# Windows XP or Windows 7?



## Deval (Nov 10, 2011)

I have a Dell Dimension (Inspiron) 530 with a 2.4 GHz Intel Pentium E2160 and 3 GB or ram. It's time to reinstall Windows. It came with Vista, but I am thinking XP or 7.

The catch? I have a $2000 film scanner that has an XP driver that will NOT run on Vista.

Should I try 7 or go back to XP?


----------



## gijjarg (Nov 10, 2011)

Run their archaic software on compatibility mode or through VMware.Installing windows XP on a computer today is comical.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Nov 10, 2011)

Compatibility mode should work.

But then again, vista is a joke. You're better off with either XP or 7 (Trust me, I had vista runnin on my laptop, 7 -Is- better than vista)

Still got XP running on my desktop, works like a charm, so I'd say it's just a matter of personal preference. As long at it ain't vista.


----------



## ZerX (Nov 10, 2011)

The solution is quite simple. partition your hard disk, make 2 partitions and install windows xp first on a partition, then install windows 7 on the other partition. after you install Windows 7 a boot menu will apper every time you boot and you can choose to boot into windows xp or windows 7.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2011)

There's only one problem with going with XP: You might not be able to find any drivers for it. Vista drivers won't work half the time (video, audio and printer drivers in particular), and you're going to have a hell of a time tracking down something compatible.  Go with 7. It'll run better than Vista does, and it'll very likely support all of your hardware.


----------



## ZerX (Nov 10, 2011)

you can always check if your software or hardware is compatible with windows 7. Here's microsoft's windows 7 compatibility website: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/default.aspx
just type in your model and it will tell you if it's supported on windows 7 or not.


----------



## DW_ (Nov 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Compatibility mode should work.
> 
> But then again, vista is a joke. You're better off with either XP or 7 (Trust me, I had vista runnin on my laptop, 7 -Is- better than vista)
> 
> Still got XP running on my desktop, works like a charm, so I'd say it's just a matter of personal preference. As long at it ain't vista.



Vista is like the Antichrist of Windows versions.


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 10, 2011)

windows 98 man


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2011)

7.


----------



## DW_ (Nov 10, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> windows 98 man



FUCKING WINDOWS 98. :V



Clayton said:


> 7.



I would press the This button if it fucking worked.


----------



## ZerX (Nov 10, 2011)

For the people who use windows 7 and think they are using something revolutionary I have to disappoint you:
Ballmer also noted that Windows 7 will improve the operating system shell. *â€œWindows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better,â€*  he said, noting cleanness of user interface. Is this fit and finish  improvement? Gartner analysts kept referring to Windows 7 as a release  candidate 2.

"[Windows 7], it's Windows Vista, a lot better," said Ballmer during a  45-minute question-and-answer session hosted by a pair of Gartner Inc. analysts at the research firm's annual Symposium ITxpo in Orlando today. The interview was later posted as a webcast on the Gartner site.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2011)

Well one consideration is how much RAM you may want to put in. I know you said you currently have 3gb of ram, but if you are able to upgrade to more and you may want to, then you should go with 64bit W7.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 10, 2011)

You can always check to see if there are drivers available to download for your scanner that run on Win7.   I would go with 7 if you already have it.  Considering that Microsoft is already working on Win8 and has said that they will no longer be providing security updates for XP in the very near future, that could prove to be a huge problem for you in the future if something should happen to XP on your computer.

Or you could install Linux and bypass this whole driver issue entirely if your not using your system for games :3


----------



## DW_ (Nov 10, 2011)

ZerX said:


> For the people who use windows 7 and think they are using something revolutionary I have to disappoint you:
> Ballmer also noted that Windows 7 will improve the operating system shell. *â€œWindows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better,â€*  he said, noting cleanness of user interface. Is this fit and finish  improvement? Gartner analysts kept referring to Windows 7 as a release  candidate 2.
> 
> "[Windows 7], it's Windows Vista, a lot better," said Ballmer during a  45-minute question-and-answer session hosted by a pair of Gartner Inc. analysts at the research firm's annual Symposium ITxpo in Orlando today. The interview was later posted as a webcast on the Gartner site.



Hate to burst your bubble, but Ballmer didn't lie. Vista fucking sucks, 7 runs circles around it. I don't think any real computer user expected 7 to be revolutionary at all, because it's fucking _Microsoft_ we're talking about here. Last "revolutionary" thing they did was VS IMO.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 10, 2011)

If you can find a compatible enough Windows 7 driver for your $2000 peripheral, then Windows 7 is the better of the two options.  The driving force changes from compatibility to support if so, because Windows XP now has fewer than 900 days of support left.  Also, Windows 7 really is (for the most part) what Windows Vista should've been.

However, if you can't find a compatible Windows 7 driver, then it doesn't make any sense to upgrade the OS just because the current one won't be supported anymore.  For example, there are still people using Video Toaster suites centered on the Amiga 2000 despite being over 15 years out of support because they were expensive and they still work.  While I doubt your situation is as extreme as this, you shouldn't abandon your working Windows XP driver for your expensive peripheral if it still works and does what you want it to do.  It's just that, once XP goes out of support, you'll have to take special care with how it connects to the Internet or your LAN.

You're looking at an expense either way: One is new but a gamble, and the other is supported but old.  If you choose Windows XP, then you'll need to create a full reinstallation set (and it wouldn't hurt to have two copies of the set) containing all your Dell drivers downloaded from support.dell.com, XP SP3 (if it doesn't come slipstreamed), and a disk with all the updates released since SP3 made with something like WSUS Offline Update.  If you choose Windows 7, and if it works, then you may want to do something similar just for peace of mind.

