting Windows 2000 or XP because real security on 98SE is just not possible. You can easily stop spyware and not have to waste time updating hosts files.


Actually, in a lot of ways 98SE is more secure than XP or 2k. You have to consider that in XP/2000 there are shares open that you really can't close. Whereas 98 you have to turn a bunch of junk on.

In regards to spyware and the like, again, XP is more vulnerable than 98 simply because of the way the OS handles things. Also on 98 removals tend to be easier because you can't really truly lock anything out. So any spyware/junk that tries to lock itself down can't. XP/2k it can. I've seen spyware that would reset the admin account, scramble the password on it, and lock the user out of a lot of stuff. 98 that can't be done.

Windows XP gives you a LOT more control over security (long as you're using Pro and not gimp Home), and you CAN lock it down tighter than 98, but for the majority of people, 98 is plenty secure, and XP/2k just opens them up.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> Actually, in a lot of ways 98SE is more secure than XP or 2k. You have to consider that in XP/2000 there are shares open that you really can't close. Whereas 98 you have to turn a bunch of junk on.


XP *Pro* has admin shares open that you can close. Try reading: Secure XP.



> In regards to spyware and the like, again, XP is more vulnerable than 98 simply because of the way the OS handles things.


No it's not. 



> Also on 98 removals tend to be easier because you can't really truly lock anything out. So any spyware/junk that tries to lock itself down can't. XP/2k it can. I've seen spyware that would reset the admin account, scramble the password on it, and lock the user out of a lot of stuff. 98 that can't be done.


 



> Windows XP gives you a LOT more control over security (long as you're using Pro and not gimp Home), and you CAN lock it down tighter than 98, but for the majority of people, 98 is plenty secure, and XP/2k just opens them up.


That is just pure BS. Anyone with half a brain would not be using 98, let alone think it is in any way secure. Please.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> Anyone with have a brain would not be using 98


Perhaps you meant 'half a brain' 

I use 98se, 2K (now) and XP home for several years just not online.
98se works just fine, thank you.
I frequently read the security threads and wonder how and why some people have so much trouble and not others. 
I've even set up a 95 box and surfed the internet without picking up malware/evilware.

Different OS's sem to have different vulnerabilities, but naturally, newer ones are inherrently more secure.

Excuse me while my other half a brain leaves the room to boot up the old Gateway .....

BTW, Mastertech...thanks for the post


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

If you had any comprehension about how the operating systems work you would never use Win9x/ME again. As for the "works just fine" comment, that is alot of nonsense. Those OSes are inheritently unstable and offer no security. The fact that people continue to use them instead of 2K or XP only shows how many people that are out there that still do not get it. If you don't want to use 2K or XP, then use a Linux distro or OS X. Please just bury the unstable, unsecure DOS based OSes once and for all. There is no reason to use crap anymore and has not been since 2000.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

I really love the 98 vs XP security argument. It is like saying it is better to own a house with no locks and alarm system because you know a friend who's house was broken into and the burglars changed the locks and code on the alarm and they could not get in to their own house. Right........


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Look at the Top 50 viruses in the wild right now. Few to none of them are exploiting Win98 vulnerabilities while many are exploiting XP.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

98 is also perfectly stable, this system has been running fine for 5 years.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> If you had any comprehension about how the operating systems work you would never use Win9x/ME again. As for the "works just fine" comment, that is alot of nonsense. Those OSes are inheritently unstable and offer no security. The fact that people continue to use them instead of 2K or XP only shows how many people that are out there that still do not get it. If you don't want to use 2K or XP, then use a Linux distro or OS X. Please just bury the unstable, unsecure DOS based OSes once and for all. There is no reason to use crap anymore and has not been since 2000.


Sorry you mistook my humor as an attack.
Perhaps 98se was unstable for you and some people you know.
Now, I'm not saying to intentionally stay on 98se, but why pay for an up grade if the OS is satisfactory.
2K has advantages for me 98se doesn't....memory management which makes voice recognition run better after 5/6 hours of uptime.
Would I pay to upgrade for that advantage when a reboot is only 90 seconds....no. The security on my 98se is sufficient for me and the comp stable.
Would I buy a new comp with 98se or build one, no, I'd go 2K/XP as that seems a more economical approach for the long run.
The only problem the current 98se install has had, was one MS security update. This install is almost 3 years old. No spyware or malware. I don't use any computer with out being behind a firewall router and a software firewall.
Security is not an afterthought.
It isn't that I don't want to use XP, I just see no need to run right out and spend money on an upgrade I don't have a need for at this time.
As far as Linux goes, the OS means little to me as I don't sit and watch the screen saver. The apps are more important and Linux still doesn't fill my needs for other than surfing the net, and then I mostly do it from a Slax Live CD at that.

Do I get it? Sure. I'll buy into something I need when I need it.

Thanks for the info you first posted.


----------



## PixieStrange (Oct 1, 2005)

Mastertech said:


> I really love the 98 vs XP security argument. It is like saying it is better to own a house with no locks and alarm system because you know a friend who's house was broken into and the burglars changed the locks and code on the alarm and they could not get in to their own house. Right........


If you really want this to get rolling fine, check this out.

Three Machines.
A. Win98 SE
B. Windows XP Home
C. Windows XP Pro

Now then. This is off of a FRESH DEFAULT install. Guess which OS is the most secure of the three? Remember we're talking DEFAULT INSTALL. 98 owns the XP systems because of it's DEFAULT networking settings. You also have to consider WHO IS THE BACKBONE OF THE IT INDUSTRY?! It is THE AVERAGE.... That is... AVERAGE.... User. You know the ones, the ones complaining about their coffee cup hodler not staying open, or wondering why their CDs don't work in their 5.25" floppy drive.

