Win 10 free to Win 8 and 7 users

Yes, almost 20% of Windows users are still using XP.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/story/netmarketshare_releases_monthly_os_usage_share_figures.html

The picture is courtesy of NetMarketShare.

 

Foolish people make foolish decisions.

 

Easy! :-D I still use Windows XP Professional SP3.

But, I don't connect to the internet, or connect USB devices or load CD/DVDs, that don't belong to me. Windows 7 Ultimate is my primary OS.

 

One of my old towers still has XP SP3. I do not use it but, nice for a backup. It has all of my video and audio files.

 

We all see a lot of warnings and reasons to dump XP. But I have never seen any figures on how much of a problem staying with XP actually is.
No dire warnings please, does any one actually have numbers on what % by OS actually is infected?
I assume as XP use falls its value as a target will fall as well and Win 7 will have a greater % of infections due to being targeted more. Much like the Mac in early years was a safer OS because of its limited market share.

 

Those ATMs that were spitting out money recently? XP.

Target? XP Embedded.
Home Depot? XP Emdedded.

The last two were hacks that would have been impossible with Windows 7 as I understand it.

Not percentages, but its getting passed around like a 2 dollar... adult entertainment *cough*.

 

Interestingly enough, I have been unable to find this information.
I spent two hours trying to find a reputable source that lists the current threats, success and severity for each OS by per cent. I figure that would give a real idea of how risky running any OS is. The Anti-Virus companies have this information, I wonder why they don't publish it instead of using scare tactics with stories like Adry noted.

 

I'm not sure I would call those scare tactics, as they actually happened.

Scary stories sure, but when I think of tactics they warn of what could happen, rather what did.

 

I did too.
Head over to the Malware Removal Forum... look at the Windows OSes those unfortunate souls are using.

 

Adry, it is scare tactics if it happens so seldom as to not be a problem for most people, but is promoted as a common problem.
Like the Pinto vs Chevy truck gas tank scare. The Pinto took the brunt of the blame while the saddle tanks on Chevy trucks actually killed more people per mile. Both manufacturers changed their ways which is good. But Chevy dampened the scare tactics much more effectively so not many even know about their truck problem. Ford, on the other hand, got a large black eye.

 

Is it still seldom and uniimportant if effects thousands if not millions?

All three of my examples were within the last year and affected a ton of people.

 

Enough derailing the thread, Adry is not seeing my point. I give up on it.

Back on track -
http://www.computerworld.com/articl...xp-spree-drops-microsoft-revenue-by-455m.html
it's a long read, but keeps mentioning "monetizing" (income) from Win 10. If MS gives it out as a free upgrade they still expect to make money. Anyone see how this is going to play out?
Are they giving away the OS upgrade like Apple without the hardware premium Apple charges? Can they make up the dollars with other services? Or are we going to be tracked and the data sold for market targeting?

 

I'll ignore your snark.

Microsoft is evolving into a services company. They make money via services and contracts. Microsoft never made any real money from retail Windows and their OEM sales are where they make their money, for business and consumer when it comes to do windows.

 

Old article: Home depot attacked for XPe: http://www.dailytech.com/Appalling+...Holes+Led+to+Home+Depot+Hack/article36517.htm

Target: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/01/a-first-look-at-the-target-intrusion-malware/

Old articles yes, but there they are...

 

Shhh! Thems are scare tictacs :-D

 

Snark? OK, another comment
I assume we can know the number of embedded XP installs, the percent that have been hacked in two categories, patched and unpatched and the damage done cost vs cost of upgrading. This is called risk management and is used to decide many things. Was that a clearer statement about the point I am making?

Back at the Win 10 thought, are you saying if they never sell another Win 10 to consumers and only new computers will generate Windows OS sales it will not significantly drop their profits? Perhaps my paradigm of the volume of home made computers and longevity of ownership is off.

 

I'll return a comment for you. The attack that Home Depot and Target fell for was unpatchable without rewriting large parts of the architecture. So it doesn't really matter what category you put it in. You say I don't get it, but you simply aren't listening.

Regarding 10, again, Microsoft doesn't make their money from retail OS sales. OEMs still pay to put it on their devices, as do businesses, both substantially larger profit pools.

 

No, I am listening, and understand your point.
Now moving on, you are not even considering mine Adry.