Just make sure your decision isn't based entirely on the fleeting "coolness" factor.


----------



## Aden (Nov 10, 2011)

If it came to it, would running XP inside a VM work for this, or am I way off the mark here?


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 10, 2011)

Aden said:


> If it came to it, would running XP inside a VM work for this, or am I way off the mark here?



There is the Windows XP dealie that can be downloaded for Windows 7, but it only runs on Pro or Ultimate editions, not on Home Premium.

Also, a third-party VM would need the OS disk and key, as well as full emulated pass-through of the relevant ports.  I'm under the impression that he doesn't have XP, only considering it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 10, 2011)

Rather than repeat a lot of good points already made, let me suggest one additional thing - get a friend or co-worker to lend you a Windows 7 system and see if the Scanner works on it.  Then you'll know.  If Win7 is okay, then go with that over XP.

Another alternative is actually to see if an alternate OS supports it - you could actually find that the device is fully supported under Linux or Unix, in which case you can sidestep having to use Windows altogether.


----------



## ZerX (Nov 10, 2011)

He can legally download a trial of Windows 7 Enterprise from here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/cc442495
just select that you are a IT worker and need to test stuff on it or they won't let you download a trial.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 10, 2011)

Windows 7, It is completely worth it.


----------



## AshFox (Nov 10, 2011)

Windows 7 is what I use and Have not had any issues with it


----------



## CerbrusNL (Nov 10, 2011)

Runefox said:


> There's only one problem with going with XP: You might not be able to find any drivers for it.


That's total and utter nonsense.
Only the absolutely newest games can't run on XP (eg: Battlefield 3), for the rest, -every- game / app can run on it, and there's drivers for every piece of hardware.
If the person who made the hard / software had any common sense, that is.
Seriously, if you have trouble running any hard/software on XP, you might want to consider buying decent stuff instead.


----------



## Elim Garak (Nov 10, 2011)

I would recommend Windows 7, XP has no advantages over Windows 7 except it needing less resources.
Windows 7 supports more recent games, recent programs and such, especially Microsoft products like IE9, Windows live essentials and such.
Oh and you can run most software in VMWare/VirtualBox and forward the usb connection to the VM.


----------



## VazDrae (Nov 10, 2011)

Windows 7 defiantly... many new apps from Microsoft don't even support XP anymore. Windows 7 just seems to run smoother, and it runs games better. I don't know if you'll be doing any of that, but looking at the specs of that system Windows 7 should be perfect.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> That's total and utter nonsense.
> Only the absolutely newest games can't run on XP (eg: Battlefield 3), for the rest, -every- game / app can run on it, and there's drivers for every piece of hardware.
> If the person who made the hard / software had any common sense, that is.
> Seriously, if you have trouble running any hard/software on XP, you might want to consider buying decent stuff instead.



Uhh... What? I didn't say anything about software. What I'm talking about is hardware drivers. Particularly chipset drivers, audio drivers (these are a BITCH), wireless/network drivers, and all those other things that stopped getting made for Windows XP when OEM's moved to Vista, and are not backwards compatible. If you buy (NOT build) a new PC now, you'd better believe you'll have a shitty time trying to track down the drivers for your hardware on Windows XP. NVidia and AMD video cards? Sure, they're great, they support XP. All those OEM bits? Not so much. In this case, OP is lucky; Dell has drivers for it in XP. If it were any newer, he'd be in for a fun ride digging through DriverGuide.


----------



## Ames (Nov 11, 2011)

Windows 7 has its little slightly annoying quirks and bugs here and there, but I can't say that I'm unhappy with it.  It's pretty amazing.

XP was my favorite operating system, but it's really starting to age fast.


----------



## Elim Garak (Nov 11, 2011)

Runefox said:


> Uhh... What? I didn't say anything about software. What I'm talking about is hardware drivers. Particularly chipset drivers, audio drivers (these are a BITCH), wireless/network drivers, and all those other things that stopped getting made for Windows XP when OEM's moved to Vista, and are not backwards compatible. If you buy (NOT build) a new PC now, you'd better believe you'll have a shitty time trying to track down the drivers for your hardware on Windows XP. NVidia and AMD video cards? Sure, they're great, they support XP. All those OEM bits? Not so much. In this case, OP is lucky; Dell has drivers for it in XP. If it were any newer, he'd be in for a fun ride digging through DriverGuide.



I never had an issue with that, I used to install new pcs with XP for a long while.
They haven't dropped XP driver support yet due business use of it.
However, I have had issues finding drivers for all kinds for XP/VISTA/Windows 7 even if the PC came with it due obscure crap being in there like crappy Medion branded video capture cards or some modes and such, I found them in the end though.
Used to be a PC Technician and eventually moving over to Network administrator for small business in a store for 3 years.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 11, 2011)

Caroline Dax said:


> I never had an issue with that, I used to install new pcs with XP for a long while.
> They haven't dropped XP driver support yet due business use of it.


You've NEVER had an issue with a computer vendor not supporting XP? Never? You've never had to go track down each component's drivers because the manufacturer-provided drivers are only for the OS that the PC shipped with?

Hell, I ran into that shit back when Vista first dropped. I don't have any idea what kinds of computers you've been working with, but if you buy an HP, Dell, or really any brand-name PC off the shelf, you're going to have to track down drivers for XP. Here's one right off the cuff. Just chose one at random on Dell's website. Win7 only. You've never encountered this?


