which laptop

Hi all.
I'm buying a cheapish laptop for my daughter.
She just wants to do uni work on it and perhaps Sims 3!
I have a couple in mind but don't really understand which processor would be best.
These are the models I'm thinking of
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/1386307.htm
http://www.johnlewis.com/toshiba-sa...ntel-pentium-4gb-ram-750gb-15-6-black/p815121

Toshiba or HP?
Intel or AMD?
Bearing in mind that with discount I can get the Toshiba for £289.52, £60 cheaper than the HP, plus there is a two year warranty with the Toshiba, there would need to be a noticeable difference to go for the HP.
Thanks.

 

Thanks for the reply MA.
I was definitely leaning towards the Toshiba.
The majority of views on the net are that they are more reliable than HP.
I just needed to know if there was a significant difference in performance.
As for the price difference, as I put at the end of my post I can get discount.
It is 12% off the £329.95 asking price leaving me £290 to pay making it an overall £60 difference. Oh yeah, plus a 2 year warranty on the Tosh as opposed to a 12 month on the HP.
On that basis...................................
Cheers.

 

Excellent.
Thanks for the help.
If she doesn't like it I know who to send her to :major

 

I second everything MA said. I have had great luck with Toshiba notebooks over the years and currently have a Toshiba A505-S6009 that has served me well for nearly 4 years.

I also agree that Intel CPUs and chipsets tend to lead across the board (with some exceptions of course) over AMD (though AMD products are just as "reliable" and also make excellent computers).

That said, integrated graphics (and in particular Intel's integrated graphics) have come a long way in recent years. While I prefer NVIDIA cards, I have nothing against Intel integrated graphics - especially when coupled with an Intel CPU that supports Intel integrated graphics, as that Pentium does.

To me, that's a big plus.

 

Great, thanks both.
I had one reserved and now I shall be handing over the cash tomorrow.

 

That's what parenting is all about!!!

 

And it never ends.
She's 25!! (But shhhh, it's not me that's getting it really, it's Santa!!)

 

I hear you! My youngest is 31!

For a stocking stuffer, I recommend MBAM Pro for extra security. Windows 8 comes with Windows Defender (the updated version of MSE) which is a formidable antimalware solution (and it's free). But no one security platform guarantees 100% protection 100% of the time, so a supplemental security scanner is recommended as a double check - to verify nothing got by the user (ALWAYS the weakest link in security) or the current anti-malware solution.

I recommend at least Malwarebytes's Anti-Malware (MBAM) Free for supplemental scanning. But better yet is MBAM Pro which provides "real-time protection". Typically most users don't need two "real-time" scanners running at the same time because of the chance of conflicts (two dogs guarding the same bone) but also because it tends to be a waste of resources. But MBAM Pro is different in several ways. First, it plays (coexists) very well with other solutions. Second, it has a small resource footprint so it does not bog down your computer, and third, the Pro version has a very affordable initial cost (compared to other Pro versions like Norton or McAfee) and more significantly, it is a one-time "lifetime" cost. There are no recurring renewal fees that other solutions like Avira, AVG, Avast, or Kaspersky charge you for.

Not sure about UK prices but in the US, MBAM Pro sells for $25 but there are often promotions through Newegg - like right now - for just $15!!! :droolfor the download version. I prefer the download version over the disk anyway because I get it now and it is the most current update from the start. So the download version is better for the environment and I don't end up with yet another (soon to be) outdated disk to deal with.

Making the download version a "stocking stuffer" is no problem. Typically you install the free version, then when you purchase the Pro download version, you get an ID and key via email to "activate" (or unlock) the Pro features from the free version. So as a stocking stuffer, just print out the email with the activation keys and stuff that in the stocking.

Something (for everyone reading) to think about.

 

Thanks for all the info digerati.
At the mo she uses my laptop (7) which I regularly update with defender.
I also use ccleaner (first found on this excellent site) to clean up and sort the registry.
I use Avast as an anti virus.
I am the only user that has administrator access both on my laptop and desk top as I have learnt from experience that those that have no clue just click 'yes' without reading!
We shall see how it pans out.
Cheers.

 

Well, understand Microsoft did another one of their silly and confusing naming acts with Windows Defender. There are now two Windows Defenders. The one in Windows 8/8.1 is basically an updated Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE). That is, WD in W8 is a full anti-malware scanner that is used to detect, block and remove viruses, Trojans, worms, spyware and other malicious code and activities.

