Internet explorer 9 not available for Windows XP

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
I work for a big healthcare insurance company. our work computers still have windows XP on it!

Not mine!

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
As long as websites can be run with IE8. Money's tight with the great recession, I don't want to buy new computer just b/c bill gates says I need to. nothing wrong with IE8 bro!


Of course they can. Most websites that aren't Flash-heavy (like YouTube) still work fine even when viewed with IE6, and that's as old as XP is, about ten years.

I'm really confused as to why you think you need to buy a new computer just because Microsoft released a new version of Internet Explorer. That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
I work for a big healthcare insurance company. our work computers still have windows XP on it!

I work for a large spooky government contractor, and the supported OS and browser there is still Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6. They are still supported by Microsoft, corporate IT has them both figured out and fine-tuned, and they work with just about everything.

Just because Windows 7 and IE9 are new does not mean they are necessarily better for your purposes, and it certainly does not mean that Microsoft is MAKING you do or buy anything.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
I work for a big healthcare insurance company. our work computers still have windows XP on it!

I work for a large spooky government contractor, and the supported OS and browser there is still Windows XP and Internet Explorer 6. They are still supported by Microsoft, corporate IT has them both figured out and fine-tuned, and they work with just about everything.

Just because Windows 7 and IE9 are new does not mean they are necessarily better for your purposes, and it certainly does not mean that Microsoft is MAKING you do or buy anything.

At this point just about anything (including Konqueror, or IceApe or some other linux kludge of a browser) is better than IE6.

Quote:

This version of Internet Explorer is widely derided for its security issues and lack of support for modern web standards, making frequent appearances in "worst tech products of all time" lists...

Unlike most other browsers currently in use, IE6 does not fully nor properly support CSS version 2, which makes it difficult for web developers to ensure compatibility with the browser without degrading the experience for users of more modern browsers.

Additionally, IE6 lacks support for alpha transparency in PNG images, instead removing all transparency and displaying the image with a solid colour background (grey unless defined in a PNG bKGD chunk).

Also in January 2010, Google announced it would no longer support IE6.

Just because people continue to use it doesn't mean it isn't a steaming pile. Does the "spooky contractor" only use it on their intranet for accessing internal web based apps that were written specifically for the standards non-compliant IE6? If so that's understandable. But if they actually allow users to access the Internet with IE6... wow, just wow.

 

[lebrimal]

I still use Xp for only one reason: Dos anytime i got a big problem I can use the Dos console from Boot up and fix it without Microsoft fee. Windows Vista and 7 don't have this.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401

At this point just about anything (including Konqueror, or IceApe or some other linux kludge of a browser) is better than IE6.

True, of course. But my point was that just because an application has been superseded by a newer version does not mean the old one stops working and requires $$$ to have that functionality back. I just don't know where the OP's reasoning comes from.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Scorch
People don't realize that just because XP was great through all of the Vista days, now that 7 is out you are seriously risking security and will soon be very vulnerable to attacks when XP support is gone completely.


Sure, but we're not there yet. I still get monthly updates from Microsoft.

I've had this computer running on XP for 8 years with no anti-virus and I've had no malware. With my music playing and a few tabs open on Firefox, I'm currently using less than 500 MB of my 2.6 GB RAM. I can have a web page open within 35 seconds of hitting the power button from a dead start and everything happens immediately. I'm sure I'll need to upgrade at some point, but not yet.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: lebrimal
I still use Xp for only one reason: Dos anytime i got a big problem I can use the Dos console from Boot up and fix it without Microsoft fee. Windows Vista and 7 don't have this.

True. Though it kind of moot with Win 7 because I've yet seen the avg user run into a problem big enough to drop to console to have to fix things in Win 7 (or for XP for that matter).

 

[OVERKILL]

You can still get a console with a Windows 7 recovery CD.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: rpn453

I've had this computer running on XP for 8 years with no anti-virus and I've had no malware.

You sure about that? How does one know they have no infections without having some sort of av and malware scanner installed?

I still get some minor java exploits/redirects/hijacks despite running a very tight ship with MSE (or avast) and practicing safe browsing.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401
You sure about that? How does one know they have no infections without having some sort of av and malware scanner installed?

I still get some minor java exploits/redirects/hijacks despite running a very tight ship with MSE (or avast) and practicing safe browsing.


Microsoft has never found anything in its monthly scans or in the couple of Windows Live scans I've done.

If I do have a bunch of viruses, I'll take them over using anti-virus. Every computer I've ever used with anti-virus is waaaaaay slower than mine. My computer runs great with only 17 background processes using 126 MB of RAM.

I don't use Java. I don't trust it. It's not even on my computer right now, and when it has been in the past it has remained disabled unless I absolutely needed it.

I rarely download any potentially dangerous files, but when I do I use a remote scanner to check them before use.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: rpn453

Microsoft has never found anything in its monthly scans or in the couple of Windows Live scans I've done.

I assume by monthly scans, you're talking about the malicious software removal tool released monthly by MS. That's not really a scanner in the normal sense.