 

Considering your point that I am using scare tactics when millions of people people last year had their information compromised and more than a few lost money due to it?

Scare tactics are things that are not likely to happen.

Home Depot: 53 million affected.
Target: 40 million accounts.

So with 93 million affected because the shortcomings of XP's security due to an unpatchable problem, what does constitute a real risk to you?

 

Good info Adry, now what I cannot find is the percent of total users that is. If there are a trillion users (yes, unlikely) that is an entirely different risk than if there are 94 million. "affected" is hard to use in risk analysis.
If .1% of the users were affected and .01% lost money the risk is low. Risk is a balance of likelyhood (what I am looking for) and damage (which you partially show).
Ebola is a terrible thing, but world wide the risk is very low. We are better off building better freeway onramps on a risk/reward basis. But freeway onramps are not all that scary so we put money in Ebola research.

 

The issue isn't as simple as percentages. For example, the hack on those two major outlets affects 100% of XP users, embedded or not. If there are only 10% XP users left out there ( I don't actually know), it doesn't seem like a big deal, right?

As long as financial institutions and stores are using it, its a huge deal. It doesn't take more than one network to affect millions of users. That is the real danger with XP right now. If a multi-billion dollar corporation cannot stop an XP attack, what hopes are there for consumers and small businesses using XP?

 

This is where you backtrack?
"the hack on those two major outlets affects 100% of XP users, embedded or not"
Holy Name Convent is up the hill from me, I told them they are not at risk with XP. They do not have internet access and it works well for them. They never seem to have any trouble with their computers. My crane software running XP only talks to other cranes over a small isolated LAN, so I see no risk there.
"As long as financial institutions and stores are using it, its a huge deal" I very much agree with and my company is trying to sort out the hype from the reality by finding facts and numbers. I am still trying to find substantiating data they will accept so they will spend money on a verified threat. They will not act on scare tactics.

I will try to get them to go all Win 10 eventually, but it will be a hard sell.

 

I am not backtracking. I am giving you the cold hard truth. You never once mentioned asking the risk on a closed network. One might think you are baiting me here by only giving me a subset of information

You keep saying scare tictacs....93 million affected due to a vulnerability in XP last year alone is not a scare tictac...its just downright scary. Those are just two incidents. Do you really think there will be less risk while XP continues to be used?


"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. "

 

"100% of the XP users" is pretty clear. Closed networks would be included. Your words, not mine. I just assume less I guess. Not baiting you, just showing that we all have incomplete information for these decisions.
I am still wondering about Win 10 security. We will probably not know until another Snowden or day one exploit. How many back doors are built in, what will be the default security level for encryption, etc. is hard to find. Maybe the payout for MS will be easy add injection. They were part of the lobby to keep HTTP/2 from default encryption.

 

If you want to keep recommending XP, feel free. I just see it as rather irresponsible when you know better.

More like making it required and they were not alone. Defaults were never the issue. Ironically enough, if MS was so against http/2, the newest version of IE to be released in 10 would not support it and it is on by default. Tin hats are not for this thread IMO. Will you also think Cisco is out to get us? They too are with Microsoft on this.

If I had to glean a reason why this is, is because SSLs are retardedly expensive for what they are, and now requiring an SSL means that not everyone can put out a website now. That limits growth. By making it optional (which is all that happened), those who are not ready for the added expense of an SSL don't have to take it on. It is all a sham anyway, as Poodle defeats SSL, and a new version of Poodle defeats TLS.

Here is some SEO fun for you that makes this all a moot point: If you want to rank with Google, you must use http/2 and be SSL signed. In that Google is the most powerful search engine in the world, I'd say that http/2 will more often than not be encrypted. We are already gearing up for http/2, with encryption.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood this
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/verizon-cisco-microsoft-http2-encryption,28703.html

Adry, I am not sure why you are twisting what I say. XP has places where it is safe, you have agreed to this. You make it sound like I think XP is OK for regular use by all users. Neither of us think that is true. Running XP is not irresponsible in specific cases. Saying all people need to upgrade is a waste of their money. This is The Lounge where we can talk about these things.

Anyone have HTTP/2 running?

 

I can only assume you did. It wasn't about it being default, it was about it being mandatory. Click bait titles suck and toms is no exception.