It is NOT the same Windows Defender that runs in Windows 7, Vista or XP. The Windows Defender that runs in W7, Vista and XP is a scanner for spyware only.

Since Avast Free and Pro versions are anti-malware programs, you don't need WD with Windows 7. However, I still recommend at least the free version of MBAM to use as an "on-demand" supplemental scanner to use periodically (once a week or so) just to verify Avast (or the user) did not let something slip by.

 

Microsoft?
silly?
Confusing?
Pah!

Right, I was going to leave it to her to set it up but I think I'll get it up and running and sort the AV, malware scanner etc.
May save me some hours boxing day!!!
Thanks for the tips.

 

Sadly, yes. Like Outlook Express, Outlook and Outlook.com. And Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer. And now Windows Defender and Windows Defender.

The good news is, like MSE, the new WD in 8.1 is a very good anti-malware program. But unlike MSE and W7, WD is already included in Windows 8/8.1 so no need to download and install another program - unless you just want to for some personal reason (besides MBAM for supplemental verification scanning). And of course, Windows Firewall is a fully capable firewall that is already included too and enabled early in the boot process - a good thing. Point is, all she (or you) need to do is ensure both are enabled - which they should be. Windows Update will keep them updated.

From there, the onus falls back on the user to keep the system updated and avoid risky behavior - like illegal filesharing of tunes and videos via torrents and P2P sites.

 

Ok.
So, with 8 do I need
1. Anti virus (Avast etc).
2. Enable WD.
3. Enable firewall.
4. Have MBAM as a backup.

Tell her to be sensible.
All systems go!!! ??

 

You don't need both Avast and WD. They are both capable anti-malware solutions so you only need one, or the other. I prefer WD because (1) it is capable, (2) it is already included in W8, (3) it stays current via Windows Update.

That said, Avast is a capable solution too. And I personally don't care which one is used, as long as one is, and it is kept current.

 

Then WD it is.
No point cluttering if it isn't needed.
I shall just make sure it is enabled, which I assume it should be by default, and make sure auto update is selected.

I personally only allow windows update to let me know when they are available then I choose what to install.
I installed IE11 and had nothing but grief, reverted back to 10 and all is fine so I don't want that muck on here again (until it is sorted).

 

That's how I have mine set - but then I consider myself a disciplined computer user when it comes to security. I don't ignore the updates, or put off installing them for long.

But many, if not most users are not "security aware" and so for them, it is probably best to just let Windows automatically install them - the default setting. After all, 100s of millions of Windows machines run with default settings and the vast majority never have problems.

I run IE11 as my default browser on all my W8 and W7 systems. I had to roll back on one W7 system, then tried again and the install went fine. There were, initially, a couple banking and government (I'm retired military) sites reporting I was using an "older" rolleyes version of IE and blocked my access so I had to use Chrome. But those sites have since updated their software and now I have no problems with IE11.

 

I go on my computer every day and check every time the 'new updates are available' bubble appears.
Usually just a defender update which I always install and I always put any important security updates in.
IE11 gave me lock up problems, it was slow, a rigmarole to disable tabbed browsing (which I hate with a passion), it's been fine since reverting to 10 so I'll stick with it until I actually need to update for some reason.

Yes, most casual users have no clue about security, they just click 'yes' when asked something hence all other accounts on my desktop and laptop are limited.

 

Your choice but IMO, a basic user responsibility and primary component of "practicing safe computing" is keeping our systems current with the latest, most secure versions of all our software. IE11 is more secure than IE10, so IMO, security is not just "some reason" but a paramount one.

This is exactly why "socially engineered malware" distribution methods are the most prolific methods used to distribute malware. It is also a primary reason why I prefer IE over the alternatives.

 

Not a choice I'm afraid.
If you install something and it doesn't work then you can't use it.

 

No, sorry, that is not right. If you install something and it does not work, but it should work, then you need to find out why, fix it, and try again. IE11 works with W7. Therefore it should work on your W7 system. The fact it did not points to a problem with your system, not IE11. And most likely it was add-ons, or something else on your system that interfered.

 

Did a search when I had problems.
Thousands more were having the same grief.
One of the most popular searches was 'how do I revert back to IE10'
You are probably right about something interfering with the way it is supposed to run but if thousands have the same problem then Ms will eventually fix it.
Casual users have little if any chance of finding what is causing the problem.
We are only guinea pigs that the Ms corporation uses to make fortunes whilst peddling out unfinished projects, they don't care how many systems they mess up in the process.