So we're looking at DEFAULT installs, the kind of things that the USER is going to do. And all these GREAT XP Home machines being sold have an Administrator account with a BLANK PASSWORD. Granted log on is SLIGHTLY restricted, but can EASILY be UN-restricted. NO SUCH VULNERABILITY IN 98SE! You have to ACTIVELY enable something to allow ANYTHING to happen over a network. ESPECIALLY where it pertains to authenticating anything.

Now then, as for XP Pro, guess what? SAME THING! XP, just because of all the JUNK that is running in the background, and all of the services, IS MORE VULNERABLE than 98SE. Period. Yes, there are things that can easily knock a 98SE machine offline, reboot it, etc. But that is about it. actually breaking a 98SE box on a fresh clean default install is NOT something that MOST people need to worry about, whereas a 2k/XP isntall is VERY tempting target because it's just WIDE open.

Now, I'm a BIG BIG BIG advocate of security, and for the AVERAGE USER, a 98SE machine offers a LOT more in the way of Ease of Use, which still maintaining RELATIVE security.



PixieStrange said:


> Windows XP gives you a LOT more control over security (long as you're using Pro and not gimp Home), and you CAN lock it down tighter than 98, but for the majority of people, 98 is plenty secure, and XP/2k just opens them up.


As you can see, this is PRECISELY what I said. Read it again. Am I saying that XP is ALWAYS less secure than 98? NO! I even say it CAN be locked down VERY tight, but that for the MAJORITY of people, they're better off with 98.



PixieStrange said:


> In regards to spyware and the like, again, XP is more vulnerable than 98 simply because of the way the OS handles things.





MasterTech said:


> No it's not.


I've seen a LOT a LOT of malware that REQUIRES certain NT based services in order to function, plus some that try to add services. And like i said earlier, becase of the way Xp handles security, and because you CAN lock it down, guess what that means? it means that any rogue application that WANTS to lock things down CAN TOO. XP doesn't separate things like that, all a malicious script has to do is to take advantage of that spiffy "Secondary Logon" service, run something as a SYSTEM process and BANG, dead. Period, end of story. 98 doesn't have that vulnerability. 98 Also won't let you see all the processes that are running, and things can be 'cloaked' and that is a DEFINITE detriment, but THE SAME APPLIES TO XP!!



PixieStrange said:


> Also on 98 removals tend to be easier because you can't really truly lock anything out. So any spyware/junk that tries to lock itself down can't. XP/2k it can. I've seen spyware that would reset the admin account, scramble the password on it, and lock the user out of a lot of stuff. 98 that can't be done.


Your response: 

No rebuttal? Seriously, it CAN'T (at least, not that I've seen). *shrug* Don't know how else to put it. It's an 'insecurity' that actually provides a bit BETTER security when dealing with that junk. 98's registry is a LOT easier to hose, but that's another story, and just as fixable as XP's registry.



MasterTech said:


> That is just pure BS. Anyone with half a brain would not be using 98, let alone think it is in any way secure. Please.


Actually I know a LOT a LOT of gamers that STILL use 98, or dual boot their systems and use 98 because it has WAY less overhead, and when you put it on a system that is comporable to what sells today, the boot time is like 5 seconds flat. That's hard to beat. As for the security, I suggest you pick up a copy of Windows Security Inside Out and study up.

I've been out of the security scene for a bit, but some things NEVER change. Like "If one has physical access to a machine, it is NOT secure."

*shrug*

Some things change, some things never do. Some "Updates/Upgrades" that "Enable Better Security" actually cause more security problems by design. Just the rules of the game deary.

Then again, what do I know? I'm a n00b.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Been ok for me using 98SE and I have keep my PC safe. Sure I may know more then some and watch out but have in the last 8 years only gotten a bad thing once and it was my fault for clicking on something when I really knew better. That was the lop.com and it would of gottn out and done more maybe but Zone Alarm popped up and I said what is this. Took a little doing to clean it up because deleting in would not stay that way because at boot up it was back.
But now I have added protection from other program too that work stop that from happing.
Have Windows Scripting Host disable on this PC too. 
http://www.sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/win.script.hosting.html
No share or chat programs will get put on my PC either. They are holes no matter what OS you use.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Space Cowboy said:


> Wait for Vista Harry. I got a bunch of spare parts to keep ya going till then.


Ok that sounds great david. Does that mean the great PC you got now will be a spare part.


----------



## gyrgrls (Nov 22, 2004)

hewee said:


> Well my next PC I will get XP but not on this one. Do have Windows 2000 my sister gave me but have not used it.


Just make sure it's XP Pro. Or Windows 2000 is fine for now, as long as you install Service Pack 4.

As far as Windows goes, I now only use WIN 2K and WIN 98 myself, on my own systems, and on systems I build for friends who believe I know what's best for them. 

But I have had to install, and configure (and activate) XP on enough systems to know that *don't like* XP Home Edition one bit. XP HE might be great for those migrating from WinME, however. 

If you Install XP HE, and then later decide you want the advanced security features or the ability to create user groups (such as "power user" etc), you'll just end up installing XP Pro anyway.

Just my two cents.