 

Waiting for my backups to finish I was wondering why Win 10 is not fixing backup. Let me know if you have better solutions.
1) only one system image
2) the old image is not checked so if I have no changes I have a full system to image AGAIN
3) Network storage never shows as a place for the image, I have to type it in (ReadyNAS)
4) restore CD is sometimes not found and there is no re-scan so I have to cancel and RESTART THE WHOLE THING. Where is the re-scan, and why not let you try again?
Almost done or I would post more of what they should be fixing.

 

Sounds like a great thing for you to give Microsoft feedback for, as the tool is built into the OS. They have been listening to feedback for Windows 10.

 

Backup to 2012 R2 File storage with dedupe and shadow copy. Then backup the image with block level backup.

 

And the other shoe drops?

http://***********.com/information-...ke-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/
ars tech nica

MS is testing the waters to see if they can exclude other OS's. Sounds like my Hackentosh days are numbered

 

This is no different than 8 and 8.1. They are just no longer requiring OEMs to allow it to be unlockable. If a OEM does lock it and not allow it to be disabled, they will probably be sued, but its important for you to understand that MS is not liable for OEM actions.

MS simply updated their requirements for the "designed for/by" designation to not require the ability to disable secure boot.

 

I have tested a version of this windows 10.And really not to thrilled about it.

Still looks like windows 8 to me.

But if it is a free upgrade i will take it as is.

Sad thing is,It has been most likely hacked by some one all ready.

 

Windows 10 is evolutionary, so it shouldn't be radically different in looks.

That said, if you use the latest build (10041), it doesn't look as much like Windows 8.1 as it used to and new looks are still coming, including icons.

 

I am confused.
With 8 and 8.1 OEMs were required to let you change OS's by disabling smartboot.
In Win 10 they are no longer required to include that feature.

It means if Asus wants to force Win 10 they can. When I bought my Asus laptop with 8 it was trivial to install 7 and I may not be able to do that in the future.

How is this the same?

 

You are correct. MS is simply loosening up requirements. They have done nothing different other than give OEMs more choice.

Your entire scenario hovers around an OEM choice, and yet:

That is where I myself am confused. As we start using UEFI more and more, legacy OSes will be left behind as well, but MS is not to blame there either. This is how things go. Nothing stays legacy forever.

 

Sorry Adry, I am a consumer and more choices for OEM, one of which is to lock me to Win 10, is not more choice for me. This is not progress for me, only control for MS.

I am testing 10041, MS needs to hire an icon artist! Even the old 16 bit computers had more art in their icons.

 

Pretty sure they have new icons being voted on.

Come on man, don't do this, you know better. You know full well MS isn't making that decision, the OEM is. Its not like it will stop anything besides legacy and hacked OSes which the consumer has no right to in the first place. Linux can support secure boot. If an OEM does this to you, boycott them. MS is not forcing them to do it and you know that. You keep wearing this consumer hat, but I know full well that you have an inkling with IT and know what is really going on.

You went full consumer. You never go full consumer.

 

Please be careful, people!....

 

On another note...

Quote:
"Microsoft's operating system chief Terry Myerson said, "We are upgrading all qualified PCs, genuine and non-genuine, to Windows 10." This means that everyone running Windows 7 or 8.1, irrespective of whether you pirated the operating system or not, will be allowed to upgrade to Windows 10."

http://(a)rstechnica.com/informatio...ee-upgrade-for-genuine-and-non-genuine-users/

NB Remove the ( ) around the a.

 

Not exactly.

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/wi...soft-is-not-giving-free-windows-10-to-pirates

Also from your own article:

 

Quote:
"With Windows 10, although non-Genuine PCs may be able to upgrade to Windows 10, the upgrade will not change the genuine state of the license."

Do you realy think users of pirated versions of Windows care? They don't. The bottom line is they can upgrade. I doubt they will be able to use Windows Update... somewhere there has to be a catch.

 

Here is the catch.

What they don't tell pirates is that their little hacks will be invalidated and they wont be activated anymore.

 

What they don't tell pirates is that their little hacks will be invalidated and they wont be activated anymore. Where did you find this? I would like to read the rest of this artical.

 

hmmm

 

Find what? Its true for every version that comes out. Then the scumbags find new hacks..or sometimes do not.

As you can tell, I have no respect for pirates and if one was on fire I wouldn't p### on him to put him out.