----------



## Elim Garak (Nov 11, 2011)

Oh if you are solely going to rely on prebuild sites.
I have had issues with finding dell/hp/acer/packard bell drivers for the SAME OS and the SAME edition (Vista 32bit/ XP 32bit/ Windows 7 x64) the pc originally came with.
OEM sites are terrible and incomplete, sure the basic things are there but try finding modem drivers on an OEM site for a 2005 laptop that came with XP.
However, I solved most of those by putting driver packs in unattented XP installs.
If its not in the driver packs then I just google the hardware ID and find a download or use a driver tool to find it(last resort).

Basically, Do not trust OEM sites, they are incomplete and contain older versions.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 14, 2011)

I have exactly the same situation.  I have an old but good film scanner that only has XP drivers.

If you have Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate, you can download "Windows XP Mode," which will let you run an XP system in a virtual pc window with full access to the USB ports.  I just map the scanner to the virtual pc and scan with the virtual XP machine.

Virtualbox will work too, but you will need an Microsoft XP activation code.  "Windows XP Mode" is automatically licensed if you have Win 7 Pro or Ultimate.


----------



## Kitoth (Nov 29, 2011)

Heh i know what you mean, I Pre-ordered Battlefield 3 and had Xp. Luckily my dad bought a family Windows 7 pack So I finally switched to win 7 64-bit and despite a few things i need to learn to how to do, it runs a lot better and using my full ram... To bad the game though has so many issues still.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 29, 2011)

Your system won't get any additional benefit out of using Windows 7.  If you already have an XP install disc, and don't have any plans for the machine beyond internet, MS Office, and older games, I suppose there's no reason for you _not_ to try XP first.  Just as long as you're willing to accept the risk of driver headaches as outlined in the thread so far and possibly having to reinstall again to 7 anyways.

my netbook still runs XP


----------



## Ricky (Nov 29, 2011)

I liked XP better.


----------



## Aidy (Nov 29, 2011)

Neither, get a Mac.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 29, 2011)

Also, I don't think it's been said, but if you do install 7, get the 64-bit version.  There's literally no reason to run 32-bit Windows where 64-bit is an option (and if you do have a reason, just stick with XP).


----------



## Leafblower29 (Nov 29, 2011)

Windows 7


----------



## greg-the-fox (Dec 3, 2011)

I don't see why people still insist on using an OS that's 10 years old... can you really not move on?

I personally think Windows 7 is pretty cool, and this is coming from a total MacFag. I think XP is a flaming pile of shit and I would never even TOUCH Vista, but 7? Not bad Microsoft, not bad. I'll be getting it myself actually.


----------



## VoidBat (Dec 4, 2011)

Windows 7 64-bit.
XP is a veteran, but it will soon be retired.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 4, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I don't see why people still insist on using an OS that's 10 years old... can you really not move on?


Because newer is always better, right?
There are loads of reasons I still have XP on my desktop:
- Ultra Light.
- -NO- permissions hassle. (Even with UAC off, permissions in program files is a bitch on Vista / 7, for example.)
- It can be customized from here 'till Tokyo
- No compatibility issues (Software) (Well, only BF3, compared to numerous programmes I tried to install on my 7 notebook)
- No bloatware (Or easily removed, permissions again)
- No permission request when starting certain .exe's. Stfu, I know what I' doing!
- Did I mention permission nags?
- I happen to legally own it, on CD. Easier to re-install than having to obtain the software (7) via my study.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 5, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I don't see why people still insist on using an OS that's 10 years old... can you really not move on?
> 
> I personally think Windows 7 is pretty cool, and this is coming from a total MacFag. I think XP is a flaming pile of shit and I would never even TOUCH Vista, but 7? Not bad Microsoft, not bad. I'll be getting it myself actually.



Because a lot of people don't feel that OS is broken, even if 10 years old. Yes there will be some that need to move on as technology progresses and we get more programs for 64 bit support but I'll tell you one thing.

Windows 7 is a god damn bitch with that Tablet PC bullshit they installed. It interferes with my Intuos4 - causes me to loose pressure sensitivity among other things. I have to disable it.
Not only that, if you disable it, it has been known to cause Silverlight to crash which if you use Netflix makes the Tablet PC service an even bigger pain in the ass.
Even though I've told the Tablet PC service to be manual it likes to enable itself when I unplug my intuos and plug it back in (Which I do often because it's a large and I move it about and not always have it in use). 

I had to drag the Services component to my task bar because of this, so I'm not going through a ton of different  dialogs to access the services panel. Even then it's still a pain.

That doesn't mean I hate Windows7.


----------



## Tao (Dec 7, 2011)

Fair warning, playing video games on Windows 7 with an NVidia graphics card has been known to brick computers. In general, XP has less problems than 7


----------



## Lobar (Dec 7, 2011)

Tao said:


> Fair warning, playing video games on Windows 7 with an NVidia graphics card has been known to brick computers. In general, XP has less problems than 7



Huh?

When a machine is "bricked", either the firmware (BIOS) is fucked or there's been a major hardware failure.  There's simply no way the entire product line of one side of the Coke/Pepsi GPU market is routinely experiencing problems like that just from being used with what's really the only real gaming OS in existence right now.  Not only can I not think of a way it could cause such a catastrophic issue, and that we would absolutely have heard about it before now, they'd likely no longer even be in business.