Oh yeah, I use Win 98SE on occasion, for legacy support, but prefer to work within Win 2K or Linux.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

gyrgrls,

Thanks for the info. I know if I got XP it would be the XP Pro. I have wonder about Linux but just don't know. Wish I had more room so I could have more PC's and do more things too.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

You can try out Linux on CD if you have a CD burner, or install it to a spare hard drive. It doesn't take a whole lot of space.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I saw this interesting write up recently on security.

The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security

http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

if you want to try using linux I would recommend getting some free cds from https://shipit.ubuntu.com/ You won't need a cdwriter or a high speed connection, just a shipping address. As always with linux it's completely free, not even a shipping charge to worry about.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

hewee said:


> gyrgrls,
> 
> Thanks for the info. I know if I got XP it would be the XP Pro. I have wonder about Linux but just don't know. Wish I had more room so I could have more PC's and do more things too.


If you have a good sized hard drive, you can run as many OS's as you want on the same machine, even without all the partitioning.

With VMware, Qemu, and VirtualPC, you can even run more than one OS at the same time. It's great for trying them out without having to partition and deal with multiple boots.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Fyzbo said:


> if you want to try using linux I would recommend getting some free cds from https://shipit.ubuntu.com/ You won't need a cdwriter or a high speed connection, just a shipping address. As always with linux it's completely free, not even a shipping charge to worry about.


Sound good but I get this from trying to go to that site so I cancel.

You got any other info on it?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

The security certificate is valid and the site is totally safe. The registering domain is different but legit.

Ubuntu is a great one to try, but it may be months before you get the CD's. There are 2 included. One allows you to run a Live CD and see what it's all about without installing anything. The other CD is the installer. All totally free.

But if you have a fast connection, try Knoppix instead. Downloading is much faster. It is also a LiveCD that runs without being installed (based on Debian Linux), but if you like it, it is installable, too.

http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Elvandil,

Ok I got the CD on order now. Like to try it live first before installing it.
But I let the 5CD box checked that was already check stay so guess I will get more. 

I had gotten last month a file for linux and had to burn a LiveCD but could not get it to boot up to it. Took forever to download it too and then after I did what it said the CD will not work. 

So better twait and try out one from the CD when I get them in the mail.
Just hope that they at the post office drops it off here as I made up a name.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Yeh, they sent me 10. I guess they want you to share with friends. It's pretty cool. Loads a lot slower than Knoppix, but then Knoppix has always been designed to boot from CD and the hardware detection has been refined.

There are a lot of others, but these are pretty popular so you will be able to get help pretty easily.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Guess if they semd out so many. Now who is paying for all of this? Have you checked it all out for ad and spyware? 

I know so many people make linux and I don't know about any of them it is hard to know what is what and what is better.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

The stuff looks very clean. It looks like a group that just wants to disseminate Linux, especially to people who otherwise couldn't afford operating systems, and to third-world countries. Possibly a bored millionaire in there somewhere .

It's pretty hard to make malware work very well when it all disappears (except saved documents) when you turn off the computer. It's the ultimate in security because all the bad stuff that you might pick up surfing just vanishes when you reboot (unless you use a drive for storage). The whole thing runs completely in RAM and you can run it on a machine that has no drives at all (except the CD-ROM, of course).


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well yes the CD version would have to be on the clean side. So how much memory does it need and how much memory should you really have?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I don't know for sure about Ubuntu, but I suspect it is comparable to Knoppix and 128 is pretty much the minimum. I've run it on 96, but it was horrendously slow. Anything less than that and you wouldn't be able to use the GUI---text mode is no fun at all.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I'd like to add my 2 cents 
Hewee, Slax is another linux distro that runs from a CD.
You have to download it, but the file size is about 180mb so if you're on dial up the pain is a mite less 
If you have 256 mb memory, you have an option to load the entire Slax image into memory and it runs considerably faster that Ubuntu or Knoppix.
You can download it here: http://slax.linux-live.org/download.php


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Stoner said:


> I'd like to add my 2 cents
> Hewee, Slax is another linux distro that runs from a CD.
> You have to download it, but the file size is about 180mb so if you're on dial up the pain is a mite less
> If you have 256 mb memory, you have an option to load the entire Slax image into memory and it runs considerably faster that Ubuntu or Knoppix.
> You can download it here: http://slax.linux-live.org/download.php


Yes, I'll second that. SLAX is another good one to try. I'm not sure if it is installable to disk, but probably someone has posted a method somewhere.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I believe there is, but I think Matejicek recomends it primarily as a Live CD.
I think there might be issues in installing future software, but since I'm not conversant in Linux, I'm just a cd tray popper-inner


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Maybe I can check out the Slax. I got 512 MB of DDR memory.
But what would I need after I got it working and running off the CD?
Will I be able to get online?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

hewee said:


> Maybe I can check out the Slax. I got 512 MB of DDR memory.
> But what would I need after I got it working and running off the CD?
> Will I be able to get online?


Morning hewee 

Your specs are good if you want to load the entire Slax CD into memory.
At the Slax site, there is posted what is called a cheat sheet. It gives extra commands you can type into a command line before the CD boots up Linux.
Something like...."Slax copy2ram"

I'm on broad band, RoadRunner. Slax boots up, recognizes my hardware, including the ethernet card , and configures it for the internet without any problems or input by me.
I don't know how a dialup connection would work.

I have used Slax on line numerous times and have posted here at TSG while using it.

Naturally, since it's a small distro, there might be some apps not there you might want. Slax has what are called 'modules' that are apps you can add, rather than install. Instructions at the Slax site are pretty good, IMO.
Just remember, Slax like many Live CDs, is intended to teach Linux and use as a possible recovery tool.