 

Yes, but (1) you need to look at the time stamps - and note MS has released several patches since IE11 was released and many sites have patched their sites too, (2) it is human nature to prefer the status quo (look at how many are still clinging to XP and (3), 1000s even 10s of 1000s may sound like a lot, but it is a drop in the bucket when talking about the 10s or perhaps 100s of millions of Windows 7 (there are over 500M W7 users!) and Windows 8 users out there who are running with IE11 with no problems.

Windows' flexibility is one of its greatest assets, and banes. Remember, virtually every single Windows machine becomes a unique machine within minutes after first boot. And yet Windows manages to work well for the vast majority of 1 billion+ Windows systems out there.

And again, the vast majority of issues with IE and IE upgrades (regardless the version) are due to misbehaving, incompatible, or corrupt 3rd party add-ons.

Well, I cannot deny there might a little truth to that with some of their products but the reality is that is not really true. Microsoft ran "public" beta programs where virtually any individual, software maker, hardware maker (for driver development) and businesses had access to the beta programs many months and even more than a year before final release. But instead of participating, they waited until after release before doing anything - and then complained.

The release of Windows 7 was a great example of that. But what commonly happened is many owners of legacy hardware and legacy software - designed to run on XP and before era HW and SW upgraded to W7 without first checking to see if their systems were compatible - then complained when their old HW and SW would not run it.

Microsoft cares very much when systems "mess up" because they ALWAYS get blamed - even when it is not their fault! For example, it is the hardware makers who are responsible to create compatible drivers for their current and legacy hardware, not MS. But MS gets blamed with legacy HW does not work.

Microsoft was, and still is blamed for the security mess we are in when the facts are (1) the badguys - not Microsoft, put us there and (2) it was the failure of "truly greedy" Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro and the rest of the anti-malware community who failed to protect our systems after they whined and cried "monopoly" to Congress and the EU claiming that it was their job to rid the world of malware, not Microsoft's. So when MS wanted to include anti-virus code in XP, Congress threated to break up MS if they tried.

But we see how well Norton and crew did at ridding the world of malware, right? But who got blamed by users and the biased IT media? Microsoft.

Plus, the corporate world demanded XP support all the legacy hardware and software they had so they would not have to spend $billions retooling - again. This forced MS to weigh legacy support over security.

Who got blamed when "pirated" copies of Windows were used spread malware? MS.

Also, NO ONE - not MS, not the security experts, not the biased IT media predicted (1) the explosion in growth of broadband access to the home or (2) the proliferation or cunningness of the badguys.

But who got blamed? Microsoft. Relentlessly - for years!

So fast forward to W7 and now W8 Microsoft declared they were tired of being blamed for a security environment they did not put us in. So they bought Giant Anti-spyware, renamed it as Windows Defender and gave it away free. They created W7 to (1) be secure by default and (2) support current and future hardware. But what happened? Microsoft got bashed for not supporting legacy hardware and software even though W7 was proven to be extremely secure (if left with default settings).

In the meantime IE - starting with IE7 (which again was released in beta form months earlier) - started evolving to a browser that complied with the W3 standards. This broke 1000s of sites that had tweaked their code to be optimized for IE6 and forced MS to include a "compatibility mode". Understand, these sites (by webmaster choice)were not coded to the "industry standard", but to IE6. But again, who got blamed?

And speaking of IE6 - look at the constant bashing it got from ZoneAlarm and Firefox fans. And yet 100s of millions of IE6 users (including yours truly) NEVER got infected. Why? Because I kept Windows updated, I used a firewall and good anti-malware program, and I was NOT click-happy on unsolicited downloads, attachments, and links - all the things necessary regardless the browser of choice!

So today, W8, more than 12 years after the release of XP without anti-malware code, comes anti-malware code included and look who is NOT whining and crying to Congress or the EU? But who is still charging an arm and leg for their antimalware products AND charging again for periodic renewals??? :crap :mad

Microsoft has all the incentive in the world to ensure our systems are secure. Why? Because they get blamed if compromised.

Norton, McAfee, and the other have absolutely no incentive to rid the world of malware. Why? Because that will put them out of business.

So MS decided to put security first and would much rather be blamed for incompatibility than for a security situation not their cause.

Is MS perfect? Of course not! I have had battles with them myself - but not over their products (which tend to be excellent) but their marketing tactics. For example, for us early builders, if we wanted a good volume discount on Windows licenses, we HAD to buy and install Word - even if our clients wanted WordPerfect. This is how Gateway and Dell pushed so many smaller companies and local custom builders out of business.