I googled for this and all I found was some guy that had a black screen after installing Metro 2033 last year.


----------



## Elim Garak (Dec 7, 2011)

Tao said:


> Fair warning, playing video games on Windows 7 with an NVidia graphics card has been known to brick computers. In general, XP has less problems than 7


Nope not true.
UNLESS you are referring to the fact that Nvidia fucked up the drivers once and recalled them. The drivers caused the fans to not work properly and thus burning the cards to death.
If something goes wrong the hardware is actually to blaim.
I have sold about a hunderd windows 7 based gaming machines and only one failed due bad memory and another one due a harddrive with corrupt sectors.
It's like people who blaim most blue screens on OH ITS A WINDOWS ISSUE AND ITS TOTALLY NOT MY 10 YEAR OLD HARDWARE FAILING OR MY PORNO VIRUS THAT TRIES TO LOAD A FAILING ROOTKIT DRIVER.
I worked at a PC shop for a long while, doing sales and support for consumers and businesses.


----------



## Lunar (Dec 7, 2011)

Windows 7 ftw.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 7, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Windows 7 ftw.


I'd appreciate it if you'd put some more effort into posts, lunar.

Imagine a thread with 50 people all just saying "<OS> ftw."
Boring shit.

[/srsmode]


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 7, 2011)

Tao said:


> Fair warning, playing video games on Windows 7 with an NVidia graphics card has been known to brick computers. In general, XP has less problems than 7



*needs citation*


----------



## ZerX (Dec 7, 2011)

It makes me sad when ppl want me to install them XP on a completely new laptop. Oh well if they want to use outdated oses it's fine by me. I don't bother explaining to ppl that newer hardware works better/is optimized for newer oses.
I used XP for 3 years, vista 3,5 years, win 7 1,5 years. vista ran fine after SP1 and I liked it (was a bit slow on my notebook but that was to be expected as it had a 5400rpm hdd). I will never forget windows 2000. After I tried 2k in 2000 I never again used win 98 (pile of shit OS).


----------



## Hir (Dec 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Because newer is always better, right?
> There are loads of reasons I still have XP on my desktop:
> - Ultra Light.


can't 100% guarantee this is true but when i used windows 7 basic i found it to be just as light as xp.


CerbrusNL said:


> Because newer is always better, right?
> There are loads of reasons I still have XP on my desktop:
> - -NO- permissions hassle. (Even with UAC off, permissions in program files is a bitch on Vista / 7, for example.)
> - No bloatware (Or easily removed, permissions again)
> ...


turning off uac takes those issues away. and if it doesn't, couldn't you just take ownership of your main drive? or just use right click / run as administrator.

but yes, i do agree that xp is still relevant and there are reasons for using it.


Tao said:


> Fair warning, playing video games on Windows 7 with an NVidia graphics card has been known to brick computers. In general, XP has less problems than 7



...that's an absolutely ridiculous claim


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2011)

DarkNoctus said:


> can't 100% guarantee this is true but when i used windows 7 basic i found it to be just as light as xp.


It's close, but not there yet. 



DarkNoctus said:


> turning off uac takes those issues away. and if it doesn't, couldn't you just take ownership of your main drive? or just use right click / run as administrator.


Nope, it doesn't.
Turning UAC off has no effect on the permissions issues on program files, nor the "Are you sure you want this program to do X" pop-ups, or the popups asking me if I want to run downloaded stuff.

The point is that I shouldn't have to take ownership of my program files, in the first place. If I run a .exe, I'm pretty darn sure I -want- to run it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be double-clicking it, would I?

At least there's still regedit in win7.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> The point is that I shouldn't have to take ownership of my program files, in the first place. If I run a .exe, I'm pretty darn sure I -want- to run it. Otherwise, I wouldn't be double-clicking it, would I?


... Okaaaaaay. And that browser exploit that automatically runs an executable that accesses system files, that infected autorun.inf that automatically spreads an infected USB drive's malware, and so on and so forth, you want to run all that, too, right?

This is pretty much why OS X requires admin privileges to hit up system functions, and why *NIX uses su / sudo to perform admin tasks, and why nobody in either example is ever a "system administrator" by default. UAC tries to implement this in Windows. Obviously, it doesn't do it in a very unobtrusive way. The reason? Not until recently did such ideology even exist on the Windows platform. What Microsoft really needs to do to properly implement this is break backwards compatibility with older versions of Windows altogether by completely reworking NT authentication and NTFS permissions and the way they're handled, but doing that would only further solidify the "don't ever upgrade for any reason" mindset, and furthermore fuck over server environments. That's something Apple didn't have to worry about when they jumped from OS 9 to the very different OS X.

I like how there's a bunch of people saying there's nothing wrong with Windows XP and that there is no reason to move on. For one, unless you're running 64-bit (unlikely, not recommended anyway since driver support sucks), you're limiting yourself to 3.5GB of RAM. XP also doesn't do DX10/11 (nor will it ever, and nor will it support future versions (wouldn't be a problem if more devs supported OpenGL, but herp derp console ports)), it has a much worse sound system that makes it much harder to use multiple devices (say, internal sound card + HDMI + USB headset), printers and scanners have far better native support in Windows 7 (newer ones, anyway), XP doesn't natively support AHCI (pre-SP3), and there's more that I can't be bothered to list. Really, if your computer has 4GB of RAM or more, there is absolutely no reason to be running XP anyway, except maybe in a VM, not to mention that 7 manages memory better than XP, particularly when you consider SuperFetch.