I find it nice to use when all I want to do is 'play' with Linux and not have the complications of dual booting.
And I have used it to diagnose hardware conflicts like when a new ethernet card wouldn't let Windows go online, one time. Slax would 

Try it, you'll like it


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Thanks Stoner. Got cable so the download was fast.

Ok now if you can get online like you said then what protection would I have for my PC?
Can I see my hard drive if I run it from the CD?
If I boot up and run it from the CD then done of my other programs on the hard drive will be running.
So no firewall or anything else to protect me. Just my router.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

hewee said:


> Thanks Stoner. Got cable so the download was fast.
> 
> Ok now if you can get online like you said then what protection would I have for my PC?
> Can I see my hard drive if I run it from the CD?
> ...


Just your router and your browser, Firefox can be added as a module.
The router/firewall is your main defense to keep an intruder from reading or writing to your hard drive and Firefox to protect you just as much as when you use it in windows, meaning malicious web sites.

Nothing's ever perfect.
Remember, also, much of what corrupts windows is installed unknowingly by the computer operator. You won't be installing anything to Slax, as far as I know, you can only add modules.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

So you have to install the module or add them to the CD?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

hewee said:



> So you have to install the module or add them to the CD?


Hi hewee 

At the Slax site there are modules you can download to your hard drive, in windows.
You should have by now the Slax Iso saved , on your hard drive.
I used WinIso to open the Slax Iso and save the Firefox module to a folder named 'Module' within the Slax Iso.

Some directions here: http://slax.linux-live.org/doc_modules.php#useonfly

A number of ready made modules here:
http://slax.linux-live.org/modules.php

I burn my Live CD to a CDRW incase of mistakes I need to correct and modules I want to add in the future. As upgrades come along, I found I was using lots of regular CDs 

I also added the Gimp module. It seemed to run quite nicely on my P3 500 with 384mb memory


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Ok I will look at the info and see if I can understand it all without getting lost. 
So I am your be hearing from me.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Knoppix does allow you to install packages after booting from CD, but that is a fairly new development corresponding to changes in the file system. They all disappear, of course, when you shut down.

As far as security goes, if you don't mount any of your drives, then nothing can write to them, so you don't need any protection. Firefox (and other browsers using the Mozilla core), as you may know from recent news from Symantec, is a greater security risk than IE, but running in RAM makes that all irrelevant (and no IE in Linux). You need no security since everything is gone on reboot.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Thanks for the added info.

Yea I was wonder with all I been hearing on firefox if the safe rating is as good as it used to be.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I have to disagree with this IE-is-more-secure-than-firefox crap Symantec has put out. They only counted security problems that the vendor has admitted to. Of course, Mozilla acknowledges their vulnerabilities and fixes them ASAP while IE has nearly 20 serious vulnerabilities that Microsoft is ignoring and refuses to respond to.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Well, let's say that Firefox has lost the "super secure" image that it used to have.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I always liked Firefox, but the myth that it was somehow perfect has always bothered me since it is unlikely that anything that secure will ever be made. Symantec warns of problems with the core design that can allow hackers to control machines, and FF has had twice as many security problems this year as IE.

There is no perfect piece of software and people will be less surprized when they come to accept that idea.


----------



## PixieStrange (Oct 1, 2005)

Elvandil said:


> I always liked Firefox, but the myth that it was somehow perfect has always bothered me since it is unlikely that anything that secure will ever be made. Symantec warns of problems with the core design that can allow hackers to control machines, and FF has had twice as many security problems this year as IE.
> 
> There is no perfect piece of software and people will be less surprized when they come to accept that idea.


Indeedy do! I'm glad I'm not the only one that realizes that. I cringe anytime I hear someone say "OMGZ! You should use (insert 'uber secure' software here)! It doesn't have the security issues (insert popular software here) has!"

Well, yes that may be true, it DOESN'T have those security vulnerabilities, it has it's OWN security vulnerabilities! I've actually heard someone suggest to a USER..... I maen, AVERAGE user, that they use Linux, cause it's more secure than Windows.

. . .

Average user? Installing/running linux, doing all they do on linux? I think not. More security? Possibly, depends on how it's set up, and you KNOW the user is going to hose SOMETHING. This idea that there is "Complete Security" available with (insert 'uber secure software here) is total absolute DANGEROUS non-sense. I get furious when I hear this. It may be more secure in some ways, but people also forget. Consider this scenario, and reflect...

You are running a business. The Total population in your market area, is 2,000,000 people. 1,750,000 people are in one demograph (for whatever, perhaps shopping habits, what they use, the brand of car they drive, WHATEVER), and 250,000 in the other demograph. Which one are you marketing to primarily? From a strictly business standpoint, with only these variables, the intelligent thing to do is to target the larger demograph? Why? More potential business/profit.

Same with computers. Windows is on top, that means IE is on top. So guess what's being gone after the most? Windows/IE. This unchallenged idea that various alternatives are automatically more secure is a dangerous notion. It leads to a false sense of security and a lax approach to the same. I can't wait for the day that Microsoft is dethroned, only for the consumer public to realize that Wow, with this other thing on top, it has more problems than we ever dreamed possible.

Am I saying that Windows is the be all and end all in being secure? Absolutely not. Am I saying it's the best? Pfft, not even. For the average user? Definitely. Basic rule is, whoever is on top, they're going to have problems, it comes with the territory. But the sooner people realize that just because something is not mainstream that it is not automatically better, then the better off everyone will be.