Please note, I am not defending MS because I am a MS MVP. I will defend anyone unjustly blamed. If anything, my MVP status has given me an avenue to complain about MS. For example, I and a few fellow MVPs were instrumental in stopping an ill-conceived and mis-managed "marketing" scheme developed by misguided MS marketing weenies where MS "Outreach" teams were spamming tech forums promoting MS products and services. Not cool and we let MS know it.

 

Geez Digerati, that's one heck of a post.
Quite informative actually.
I agree that most of their stuff is good but disagree with the amount of versions they peddle.
You say some cling to XP.
I have a system in my music room at the top of the garden that isn't 'powerful' enough to run anything beyond XP.
I imagine there are many thousands out there in the same situation.
Think of the millions of systems that have been binned because they won't run the latest OS, not to mention the peripherals, printers, scanners etc that are no longer supported, what a waste!
XP has been the most popular OS to date.
I thought it was excellent, no need to bring out yet another OS.
They could charge for 'improvement' updates which would be a gradual change for all.
Microsoft force other software companies to make their products compatible then roll out the next OS and it all starts again.
Of course, they will never stop, that's how they stay in control.
That's life I guess.

 

Yeah, I get a little wordy when on my soapbox. Sorry.

You are really missing the point here with XP. I sympathize and feel the pain with those who don't want to give up XP because it still supports "their" needs. But the issue is not that the computer still works, the issue boils down to one word; security. And not just theirs, but all Internet users.

I recently took dozens of perfectly good motherboards, hard drives, cases, graphics cards, PSUs, CPUs, RAM modules and more to our local electronics recycling center. These were all old electronics items that were "retired" because advances in technologies passed them by. I got $80 for my trouble, cleaned out my store room, and more importantly kept a lot of hazardous waste out the local landfill.

How many folks have discarded perfectly good CRT TVs and monitors because they wanted new, bigger LCD widescreens? VCR players because they wanted DVDs? Reel to Reel, 8-Tracks, cassette players for CD players? And then how many perfectly good CD players were trashed for MP3 players?

That's just part of life, I am afraid. That said, it is different with modern computers and operating systems - all because of security, thanks to the bad guys. XP security (and the software that runs on it) is just incapable of being patched and updated any longer in order to keep up with the threats. So that changes the ball game.

While your computer may not be "powerful enough" (and I doubt that - see W7 min sys rqmts) the bigger problem is most likely your hardware makers no longer provide driver support for your legacy stuff and that is not Microsoft's fault. While your old hardware may not support W7, it surely will support one of the many "free" and secure (for now!) versions of Linux.

Note that most of the major anti-malware makers have announced that they too will stop support for XP when, or shortly after Microsoft ends support! Is that Microsoft's fault?

"Was" the most popular. W7 captured the market share couple years ago and now has a substantial lead as more and more companies are upgrading. And note most W7 licenses are 64-bit too! And yes, XP was an excellent OS, but again, not the point. Badguys changed the rules. So absolutely a new OS needed to come out.

But to be fair, it was not just badguys and security that demanded a new OS. Remember, it is the responsibility of the operating system to facilitate communication between all the hardware devices and the software that runs on it. Advances in hardware technologies and software development (driven in much by gamers) forced the need for an OS to support 64-bit, faster CPUs, massive drives and massive amounts of RAM.

So I agree that Microsoft forces changes but advances in HW and other SW (spurred by USER DEMAND) force changes too - and again security threats force everyone to change.

Microsoft announced many years ago that end of support was coming. Plenty of time for everyone, even those on the tightest of budgets to prepare.

It is important all XP users understand it is not just about them. Compromised XP systems are a threat to the rest of us who use the Internet as those systems will be used to distribute malware, spam or as zombies in an bot army conducting a DDoS attack.

Considering a new W8 desktop can be hand for under $300 (with many certified used PCs and notebooks for less) that will likely run circles around most XP systems, and keep the users and the rest of us secure, I just don't buy any excuses any more.

If someone wants to keep using XP era hardware that does not support a newer version of Windows, there have two secure and "responsible" (as Internet users) options: (1) Install Linux or (2) disconnect and/or block Internet access to that system either by unplugging the Ethernet cable, or blocking access via the router's admin menu.

 

No need for apologies, just a healthy exchange of opinions.