XP is "lighter", yeah, but modern PC's won't even notice. Remember, Windows XP was once thought of as a massive resource hog, too, and people were saying the same things about Windows 9x (myself included). It too had major advantages over Win9x, including better memory management (particularly for >128MB), better drivers, a better sound system, and so on. Mostly the stability gained over no longer relying on DOS was the biggest push forward.

In many ways, this discussion looks exactly the same as what people were saying a decade ago. Hurr, also, Windows XP = Windows Fisher-Price. :V Remember that?


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2011)

Browser exploits are kindof irrelevant if you have a guy running the PC that somewhat knows what he's doing. (AKA common sense + antivir).
Same counts for the AHCI, anyone with a grain of common sense should have updated their XP machine to SP3. Heck, it's doing that on it's own, iirc.

Now, RAM doesn't bother me, here, since I don't have that much, any way.
DX10+ is a shame, but not a requirement for any game, I know of. (As in, games still run on 9).

I do believe you in regard to the sound systems comment, but most XP machines don't have a HDMI port, though. (Older hardware)

What I'm mostly trying to say, is:
If you have XP running on a PC, why bother re-installing a new OS?
XP ain't that bad, and 7 ain't that good. (Shame on anyone that'd consider Vista)


----------



## Runefox (Dec 10, 2011)

Okay, yeah, I thought the topic was still on the question of installing XP on a new machine. Upgrading from XP on an old machine to 7 is pretty futile, yes.


----------



## Hir (Dec 10, 2011)

i think taking ownership of a drive that takes a minute or two (correct me if i'm wrong on that, i've never needed to do it) isn't a bad swap-out for better security, imo. but opinions are opinions, i'm just saying that there are ways around all of the issues you have with 7.

but i do agree that unless you have a genuine reason to upgrade to 7 then i wouldn't bother if your machine is doing fine on xp.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2011)

Wasn't it?

Did the OP actually mention what kinda hardware he has? [/toolazytocheck]


----------



## Hir (Dec 10, 2011)

"2.4 GHz Intel Pentium E2160 and 3 GB or ram" is as much as we're getting.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> At least there's still regedit in win7.


 
 Yeah, but no telnet client installed by default -- wtf?

 I wonder if they took ftp out, too.  They ruined the whole CLI



Runefox said:


> ... Okaaaaaay. And that browser  exploit that automatically runs an executable that accesses system  files



That shouldn't be able to happen in the first place though, by  design.  That probably has to do more with a bug than with access control.

If some API has a buffer overflow in it  for example, it could allow execution of arbitrary code.

It obviously isn't checking for viruses; I'm assuming an interceptor is checking for privileged actions or something. Since Windows is such a monolithic beast that the people in Microsoft don't fully understand it I'm not confident this is a panacea or that the benefit even outweighs all the ANNOYING FRIGGIN POPUPS that result from it.  From what I have heard around the office though, less infected PC's are turning up now with Windows 7 so hey -- maybe Microsoft *is* actually getting on top of this stuff for once.



CerbrusNL said:


> Browser exploits are kindof irrelevant if you have a guy running the PC that somewhat knows what he's doing. (AKA common sense + antivir).



"Browser exploits" is kind of a general term but I'm not sure I'd agree with that. You could have a buffer overflow or even a simple bug in the logic that won't always be apparent, even to an experienced user. If someone downloads and runs imnotavirus.jpg.exe then yeah -- the person is probably an idiot. Still, *even that* could be prevented and end users SHOULD NOT have to be concerned about security doing normal things on their PC.

If you mean browser exploits for web applications, well that's another beast.

People shouldn't even need to use antivirus software, anyway. There will always be security holes since there will always be bugs but most of the ones we come across would be non-issues or at least drastically reduced in scope if there was a better sandbox security model in place.

I'm not sure that's even possible with Windows at this point.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 10, 2011)

Ricky said:


> I wonder if they took ftp out, too.


Nah, that's still embedded into explorer. I use it to access my FA webspace.



Ricky said:


> If someone downloads and runs imnotavirus.jpg.exe then yeah -- the person is probably an idiot. Still, *even that* could be prevented and end users SHOULD NOT have to be concerned about security doing normal things on their PC.


 ^ I was mostly talking about stuff like that. A OS shouldn't force us to reconsider running any application, by default. Annoying :/


----------



## Bobskunk (Dec 10, 2011)

There's still an ftp console command.  Open, get, put.

Telnet was taken out because, surprise!  Nobody should be using telnet.  Ever.  Windows will never have a native, bundled ssh client, either, so it's no big loss.  The use cases for telnet are much different with the changed nature of security and internet use: if you need telnet, that's a legacy case and you're not prevented from getting a client like Putty.  Similarly, Windows uses SSH for nothing, and for various reasons (BSD license perhaps, the fact that there are several available and with a much better featureset than whatever barebones one Windows would have) they wouldn't waste their time making it.

Anyway Windows 7 is much better as long as you're not running a K6-II or PIII.  That E2xx and 3GB is better than two of the machines I have running 7, and they have absolutely no problems whatsoever.

As for Vista, it's irrelevant.  Hell, half the problems with Vista were due to drivers and hardware vendors being bad and lazy.  That eventually ironed itself out, and Windows 7 had the added bonus of being compatible with Vista drivers in the meantime, as opposed to Vista which had no older, compatible base of drivers.  Still had loads of other design/UI problems in any case.  Vista was a flop of readiness and marketing, and as bad as it was, its design in no way compares to Windows Me.  Especially with things like the new Start menu it introduced.  Using an XP system now is totally aggravating, haha.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Telnet was taken out because, surprise!  Nobody should be using telnet.  Ever.