Who is going to find more flaws in something? 1,000,000,000 people looking at something? Or 100,000,000 people looking at something? I know these values aren't close to the actual percentages in question here, but they serve the purpose.

*****EDIT*****
My grammar is horrible.

*******2nd EDIT*******

Also, on a side note, Macs are a decent enough alternative for the average user, but the same rule about security applies (and yes I know that recent Macs are built around a Unix kernel).


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

To put it bluntly anyone who uses or recommends Win9x/ME over 2k/XP not only doesn't understand operating systems, security or stability but has no business making computer recommendations of any kind.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> To put it bluntly anyone who uses or recommends Win9x/ME over 2k/XP not only doesn't understand operating systems, security or stability but has no business making computer recommendations of any kind.


You forgot the 'IMMHO'....


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

Its a fact, Mastertech (and I dont even know him) hit it right on the head, anybody still into the 9X kernel is sorely lacking OS knowledge!! No IMHO necessary, fact is fact!! PERIOD, anybody who still defends 9X is either a fool or is too lazy to learn a new OS!!!


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Say what you will, I don't have to defend what I use, I only state 9x works for me. Maybe not for you. But that's the way it goes.

BTW, I also run 2k and XPhome........
I get tired of hacks that don't relate to users and only spout the common complaints they hear on the internet.

I stated much earlier in this thread, newer os's were inherrently better......
But it's not worth the money to upgrade an old computer when it's stable and already secure enough for intended purposes. Remember....most people visiting this forum are likely to be home users or home/small(very) businesses that don't need homeland security backing them up. Most large businesses handle computer problems/security inhouse.

Visit the security forum and see the problems 2k and XP owners face.
Think they're exempt from hardware problems...visit the hardware forum....


Personally, I think this thread has degraded into misinformation because of inflated egos.



You also forgot 'IMMHO' ...imjerry


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

It has nothing to do with LEARNING a new OS. There are pepole and organizations who cannot affford a new OS, not because they are computer illiterate. I work for a few non-profits that have their workstations running Win9x and servers running NT4 and they still get the job done and do just fine with what they have, no viruses, no spyware, no problems. I have other customers on all XP, Win2003 servers and I have walked into a nightmare of virus, spyware, etc. that took weeks to clean up and secure. The 9x Kernel may be outdated, but people still depend on it and use it on a daily basis. I personally hate XP with it's candy coated half assed security model and gooey GUI and it's not because I don't know anything about it and have never administered a network full of them.


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

Hey stoner, I guess we will have to agree to disagree!!! IMMHO LOL


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

It has nothing to do with opinions. Older systems that cannot run XP should be running 2000. 133 MHz CPU, 64MB of RAM. Anything older then that should be getting a new computer.

Hardware reliability has nothing to do with Software reliability. Any perceived reliability with the DOS based Win9x/ME OSes is an illusion, there is no HAL, which makes it impossible. By design they are not stable nor reliable. XP and 2000 are. The virus and spyware argument is completely uninformed. Win9x/ME systems get completely crippled by malware/viruses to the point of having to reinstall the OS. Win9x/ME has NO security. It doesn't exist.

Anyone that does this for living knows exactly what I am talking about. Stop wasting your time and use a stable OS.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

I have 98 and my PC is safe. I keep it that way too. Been running almost 5 years without a format or reinstall.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

None of which changes the facts about the operating system or it's design.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> It has nothing to do with opinions. Older systems that cannot run XP should be running 2000. 133 MHz CPU, 64MB of RAM. Anything older then that should be getting a new computer.


win2k will run on those specs, if slowness is a virtue.
Personally, I'd put 95 on it unless I needed a USB port.
And then I'd go 98se.
Let's face it, who puts a $90 OS on a $5 computer?


Mastertech said:


> Hardware reliability has nothing to do with Software reliability.


Driver issues seem to exist in 9x thru XP. One time or another....but then, that hasn't been a problem for me. 



Mastertech said:


> Any perceived reliability with the DOS based Win9x/ME OSes is an illusion, there is no HAL, which makes it impossible. By design they are not stable nor reliable. XP and 2000 are.


From an end use, you can really only state XP and 2k are more stable, not that they are and 9x isn't. Usage proves that. Theories are nice, but if actually true...there would be no help forums necessary for XP and 2K users.



Mastertech said:


> The virus and spyware argument is completely uninformed. Win9x/ME systems get completely crippled by malware/viruses to the point of having to reinstall the OS. Win9x/ME has NO security. It doesn't exist.


And yet, here I and hewee are, posting. Yes, I use a firewall, just as XP does, just a more efficient one. Yes, my 98se system is patched and so is my 2K. My XP doesn't go online, so no need to patch it.
Maybe you didn't notice, but I haven't argued the malware angle?
As I don't get malware on my 98se computer or on my recently acquired 2K computer, I suspect it's more to my security measures and personal habits than anything else.
I recently read where XP sp1 set to default, as in just after a reinstall, is good for 20 minutes online before becoming so infected, it was useless.
Firewalls turned on make a difference.....gotta love 'em 
Like I said, take a tour of the security forum.....2K and XP are not exempt from problems 



Mastertech said:


> Anyone that does this for living knows exactly what I am talking about. Stop wasting your time and use a stable OS.


Got one on my P3 500. 98se ....no problems the last two years except for one MS security update. That's my primary surfing box  I'd retire it, but it now seems to prove some insignificant point _

Waste what time?