Millions, the TV issue is pretty much the same as the OS issue, unnecessary.
CRT TV's had a hugely superior picture before HD (and still do have if you use a HD box with them). The digital switchover forced many to scrap their TV's or buy yet another bit of kit to plug into it.
Many were totally confused by it all.
I was quite happy with my set up. Along comes digital and BAM, my DVD recorder no longer worked.
The tape to disc change, IMHO, was probably one of the best 'improvements' of recent (ish) times. No more rewinding for an age to find the right place.
BTW, I'm not a 'tree hugger', I have no desire to 'save the planet' I just get fed up with the powers that be telling us to be 'green' then allowing such blatant waste.
We all know we have to have change to keep the cash flowing so let them be honest about it.

Nah. No matter what OS they come up with, there will always be those out there attacking it.
If they kept to one OS only and just kept patching it, like they have to anyway, then there wouldn't be any (almost) obsolete OS's out there for the hackers to use as a back door.
Anything can be updated, patched, service packed if the developers so wished.
They don't wish as they make billions forcing companies to change.
If folk want to have new OS's then that is up to them, I like dabbling with the new stuff, but for those that don't MS should keep an eye on updates and as long as there are still hundreds of thousands downloading them for XP or whatever then they should keep supporting it.
Eventually all the old systems will fail and XP will disappear gracefully.

Chicken and egg that one.
Game companies can only develop stuff that works with current HW, HW companies can only develop stuff that works with the current OS, etc etc etc.
They all work together to see what minute changes will earn them the most revenue.
One other thing, most users don't demand. They just use what is put in front of them. The fist ever OS would still be in use today if developers didn't put the next OS on the table and we'd still be playing Space Invaders.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, that isn't human nature, we can so we will, I'm saying it's not 'USER DEMAND'

As for the security issue, I don't think you can blame the users of XP, if it was such an issue then there would be no more support and XP would grind to a halt.
You are also coming from a position of knowledge where computing is concerned.
I've been using them since the ZX81 (I still have a Spectrum, Vic20 and Commodore 64 in the loft) and don't do too bad but most just turn them on and turn them off.
Have compassion and keep yer system secure :-D

 

I guess I am a semi-treehugger. I don't like hazardous wastes in our landfills, or down our sewers or dumping in the environment. And I don't like factories pumping pollutants into the air. And I am all for more fuel efficient cars. But I am not giving up my V8 4WD pickup even though it is typically just me in the truck driving around on paved, dry roads with nothing in the bed.

But you can't do that because advances in other technologies prevents that. Hardware makers are not going to stop advancing the state-of-the-art just because the OS cannot keep up. And all existing hardware will fail and need to be replaced eventually. That's why 64-bit ready hardware has been around a LOT longer than 64-bit OSes or 64-bit software to run on it. In fact, hardware almost always comes first, then software has to play catchup.

Nope. Again, not right. Hardware comes first - that's why motherboard makers have to constantly release new BIOS updates - to support new CPUs, for example. But they can't do that forever, because eventually the current CPU socket will not support the new CPUs.

I blame the badguys first and foremost. Then I blame the anti-malware industry for failing to stop malware like they promised Congress and the EU (again, why would they - that would put them out of business). And I blame Congress and the EU for believing them. Then I blame the big telecommunications carriers and ISPs for failing to stop malware and spam at the source - instead they would rather sell us more bandwidth to support the good data and the bandwidth hogging bad spam and malware. Then I blame the UN and member countries for failing to enforce existing laws.

THAT SAID, ultimately, it is always the user's responsibility for security - for their own security, and for the others with whom they interact. You are not allowed to drive a Model A on the freeway because you are a risk to others. Same thing here.

If users are still using XP after April 8 and connecting to the Internet, then I will blame those XP users. Why? Because it is already known in security circles that there are vulnerabilities discovered but NOT reported - or yet exploited. And that badguys have already developed malicious code to exploit those vulnerabilities but are waiting to release them into the "wild" after April 8th. And once again, compromised computers are typically used to attack the rest of us, often without the infected machine user even knowing they are infected.

I started out with an Altair and then a C64. I retired them, not because they failed, but because they became obsolete, that is, they no longer supported current hardware and software technologies. XP is obsolete.

 

Hahahaha, no such thing, in fact there isn't anyone on the planet that I know of that isn't/wouldn't if given the chance, adding to the destruction of man kind. For that is what we are doing, forget the planet, it doesn't need saving, it will heal very quickly once the clowns leave the circus!