Wait, what?  Lots and lots of people use telnet.  Trust me.

Since you say any use cases are "obsolete" I'm guessing you are talking about using it to connect to telnetd (which most people don't use, at least externally). It's not obsolete for troubleshooting internal networks and testing environments (which often don't use SSH because why bother) or any system that uses a text-based network protocol. Maybe you just want to see if a specific port is open.  Maybe you want to test a SMTP server or I don't know...  Issue a SHUTDOWN command to Tomcat? (it even says to use telnet in the reference material).  There are many more cases where people would use telnet.

Trust me.  Many people still use telnet in lots and lots of places.



> The use cases for telnet are much different with the changed nature of security and internet use: if you need telnet, that's a legacy case and you're not prevented from getting a client like Putty.



What "legacy case" are you talking about? It's a very basic troubleshooting tool for issuing text commands over a network.

And yes, I know I can download things. That's not the point.

It's a standard tool that's been around for fuck...  I don't even remember because it's always fucking been there!  Until Microsoft scrapped the thing (actually someone told me you could dl it from their site).



> Similarly, Windows uses SSH for nothing, and for various reasons (BSD license perhaps, the fact that there are several available and with a much better featureset than whatever barebones one Windows would have) they wouldn't waste their time making it.



SSH is an open protocol.


----------



## Hir (Dec 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> ^ I was mostly talking about stuff like that. A OS shouldn't force us to reconsider running any application, by default. Annoying :/


it's what they had to do to make sure people didn't screw up their pc's and cost them a fortune in "repairs". i think windows 7 is the best balance between being powerful enough for the experienced user and user-friendly enough for the idiot.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 10, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> ^ I was mostly talking about stuff like that. A OS shouldn't force us to reconsider running any application, by default. Annoying :/


OS X and most flavours of desktop Linux do this, too, though, particularly for applications downloaded from the internet. Thing is, they tend to be less verbose about it.


----------



## DW_ (Dec 10, 2011)

Runefox said:


> OS X and most flavours of desktop Linux do this, too, though, particularly for applications downloaded from the internet. Thing is, they tend to be less verbose about it.


Don't even get me started on desktop Linux. To install the equivalent of Vegas I would have had to completely butcher Ubuntu. Fuck you, package dependencies that fuck with core system stuff.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 11, 2011)

TheDW said:


> Don't even get me started on desktop Linux. To install the equivalent of Vegas I would have had to completely butcher Ubuntu. Fuck you, package dependencies that fuck with core system stuff.


You would have LOVED to do that on Redhat.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 11, 2011)

TheDW said:


> Don't even get me started on desktop Linux. To install the equivalent of Vegas I would have had to completely butcher Ubuntu. Fuck you, package dependencies that fuck with core system stuff.



It wasn't written for Linux, for one thing...

There's Wine but I've never heard good things about it.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 11, 2011)

Ricky said:


> There's Wine but I've never heard good things about it.


There are some applications that work beautifully in Wine... Paint Shop Pro, for example, runs pretty much just as well as it does under Windows, except with a slightly uglier interface thanks to Wine's lackluster theming engine. Vegas... I can't imagine. That said, there are alternatives, and the same runs true for pretty much every kind of application you can think of.

Ugh, I have to stop myself from saying "app" now because it's become such a quintessentially "mini program" term rather than just short for application. Dammit, Apple, first it was webcast/netcast -> podcast, then someone started calling journals blogs (probably also Apple's fault) and now this. Stop ruining everything for everyone with your psychotic lexicon.

EDIT: Found another one. :V AFEDFGB@!)TGb2bqgasfg


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 11, 2011)

Ricky said:


> It wasn't written for Linux, for one thing...
> 
> There's Wine but I've never heard good things about it.



Wine is okay.  Its real problem is that it has to emulate an API which has a lot of critical parts left undocumented or hidden, resulting in crashes or strange behavior from programs using those calls.


----------



## Elim Garak (Dec 11, 2011)

Battlefield 3 and just cause 2 requires atleast DX10(all I can think of right now).Using telnet is outdated, when I did my job I used putty for telnet for Cisco and other device configuration, even the XP pcs.All other applications that have other possibities for connections then telenet we used SSH or other secure connections. Even internal.Oh and its easy to readd telnet, just go to the add/remove windows component panel and there you can install a telnet client or even a server.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 14, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Wait, what?  Lots and lots of people use telnet.  Trust me.
> 
> Since you say any use cases are "obsolete" I'm guessing you are talking about using it to connect to telnetd (which most people don't use, at least externally). It's not obsolete for troubleshooting internal networks and testing environments (which often don't use SSH because why bother) or any system that uses a text-based network protocol. Maybe you just want to see if a specific port is open.  Maybe you want to test a SMTP server or I don't know...  Issue a SHUTDOWN command to Tomcat? (it even says to use telnet in the reference material).  There are many more cases where people would use telnet.
> 
> ...



I used something called rlogin. You've probably never heard of it. :V

And you're making it sound like telnet has forever vanished from 7. Yes, it's not on by default, but it's a fucking hop skip and jump on over to Control Panel's Add Remove features and clicking a fucking checkbox.