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

It has everything to do with stability. Do you have any idea of the inner workings of an operating system? Win9x/ME has nothing to prevent an application crash from taking down the whole OS. The only way 2k or XP can crash is if you have defective, misconfigured hardware or install non certified drivers, which by default they will not let you do, unless you force it.

Driver issues are NOT hardware problems. A driver is software.



> From an end use, you can really only state XP and 2k are more stable, not that they are and 9x isn't.


Not only can I, I did and will continue to do so. This is not a debatable issue, it is a fact. End users don't understand these things. All the "stability" problems with XP and 2K are from people running junk or defective hardware or are self inflicted and have nothing to with a properly set up working system.

I do this for a living over 15 years, I build and service systems daily. I've used every version of Microsoft's Operating Systems since DOS 3.0.

The fact that you would use 95 over 98 just further prove my point.

Windows XP Comparison Guide
Windows XP is 10x more reliable then 98 (Video) <-This demonstrates how superior 2000/XP are to handling application crashes = FACT.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> Win9x/ME has nothing to prevent an application crash from taking down the whole OS.


There's a registry tweak that greatly improves that issue.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> Driver issues are NOT hardware problems. A driver is software.


I never said otherwise


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> Not only can I, I did and will continue to do so.


Apparently


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> This is not a debatable issue


True


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> End users don't understand these things.


But they are the ones that put up with these issues


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> All the "stability" problems with XP and 2K are from people running junk or defective hardware or are self inflicted and have nothing to with a properly set up working system.


Ah.....your exclusion.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> I do this for a living over 15 years, I build and service systems daily. I've used every version of Microsoft's Operating Systems since DOS 3.0.


Not impressed...


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

> There's a registry tweak that greatly improves that issue.


  are you kidding me? Seriously please go do some research on the differences using the NT kernel.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

> The fact that you would use 95 over 98 just further prove my point.


Yep....match the OS to the computer.
Of course, as I posted much earlier, with new current hardware, it's only prudent to take advantage of a new OS when building . And then buying branded boxes will only get the latest OS's.

IMMHO....._


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> are you kidding me? Seriously please go do some research on the differences using the NT kernel.


Seriously.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Nevermind


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

I gave my Mom an old laptop so we could email.

Tryed 98 and ME on it since it won't handle anything newer.

The winner ???

Windows Me 

I would have never thought but it had all the needed drivers and that go back feature incase she messes it up.

She's had it for a year or so and so far no problemo.

You have to match the machine with the OS and some people aren't made of money. (IMHO)-


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mornin' SC.....

Yep...work with what you have untill you need more


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

Good Morning Jack..

I couldn't believe Me found all the hardware when 98 wouldn't. It's been no problems for her and she keeps it at work.

Saves me time when she messes it up. Just go back. So far so good.

Laters


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Match the machine to the OS means if it will not run XP (only old PCs) then you should run 2000. If you can't run 2000 (really old PCs) then you should buy a $50 PC on ebay. Those who care about stability know what I am talking about.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

Seems to me that if windows 2000 was no better then windows 98/me and windows xp was no better then windows 2000, Microsoft would be in a a lot of trouble. Newer is expected to be better, especially in the digital world. So I don't see the debate here, if you are buying a new pc get one with the newest version.

The second debate going on seems to be whether windows 98/me has lost all usefulness. To this I have to say no, they have not. Just as they were useful 5 years ago, they can be used for the same functions now. In fact installed on faster systems they perform extremely fast. If the user wants to do the same exact things people were doing back in 1998-2002, then the system is just fine. I say 2002 even though windows 2000 obviously came out in 2000, because many did not embrace it as a home desktop operating system. It was more for business use, that's why ME exists after all.

Final note, use linux for a while, you will not want to go back unless you absolutely have to.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> Match the machine to the OS means if it will not run XP (only old PCs) then you should run 2000. If you can't run 2000 (really old PCs) then you should buy a $50 PC on ebay. Those who care about stability know what I am talking about.


Actually, I think you explained your position very well...throw money at the problem.

And when Vista comes out, the 'pack' of MS fanboys will probably say, everyone dump 2K, it's just too unstable..............

Actually ...auctions are a much better source for used computers ...at least in my area. Lexis Nexis rotates volumes of 3 and 4 year old computers out of usage, about twice a year.
A Dell Optiplex P3 800, formated..no os, goes as low as $20.
So, another $90 for an OS and maybe $40 for a hard drive makes for a cheap box....Cheaper still is formatting that lowly P/P2/Celeron or AMD, and reinstalling the OS that came on it and getting serious about security. Something even 2k and XP owners need to do.
But, then, those that care already know that


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

2000 and XP are not more stable because they are newer, they are more stable by design. NT is more stable then Win9x/ME. 2000 is built on NT and XP on 2000. This has nothing to do with "fanboys" it has to do with logic and understanding. The NT kernel is 30 times more stable then any DOS based Windows (9x/ME).

ME came out because 2000 was not XP yet, it did not have all the fluff end users wanted, it did have a stable core OS that can still do just about everything XP can. ME was merely an upgrade to 98 until XP was ready. There is nothing complicated about 2000. They fixed all the glaring user issues that made NT difficult for a novice to maintain while maintaining its superior stability.

This will make it easier for those who have done no research to understand.

(Based on DOS)
DOS = Win 3.1 = Win95 = Win98 = WinME = End of the line (unstable)

(Based on NT)
NT= 2000 = XP = Vista = Future (stable)



> And when Vista comes out, the 'pack' of MS fanboys will probably say, everyone dump 2K, it's just too unstable.......


