[Mastertech]

XP Myths - Myths Regarding Windows XP

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

[Elvandil]

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

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

[JohnWill]

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

[LauraMJ]

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

[Elvandil]

Originally Posted by JohnWill

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

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

[JohnWill]

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

[hewee]

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

[Mastertech]

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

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

[hewee]

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

[Space Cowboy]

Originally Posted by hewee

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

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

[PixieStrange]

Originally Posted by Mastertech

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

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

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

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

[Mastertech]

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

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

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

No it's not.

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

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

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

[Stoner]

Anyone with have a brain would not be using 98

Perhaps you meant 'half a brain'

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

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

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


BTW, Mastertech...thanks for the post

[Mastertech]

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

[Mastertech]

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