NOT TO MENTION that you can do this via...gasp, the CLI!


```
dism /online /Enable-Feature /FeatureName:TelnetClient
```

You can EVEN do this for your unattended images, so it'll never be a problem ever again.

My point: It's not like they completely fucked you over for telnet. The process to enable it again is not worth the whining about it not being on by default. Put that bitch in your offline images and suck it up.



TheDW said:


> Don't even get me started on desktop Linux. To  install the equivalent of Vegas I would have had to completely butcher  Ubuntu. Fuck you, package dependencies that fuck with core system  stuff.



Don't update either. Lest you want to chance staring at a GRUB prompt.

And dear god, do NOT fuck with Ubuntu's meta packages or anything relating to gnome.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Dec 14, 2011)

Windows 7. All the way. Screw mac users.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 14, 2011)

Topic: "Windows XP or Windows 7?"

Response: 





Dragonfurry said:


> Windows 7. All the way. Screw mac users.



:V wut


----------



## zachery980 (Dec 14, 2011)

XP all the way. she may be old but, she has drivers for every thing. :3


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 14, 2011)

ITT: People whose attention spans allow them only to read a thread tite. (re the last couple of replies)


----------



## Ricky (Dec 14, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> My point: It's not like they completely fucked you over for telnet. The process to enable it again is not worth the whining about it not being on by default. Put that bitch in your offline images and suck it up.



You're missing the point.  What if I'm not on my own computer?

It should be there.

Why did they take it out (by default) in the first place?  It's not a big app; did they want to save the space?


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 14, 2011)

Ricky said:


> You're missing the point.  What if I'm not on my own computer?
> 
> It should be there.
> 
> Why did they take it out (by default) in the first place?  It's not a big app; did they want to save the space?



And my point went completely sailing over your head.

_Who the fuck cares?_

Q: _What if I'm not on my own computer?_

Elevated command prompt -> dism /online /enablefeature:telnet-client -> Problem solved.

If you can't get elevated? Go download PuTTY. If you don't have internet? Well, you're fucked, and shame on you for not caring around a portable apps USB stick.

Yeah, I found it annoying for approx. five minutes the first time, but I got it installed and said "WHELP, That's done."

You're whining about an obscure program that serves an even more obtuse function in a modern operating system.

The only time I've used telnet seriously is to debug the SMTP protocol. That's it. But Windows isn't catered to me. Or to you. It's catered to the masses. And the masses _don't use telnet_. So why have it on?

You tell me: What *benefit* would there be for Ma Bell and Pa Sir, Grandma and Grandpa, etc to have a telnet client on their computer? From the broader picture of things, it just doesn't make sense. Microsoft decided to disable it and deal with a few angry folks who couldn't be arsed to turn it on.

This is almost inane as arguing why the simple network utilities (daytime, etc) are turned off by default. At the end of the day, there just isn't enough demand for it to be on automagically from Microsoft. Suck it up, move on with life.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 14, 2011)

Ricky said:


> Why did they take it out (by default) in the first place?  It's not a big app; did they want to save the space?


It's not a big app, but retiring it (to the extent they have, anyway) means they no longer have to bother actively supporting such an ancient application whose usage is largely regarded to be niche at best. SSH, Terminal Services/RDP, and other remote desktop protocols have almost entirely replaced it, largely because of ease of use and most importantly, security (of which telnet offers none).

The fact that it still exists at all is something you should be thankful for, not something you should be bitching about. This is tantamount to bitching about the lack of serial ports built into modern PC's, and for the same reasons - It's become vestigial. Lost to time and evolution. It's served its purpose. Move on. If you administer Telnet servers, switch over to SSH already. If you must use Telnet for anything relatively important, if I were you, I'd do it via an SSH tunnel to the same box or a box on the same network. Either way, there's no reason to use a straight Telnet connection.

As for other use cases (checking if ports are open, connecting to a (blank) server), once again, PuTTY is a better, far more flexible way to go for a raw connection. Telnet isn't even meant for this kind of usage, anyway. There are far better network diagnostic tools out there, like netcat, Wireshark, nmap, iperf... If you're coming into a foreign environment to do network testing, surely you've come prepared with more than Telnet.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 15, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> Q: _What if I'm not on my own computer?_
> 
> Elevated command prompt -> dism /online /enablefeature:telnet-client -> Problem solved.
> 
> If you can't get elevated? Go download PuTTY. If you don't have internet? Well, you're fucked, and shame on you for not caring around a portable apps USB stick.



What if I don't want to?

What if I want to be able to go to a command prompt and type "telnet" and have it JUST FUCKING WORK LIKE IT SHOULD?!?!

I bet if I open up bash on my Linux box here it'll work...  OH HEY!  LOOK, IT DID

I didn't have to install anything either, because Linux isn't a piece of shit.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 15, 2011)

Runefox said:


> It's not a big app, but retiring it (to the extent they have, anyway) means they no longer have to bother actively supporting such an ancient application whose usage is largely regarded to be niche at best. SSH, Terminal Services/RDP, and other remote desktop protocols have almost entirely replaced it, largely because of ease of use and most importantly, security (of which telnet offers none).
> 
> The fact that it still exists at all is something you should be thankful for, not something you should be bitching about. This is tantamount to bitching about the lack of serial ports built into modern PC's, and for the same reasons - It's become vestigial. Lost to time and evolution. It's served its purpose. Move on. If you administer Telnet servers, switch over to SSH already. If you must use Telnet for anything relatively important, if I were you, I'd do it via an SSH tunnel to the same box or a box on the same network. Either way, there's no reason to use a straight Telnet connection.
> 
> As for other use cases (checking if ports are open, connecting to a (blank) server), once again, PuTTY is a better, far more flexible way to go for a raw connection. Telnet isn't even meant for this kind of usage, anyway. There are far better network diagnostic tools out there, like netcat, Wireshark, nmap, iperf... If you're coming into a foreign environment to do network testing, surely you've come prepared with more than Telnet.