Vista will be better but 2000 and XP are already stable.

As for "throwing" money at the problem, well if you care about stability then you would pay what is needed to get there.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

And all through this, Mastertech, I've not said anything about not using XP/2K. The issue is, 9x works for many people with older computers . Period.
I see you've now upgraded 9x to 1/30th the stability of XP/2K......thank you ...I guess.  
I have no idea how much more stable NT is, I have read it is, I believe it is, but from my own observations, I would have given 9x a bit better rating 

Your argument is valid when building or purchasing a new computer, it's the economy of the situation, but for someone that already has made the investment in an older system and uses it with out grievances, it's just chasing the glitter of something new. If that's what they want, fine. 
You can claim XP/2K is better all day long, and I won't argue with that, but I can argue that for the user that has an older system, has learned to maintain it, has patched and added features for security,.....he doesn't need to discard that OS on your say so when it's so evident it's stable enough and secure enough for what they do.



> As for "throwing" money at the problem, well if you care about stability then you would pay what is needed to get there.


Your argument now seems to be about spending money on 'caring' .
Well ... If a system works and is secure, I care more about keeping my money.


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

This is tickin me off:

Microsoft Bakes Windows AntiSpyware into Vista

Why don't they just give you options .. just like everybody else does .... to install just what you want / need.

When was the last time you used *"Netmeeting"*


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

You can never patch, secure or "stabilize" something designed flawed. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Your argument is based on lack of understanding, research and knowledge. There is no "economic" argurment unless you throw reliability, stability and security out the window. I don't care what your system came with, I don't care how much money you have, I care how things work. Understanding that is the first step. When you understand how Windows works you will understand what I am saying.

Watch the video I linked and the demo at the end of the application crashing is EXACTLY what you CANNOT fix in ANY DOS based Windows. Get it? Patches don't do jack for a flawed design. Period.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

Every system is flawed. From the software to the OS to the hardware, it is all flawed. Humans are not perfect so they can not create a perfect pc. So if you want to use a pc you have no choice but to use a flawed one. Some people want to have a pc as close to perfect as posible, so they spend the bucks and make sure to have the newest stuff. Some people just want to get online every day for a few minuts and check their email/message boards, they wait for their system to completely die before upgrading. Is that second group of people stupid? are they uninformed? are they fullish? well maybe, but all we can tell is that they don't want to spend money on what they don't NEED. I dont' understand how you don't get this.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

Yes some people like their systems to hang, IE to crash the OS and insist on believing their DOS based OS has some sort of HAL or Proper Memory Management. 

It is ok you guys haven't fallen for the "latest and greatest" Windows "fanboys". :up: :up: :up: 

You guys got the "smarts" no one can sell you anything. :up: :up: :up: 

There is nothing "that" different between the OS design and kernel *waves hand* continue to use your unstable OS *jedi mind trick*

I mean you already spent money on something bad why buy something good? *waves hand* ignore what I just said *jedi mind trick*


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Mastertech said:


> Yes some people like their systems to hang, IE to crash the OS and insist on believing their DOS based OS has some sort of HAL or Proper Memory Management.
> 
> It is ok you guys haven't fallen for the "latest and greatest" Windows "fanboys". :up: :up: :up:
> 
> ...


Bad day in the repair shop, eh?......_
Well, I hope things improve for you, Mt.....life is just too short to get so rilled up. 

Honest. After I learned how to use a computer and with the help of good people like at TSG, my 98se computer works very well. I know I'm not alone in this as I've seen other users comment the same way.

Help is what many are looking for when they come to this site....not a salesman. Really 

Nice rant though, Mt ........:up:

Oh, and incase you forgot, thanks for the tips on XP......


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

You can't help some people it appears.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

You'd be surprised how true that statement is on another level


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

Space Cowboy said:


> This is tickin me off:
> 
> Microsoft Bakes Windows AntiSpyware into Vista
> 
> ...


Sounds like nothing more than the choice you can now make to you IE or another browser, or Media Player or another Player (Real), etc. I don't see the need to get all bent out of shape over it.

As a side note, Mastertech and Stoner, you guys are dragging this way off the intended topic  I'd suggest a debate thread if you'd like


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

> Sounds like nothing more than the choice you can now make to you IE or another browser, or Media Player or another Player (Real), etc. I don't see the need to get all bent out of shape over it.


I don't get to bent outa shape.. Still pretty rigid for a middle aged man 

I rip that stuff out. I have No netmeeting, Internet Explorer, outlook express, notepad, xeroz folder, Internet games, ect, ect.

I just think they should stick to a operating system or give you the options to not install stuff you don't need.

Do you know if we will have those options in Vista?


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

I hope Vista will have more install options. I have a beta version I'm playing with that gave me no choices on the installation process. I haven't played around with add/remove yet.....but I might


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

The word that gets us all in trouble, but that you are playing with Beta 2 (5219) the one I am testing (rather pretesting) and will be out to Beta testers in about a month, Is very different than 5219, and there will be more installation options, and also may be a "LITE Version" not sure yet !!!

So hang in there!!!

For Acacandy


----------



## ~Candy~ (Jan 27, 2001)

I actually have 5231


----------



## Krelian (Mar 10, 2004)

I really enjoyed reading that guide, it's easy to read and to the point. I even learned a few new things


----------



## PixieStrange (Oct 1, 2005)

Mastertech said:


> You can never patch, secure or "stabilize" something designed flawed. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> Your argument is based on lack of understanding, research and knowledge. There is no "economic" argurment unless you throw reliability, stability and security out the window. I don't care what your system came with, I don't care how much money you have, I care how things work. Understanding that is the first step. When you understand how Windows works you will understand what I am saying.
> 
> Watch the video I linked and the demo at the end of the application crashing is EXACTLY what you CANNOT fix in ANY DOS based Windows. Get it? Patches don't do jack for a flawed design. Period.