Quote:
If I do have a bunch of viruses, I'll take them over using anti-virus. Every computer I've ever used with anti-virus is waaaaaay slower than mine. My computer runs great with only 17 background processes using 126 MB of RAM.

Thanks for bringing this point to light. Tells me exactly what kind of mentality I'm dealing with. (Psss! Don't tell anyone but MSE and even Avast have gotten to the point that their resource "drain" has an almost zero impact on performance even if you are running an active scan). I see however you're chasing the holy-grail of process #s and total commit charges.

Quote:
I don't use Java. I don't trust it.

How about flash? There's an awful lot of malware finding its way around with flash these days too.

I'm trying to figure out the security (or lack of) mentality behind not having at a minimum a couple of on-demand scanners handy such as Malwarebytes or Superantispyware, while the same time being just fine with "any viruses I do have" being on a machine doing God knows what (bot-net, stealing personal info, etc etc).

Do yourself a favor and run Malwarebytes at a minimum. Or since you're so paranoid about your precious processes and commit charges, run Hitman Pro 3.5. It doesn't even require installation if you're just going to check for possible infections.

This is what my system looks like and there's no slowdown or difference between running MSE or not.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401
I'm trying to figure out the security (or lack of) mentality behind not having at a minimum a couple of on-demand scanners handy such as Malwarebytes or Superantispyware, while the same time being just fine with "any viruses I do have" being on a machine doing God knows what (bot-net, stealing personal info, etc etc).


I guess it's a few things. For one, I don't like downloading or installing anything but the basics, from trusted sources that I can't do without. I don't personally know anyone who is really into computers - all my buddies are into cars and women - and I don't feel like spending any time researching such a thing. I can reinstall my OS in less time than it would take me to bother with such things. Right now, I wouldn't trust any programs based solely on an internet forum recommendation, and even if I did I wouldn't necessarily trust that the website I'm getting them from is legit. For all I know, some AV program could be the cause of a future virus, and I'd be less likely to notice if I'm used to things running in the background.

I also like the simplicity of my minimal process usage. I like opening Task Manager and not having any clutter in there. I can see that all the basic processes are running at a glance and nothing more. I'd hate to have to regularly visually scan through 48 processes to see if anything unusual is happening, or see my CPU running at anything other 0% or 1% whenever I open my Task Manager. Anti-virus isn't going to catch everything or always be 100% up to date. I don't want any background processes to cloud my judgement of how my computer is running.

Another thing is the basic performance issue. I suppose I'm probably biased due to horrible experiences in temporarily using other computers with Norton, McAfee, or AVG. The current version of McAfee, in particular, seems to render computers useless. I don't want to wait even an extra second for some unnecessary external process. I have no patience for that. As I said, I can boot up from a dead start and be browsing in under 35 seconds, including password entry. If something adds an extra 5 seconds to that, I don't want it. McAfee seems to add about 5 minutes, from what I can tell.

As for the risks, if someone can run a bot-net or virus off my computer without me noticing, I figure they deserve it. I don't leave my computer on when I'm not using it, so they'd have to do it without affecting my machine's performance at all, and that would impress me. I have a set of fake personal information that I use for online things and even my real identity information is worthless anyway.

With Flash, I rarely allow it to run except on a few trusted sites.

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: rpn453

Right now, I wouldn't trust any programs based solely on an internet forum recommendation, and even if I did I wouldn't necessarily trust that the website I'm getting them from is legit. For all I know, some AV program could be the cause of a future virus, and I'd be less likely to notice if I'm used to things running in the background.

Which is why you stick with the "big names" like MSE or Avast. All the software you see recommended on BITOG in the computer section (Malwarebytes, Superantispyware, HitmanPro, Spybot S&D) have been around for quite a long time and have been proven to be able to find and yank out very nasty malware lurking about.

Quote:

I can see that all the basic processes are running at a glance and nothing more. I'd hate to have to regularly visually scan through 48 processes

If you're referring to the 48 shown in my screen shots I had: Opera, Firefox, Windows Live Mail, and MSE running in addition to MWSnap (screen shot app) and an old version of Photoshop. The rest of the processes that you are concerned about have to do with wireless and graphics card drivers/event monitors, touchpad driver, and a wireless mouse.

Quote:
or see my CPU running at anything other 0% or 1% whenever I open my Task Manager.

The purpose for this being what? The only time you'll see usage that low is if you're doing absolutely nothing with the system... just letting it set there and idle. Its like having a Cummings deisel under the hood pushing 275hp andn 600ft-lbs of torque and just letting it idle all day long and occasionally expend a little effort to pick up a prescription for seroquel.

Quote:
Anti-virus isn't going to catch everything or always be 100% up to date.

MSE updates at least once daily and like other's uses heuristics to ID new threats.

Quote:
Another thing is the basic performance issue. I suppose I'm probably biased due to horrible experiences in temporarily using other computers with Norton, McAfee, or AVG. The current version of McAfee, in particular, seems to render computers useless.