^Pretty much this, Ricky.



Ricky said:


> What if I don't want to?
> 
> What if I want to be able to go to a command prompt and type "telnet" and have it JUST FUCKING WORK LIKE IT SHOULD?!?!
> 
> ...



True sysadmins use hyper-terminal.

@OP. Def-Definately Windows 7. Definately. /rainman.


----------



## Hir (Dec 18, 2011)

Dragonfurry said:


> Windows 7. All the way. Screw mac users.


i can understand disliking os x (i do too) but it's kind of irrelevant in this thread

and disliking os x =/= insulting an entire demographic of users that includes a large number of people who just happen to prefer it, so stop being a tool

also favouriting explicit art when you're only 17 is a stupid idea

also i like how you imply mac is the only windows alternative


----------



## Ricky (Dec 18, 2011)

Sai_Wolf said:


> True sysadmins use hyper-terminal.



I'm not a fucking sysadmin (and never want to be).

You're still missing the whole part where it doesn't come wi-

eh, forget it.  No matter what I say you'll find some dumb reason to argue.

They still need to support shit that comes with the OS, whether it's installed by default or not.  So I have no idea what either of you are rambling on about at this point.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 18, 2011)

Well, you've convinced me. Better call Microsoft and tell them that they fucked over the computer industry by removing something as critical and peerless as Telnet. There certainly aren't dozens of other programs out there that do a better job of every task it can be used to do, and certainly everyone's heard of and uses Telnet in their day to day activities.

Seriously, if this is your only reason for liking XP over 7, you have some very odd priorities to say the least. Maybe you should stick to the lucrative world of _web development _if you're done pretending to be a systems administrator. I hear it pays around $250/hour.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 18, 2011)

Ricky said:


> I'm not a fucking sysadmin (and never want to be).
> 
> You're still missing the whole part where it doesn't come wi-
> 
> ...



Is it really that bad that I need to add a :V every time I'm being sarcastic? I mean, _really?_

I argue because your position makes no sense to me. That's all.

And I dunno about you, but I'd use hyper terminal to configure a router any day of the week. Fuck telnet's Oh-you-can't-backspace BULLSHIT.


----------



## ArielMT (Dec 18, 2011)

True sysadmins use whatever gets the job done, period.

Also, I wonder how many people still arguing about 7-or-XP remember the circumstance that framed this thread.

Freed from context, my answer is neither because they're both overhacked, feature-riddled, feature-missing, bloated pieces of crap peddled as world class enterprise-ready software.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 19, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> True sysadmins use whatever gets the job done, period.
> 
> Also, I wonder how many people still arguing about 7-or-XP remember the circumstance that framed this thread.
> 
> Freed from context, my answer is neither because they're both overhacked, feature-riddled, feature-missing, bloated pieces of crap peddled as world class enterprise-ready software.



True sysadmins use whatever gets the job done, regardless of their ideological stances. Nor do they let software become a religion. (Hail Stallman and the mighty toe jam of sustenance!)

Your modern day linux spins aren't much better in terms of feature riddled, over hacked, bloated pieces of crap. Unity on a desktop is depressing (even more so than Windows 8's metro UI). 

And, provided you're willing to roll your sleeves up and get a bit dirty, you can make a very respectable Windows 7 Pro or Enterprise image. Hell, you can make a Windows Forensics edition.


----------



## Bobskunk (Dec 19, 2011)

Honestly it reminds me of a kid who, for some reason, was allowed to work on the computers at my school.  some new desktops came in with XP SP2, he had a shitfit because of the half-open TCP connection limit (which was easily removed, and not relevant to a school) and, well...

Next time I saw those desktops, FCKGW SP1 was installed.  And later, unsurprisingly, were the source of a serious worm outbreak because it was outdated, and could not be updated because he installed that old pirated/blacklisted version- even though the PCs were licensed for XP Pro.  All because of something relatively minor and a correctable NON-ISSUE (ricky you goddamn clownshoe.)  It's like saying "Oh, I use 2000 over XP because I like that it uses Windows Classic by default" or "Oh, I use Win9X and a Voodoo 2 exclusively because a few games run better that way."  Never mind that in the former case, Windows Classic is still an option, and decent virtualization/glide wrappers exist.  I can understand enterprises sticking with the AS/400 system they've run for ages because of the cost and risk of upgrading, but for a stupid little detail like Telnet?  ahaha

Funny Footnote: Said kid also ended up fucking around on the server (admin access) and completely demolished the RAID setup.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Dec 19, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> I can understand enterprises sticking with the AS/400 system they've run for ages because of the cost and risk of upgrading



Actually, it's half and half. It's that or data retention (Governments, etc). 

But, I think this thread's run its course. There's no sign from OP, and we've gone far off topic.


----------



## dietrc70 (Dec 20, 2011)

I think we've reached a consensus.

Forget Windows, or that crummy x86 Unix clone.

Get an AS/400.  You can find them on ebay.  They never crash, seriously, and they have telnet and a cool CL interface.

STRTCPTELN!


----------