They don't HAVE to, they do it to make more revenue.
If the OS developers didn't bother to 'catch up' then the HW manufacturers would be wasting their time developing stuff that can't be used.
I know the point you are making but my point is there is NEVER the need only the desire.

Why? Why do they need to change the socket? So the consumer has to buy a new mobo if they want that cpu.
Why do phone manufacturers change the sockets on the phones?
So even if you stick with the same manufacturer the consumer has to buy new accessories.
Car manufacturers are the same, all these companies change things that don't need to be changed for only one reason.

Not quite!! I don't think you will get your legs smashed by a silver surfer using XP. Besides, come to the UK, they encourage the use of old oil burning bangers by making them road tax exempt!!

Blame the experts not the amateurs.
If these things become such a major danger to security the developers should think well ahead.
Each user only has a license, not ownership.
Developers could give a cut off date to anyone with an OS license, say 5 years from first release.
So an OS is released January 1st 2005, cut off is December 31st 2010.
Any machine connecting to the internet with that OS after that date is blocked, possible? probably.

Always blame the big boys, they know exactly what they are doing.

 

Sorry sobeit, but you don't have a grasp on reality.

No, sorry. If a company is not growing, it will die. If Intel didn't continue to advance CPU technologies and just sat on their laurels, another startup company would blow past them. That's exactly what happened when AMD spanked Intel BIG TIME over 10 years ago and it took many years for Intel to recover and gain the lead again. If Intel did not have the cash reserves to survive and invest $billions in "NEW" technologies, they would have died.

So yeah, the desire to remain in business and keep their employees employed is a pretty good "need" to keep advancing.

Where would graphics be today if there were no competition between NVIDIA and ATI/AMD?

No!!! Sorry but you need to read up on the subject because it is clear you don't have an understanding of it!

Intel doesn't make motherboards anymore and AMD never did! New sockets are needed because 100s of millions more transistors are being jammed on the die. And with more transistors performing more tasks, they need more I/Os - more pins. And that means different sockets.

Now that's just silly. Experts are disciplined at keeping their systems updated and free of malware. Experts don't let their security lapse. Experts don't take unprotected systems to unsafe places - like P2P sites or use torrents for illegal filesharing.

If you want to blame users, blame those who want faster hardware, want to access more RAM, want better graphics, faster networking and bigger and faster drives.

:confused That's even sillier - if not totally ridiculous. If security experts were able to predict future security threats with that type accuracy, there would be world peace with no crime or terrorism. No London bombings or 9/11s.

Then again, you don't understand the threat. Insecure and compromised XP systems are already primary targets by badguys to use in their bot-armies against the rest of us.

And BTW, I lived in the UK for many years and while they (cars built before 1960) are exempt from the road tax, the driver can still be cited if the car is unsafe or being driven in an unsafe manner (too slow for example) because they are a danger to others!

And note too with antique cars, it is not the original car makers who produce modern parts for these cars, but aftermarket, 3rd-party makers. If another software developer comes forward and promises to keep XP patched and safe, that will be different. But none have so far.

And I note again that already several of the major anti-malware makers have said they will stop supporting XP some time after Microsoft does.

 

They would probably have advanced more slowly, giving consumers time to use them to their full potential.
The speed at which everything changes now, not just computers, is ridiculous.
Back to TV's, no doubt many fools bought huge LCD's only to 'upgrade' to HD only to 'upgrade' to 3D, etc.

Again, only 'needed' because of the advancements.
I know it will never stop (until our demise) but in theory we could all live off the land without any of this technology just as we used to.
I don't care if the advancements carry on (as if it would matter if I did ), it doesn't cause me any major grief, I will never chase the latest technology.

And so it is they that should look after those that have no clue.
I imagine it is pretty similar in the States, people are pretty much obliged to have the internet, like it or not.
They are closing down post offices, banks etc etc, making it ever more difficult for people to survive with ease without the internet.
BTW, I don't know about the States but here in the UK we have had many 'experts' mess up with security, banks, government etc.

Hmmm, if I'm 'silly' then you are naïve.
You surely don't believe that all computer 'experts' out there are squeaky clean?

Wrong type of security.
The rest of my quote suggested that there must be a way of 'switching off' internet access to stop the use of any OS that is 'obsolete' and causing others a problem.
ONLY the experts can do that.
Casual users will never imagine that their use of XP, or whatever, would compromise others computers worldwide.
They must either continue to provide security patches indefinitely or find a way to switch them off.