Every one of those is and has been for a long time horrid pieces of garbage that will suck the life out of a system (with the exception of the corporate version of Norton [Symantec]).

Quote:
I don't want to wait even an extra second for some unnecessary external process. I have no patience for that. As I said, I can boot up from a dead start and be browsing in under 35 seconds, including password entry.

How does 25 seconds sound? With an AV solution (MSE in this case) on an ancient Pentium M based laptop? The key is turning off services you don't need in the Computer Management -> Services applet. Not refusing to install software.

Quote:
If something adds an extra 5 seconds to that, I don't want it. McAfee seems to add about 5 minutes, from what I can tell.

Basing your opinion on one of the worst pieces of "security" software on the market.

Quote:
As for the risks, if someone can run a bot-net or virus off my computer without me noticing, I figure they deserve it.

Fairly easy to do these days.

Quote:
I have a set of fake personal information that I use for online things and even my real identity information is worthless anyway.

Do you by chance wear a hat (or full suit) of tinfoil?

 

[buickman50401]

RPN,

If you insist on running the security model you're using, since you mentioned reloading your OS... allow me to make a suggestion.

Buy yourself a copy of Acronis True Image Home (currently on sale for $39.99). It allows you to make an image of your disk from which you can reinstall (much like corporate IT departments who make a standard HDD image for quick reinstalls of infected or otherwise "broken" machines).

You could install a fresh copy of XP, run the windows update tool to make sure all the service packs and security updates are in place. Install whatever software you normally use and then make an image with Acronis.

Should you need to reinstall at a future date, you simply boot from a rescue CD and reload a "clean" image of the disk which doesn't require you to reinstall the OS and all the patches and other software you use.

I've used it in the past for swapping in a new HDD in a laptop when I didn't want to go through the hassle of reinstalling Windows, all my software, and customizing all my settings including disabling unnecessary services and startup items.

Another thing you might consider, is partitioning the disk into an OS partition and a "data" partition. That way if you have to reinstall the OS (or reload the disk image to the OS partition) any of your personal data files you've created are untouched. You could buy Acronis Disk Director to do this or you could use GParted on a "live" CD (stripped down Linux bootable environment) to create the new partitions and resize the old ones.

All of my laptops are set up as follows:

10GB temp/swap partition where temp files are instructed to reside along with the swap/page file using the system variables options.

50+GB OS partition

Remainder of disk is a data partition for all my files

On desktops with more than 1 HDD:
Disk 1 is the OS drive
Disk 2 has a 15GB temp swap/pagefile partition at the start of the drive and the remainder is the "data" partition.

 

[Buffman]

I know counterstrike source isn't the latest and greatest, but I can easily play that on my machine (quad core, 4 GB ram) with no lag, WHILE MSE is running

McAfee enterprise at work, is okay, except on some machines that cause memory leaks. Nothing like 1.5 GB being sucked down for now reason.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
Internet explorer 9 not available for Windows XP. What a joke.


I am your basic Internet user and I am perfectly happy with my combination of Windows 7 and Firefox 5 on my XP.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: buickman50401
The only time you'll see usage that low is if you're doing absolutely nothing with the system... just letting it set there and idle. Its like having a Cummings deisel under the hood pushing 275hp andn 600ft-lbs of torque and just letting it idle all day long and occasionally expend a little effort to pick up a prescription for seroquel.


Yep, most of the time that I'm on my home computer I'm just reading or communicating, so CPU usage is typically 1% or less except when I'm actively using the keyboard or mouse. Is your engine going hard all the time that it's running, or are you just idling it with the air conditioning and a bunch of electrical accessories turned on?

You're probably providing some decent advice here. You seem to put some effort into this stuff. Maybe some day I'll even care enough to use it. But I've gotta say, I find a lot of irony in being asked if I wear a tin foil hat by some guy who is paranoid about acquiring computer maladies or having his identity stolen and who includes mention of his "atypical anti-psychotic" medication in unrelated conversations.

 

[Drew99GT]

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/xp-support-lifecycle.png

4/8/2014 is when I'll stop using XP!

 

[buickman50401]

Originally Posted By: rpn453

Yep, most of the time that I'm on my home computer I'm just reading or communicating, so CPU usage is typically 1% or less except when I'm actively using the keyboard or mouse.

And? The point being?


Quote:
You're probably providing some decent advice here. You seem to put some effort into this stuff. Maybe some day I'll even care enough to use it. But I've gotta say, I find a lot of irony in being asked if I wear a tin foil hat by some guy who is paranoid about acquiring computer maladies or having his identity stolen and who includes mention of his "atypical anti-psychotic" medication in unrelated conversations.

I'm not paranoid about ID theft and never indicated I was, though you seem to be as indicated by your statements. You do seem a bit OCD/paranoid about your CPU straining itself beyond 5% of its max load. The mention of seroquel was a hint for something you might want to look into for yourself, or perhaps a nice slow acting benzo like clonazepam.