*sigh*

Your 1337 2K security...

I think the average user is being lost here. Remember, approach things from the USERS point of view. From the USERS point of view, IE DOES still crash the OS, still DOES hang up, along with fully half of the other things they use (nevermind the fact that it's caused by like 50 copies of GAIN running, plus Apropos, Aurora, bloodhound, etc.).

Bottom line, is a DEFAULT INSTALL of 2k/XP is more or less equal to the security of a DEFAULT install of 98SE with a few exceptions, in which 98SE generally trumps 2K/XP.

Of course, this would be VERY easy to settle.

Step 1. Set up a machine with 98SE
Step 2. Set up a machine with 2K Pro, or XP (Pro or Home, doesn't matter)
Step 3. Break into them.
Step 4. Sit in awe at how easily you gained control of the NT based machines.


----------



## Shelly6 (Aug 5, 2005)

Space Cowboy said:


> I don't get to bent outa shape.. Still pretty rigid for a middle aged man
> 
> I rip that stuff out. I have No netmeeting, Internet Explorer, outlook express, notepad, xeroz folder, Internet games, ect, ect.
> 
> ...


I just sat and read this whole thread. No, I don't have much to do.  I am quite amused by Mastertech's fanboy attitude. I am not a big fan of microsoft AT ALL, but it's what I've got - just like a whole bunch of other people. I don't like - and here is the word no-one mentioned - BLOATWARE!
I was quite happy with my old Presario and 98SE, but I wanted to do photo editing and stuff that it wasn't up to, so I got a new machine - and XP home, which we had lying around. Sure it's faster, and prettier. BUT IT'S CHOCK FULL OF (insert expletive here) THAT I NEITHER NEED NOR WANT!

And my old machine is still out there being happily used by someone who doesn't want to do fancy graphics stuff.

Why don't they give us the choice at install? Because we might chose SOMEONE ELSE'S product. Windblows is getting bigger and more "integrated" every successive version. That makes it harder to remove any unwanted components. Windblows Vista will be many years old before I ever HAVE to use it.

And all this is IMHO.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Shelly6,

Funny you said BLOATWARE because MS has always done that and I hate it. I know back when 98 came out many hated all the added things MS added that was not needed and I knew many that had gotten 98lite and loved it.
http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html

It gives you more control over things. Also they have other programs there.
Like IEradicator, XPlite and 2000lite Professiona etc there.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Mastertech said:


> Yes some people like their systems to hang, IE to crash the OS and insist on believing their DOS based OS has some sort of HAL or Proper Memory Management.
> 
> It is ok you guys haven't fallen for the "latest and greatest" Windows "fanboys". :up: :up: :up:
> 
> ...


Effitist, elitist snob!! Your statements are jibberish and nonsense. How many patches and services packs does an OS need on an anual basis? XP secure and stable, you have to be joking? I also took a look at your web site, for someone with so many supposed years of experience you sure don't know a whole lot. I see nothing about slipstreaming XP or 2K installs or anything else that would be useful. Surprised you aren't a Linux/Unix guru with all of your talk of security and bloatware. Get off the cross, we need the wood!!


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

*Rockn*, you're skating on the edge here, let's ease up on the name calling. Stick to the topic, and please don't descend to personal insults.


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

Mister Will


AMEN


----------



## Davec (Jan 27, 2001)

AcaCandy said:


> I actually have 5231 pairs of shoes


But what does that have to do with XP?


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

What is the topic anyway?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I think it was about how to secure XP and make it run better ...


----------



## Shelly6 (Aug 5, 2005)

Gonna be here a while then.


----------



## gyrgrls (Nov 22, 2004)

AcaCandy said:


> I actually have 5231 pairs of shoes
> 
> 
> Davec said:
> ...


That was mean, Dave!   

On a positive note:
That many pairs of shoes ought to lead up to a great pair of legs.
But I digress.


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

v1.2.7

Optimization Myths - Disabling the Pagefile Added
Optimization Myths - Registry Cleaners Added
Security Myths - Limited User Accounts Added


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

v1.2.8

Optimization Myths - Disabling System Restore
Optimization Myths - Moving the Pagefile
Optimization Myths - Windows 95/98/ME vs XP Reliability


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

I have seen a copy of XP lite, BUT and a big BUT it is not a Microsoft Product, it is Warez and therefore cannot be discussed in this forum, But all the features mentioned here are available with it (install options) End of story before I get admonished LOL (as if I care, been there done that and I am still alive)


----------



## Mastertech (Dec 11, 2004)

What does XP Lite have to do with Myths?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I thought XP lite was legal.

http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I would guess that XP-Lite is legal, just looking around the website. I couldn't find any FAQ that addressed that specific issue.


----------



## imjerry (Oct 12, 2005)

It does infringe on some of Microsoft Copyrights, the reason this entered the thread is I think before there were complaints about not being able to configure XP to eliminate some of the extra bloats!!! But to some of us, if we need any of those bloated services etc. and we couldn't get them, we sure would raise hell!! I use a few of the services that are removable !!!


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I have no real opinion on the legality of the product, since I couldn't find anything on the website to say yes or no.


----------

